New Brighton Mainline???

[450.emu]

What happened to the idea of running it via a reinstated Selsdon to Elmers End line, with Tramlink kicked out onto the street, and then along the mid Kent line? The idea sounded ridiculous to me but even so..........it was being talked about seriously!

The trains could just use the tram lines so nothing gets ripped up... They will have to up the voltage on the Tramlink to 25kV though, and electrify the rest of the Brighton line to OHLE. The bogies on the Class 317's will have to be modified as there's some tight turns on the Tramlink lines through central Croydon hock: Due to their loud traction motors pedestrians would hear them coming so they wouldn't need additional bells or the like :roll:

 

[southern442]

It appears that I have not done my research

But with this, does the BML2 still need to avoid Croydon? And what is all this 'Croydon Gateway' stuff about?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do any of the London termini have any spare capacity anyway?

 

[Bald Rick]

I still don't understand why the government has commissioned this study when it duplicates the Network Rail Route Study work?

Surely it is the Network Rail route study work? Or part thereof?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Windmill Bridge Junction north of East Croydon needs remodelling to make a meaningful difference to capacity, and that is expected to include alterations and expansion of East Croydon - a recent London Reconnections article should help explain Network Rail's current thinking: A Study In Sussex Part 7: East Croydon

IIRC they hope to get this funded in the next control period, 2019-24.

Spot on, the project is developing nicely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do any of the London termini have any spare capacity anyway?

Not from 2024 after Croydon / Windmill bridge is fixed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that much of this growth has come from London commuters railheading from further afield to take advantage of the improved services and cheaper season tickets - I'm not convinced this would benefit the business case, and with less spare capacity for London traffic it may make it worse.

Quite correct, the Uckfield line drags people in from far and wide as the season tickets are so cheap. I know people who live within walking distance of stations on the Hastings line who drive to Eridge / Buxted.

 

[yorksrob]

I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that much of this growth has come from London commuters railheading from further afield to take advantage of the improved services and cheaper season tickets - I'm not convinced this would benefit the business case, and with less spare capacity for London traffic it may make it worse.

That, but also snazzy modern trains. It's likely that a lot of the growth will originate from people who have always lived in the catchment area but who have previously used the car or driven to the mainline due to an inadequate service.

There may even be people living near the Hastings line who currently drive to Brighton rather than take the circuitous route via St Leonards who might catch the route there instead.

Either way, a route which was predicted to pay it's own operating costs when still coming out of the doldrums could probably do pretty well nowadays.

 

[Stats]

Surely it is the Network Rail route study work? Or part thereof?

It is unclear as details are scarce. I think it may supplement the route study, rather than being part of it. The DfT asked NR to look again at Uckfield-Lewes at the beginning of last year as part of the route study. The draft route study report clearly gave Network Rail's view. Now the government are appointing an external consultancy in the autumn to look at it again and report back by the end of the year. If they come back with a different view to Network Rail, where does that leave the route study?

 

[Bald Rick]

It is unclear as details are scarce. I think it may supplement the route study, rather than being part of it. The DfT asked NR to look again at Uckfield-Lewes at the beginning of last year as part of the route study. The draft route study report clearly gave Network Rail's view. Now the government are appointing an external consultancy in the autumn to look at it again and report back by the end of the year. If they come back with a different view to Network Rail, where does that leave the route study?

Hadn't heard about external consultants. For this sort of work they don't get out of bed for £100k.

Having said that, presumably this is a Treasury led thing (hence announced by GO) rather than a DfT proposal.

Another reason why politicians and railways are bad bedfellows.

 

[Chris125]

Either way, a route which was predicted to pay it's own operating costs when still coming out of the doldrums could probably do pretty well nowadays.

If most of the Uckfield Line growth has come from London commuter traffic it won't make any difference.

It doesn't matter whether the trains start at Uckfield, Lewes, Eastbourne or Timbuktu - the number of seats through East Croydon and into London remain exactly the same.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

When the main line is blocked between Lewes and Three Bridges due to an incident or (frequent) engineering works a fast train using this new "BML2 route" from Lewes, Uckfield and Oxted would beat a substitute bus service from Lewes to Three Bridges then connection into a train.
Finally the passenger numbers on the Uckfield is rapidly increasing at around 10% per year.

My post which you quoted was merely a light-hearted dig at the mis-spelling of Lewes as Lewis coupled with the comment that such a route was slightly indirect: a Brighton to London service via the Isle of Lewis would be more than slightly so!

 

[yorksrob]

If most of the Uckfield Line growth has come from London commuter traffic it won't make any difference.

It doesn't matter whether the trains start at Uckfield, Lewes, Eastbourne or Timbuktu - the number of seats through East Croydon and into London remain exactly the same.

No, if there is a demand North on the route, there is also likely to be a demand from that hinterland South (albeit smaller).

A latent demand for travel by businessman to London suggests that there will also be a latent demand for travel from shoppers, day trippers, students, workers etc to Cities such as Brighton.

 

[JohnElliott]

But with this, does the BML2 still need to avoid Croydon? And what is all this 'Croydon Gateway' stuff about?

As I understand it, 'Croydon Gateway' is a proposal to put a station on the allotments at South Croydon, and divert both the exiting BML and 'BML2' into it. Presumably with a full set of grade-separated junctions at each end, so that trains coming up the BML can be routed onto the Selsdon route.

 

[southern442]

As I understand it, 'Croydon Gateway' is a proposal to put a station on the allotments at South Croydon, and divert both the exiting BML and 'BML2' into it. Presumably with a full set of grade-separated junctions at each end, so that trains coming up the BML can be routed onto the Selsdon route.

What is the point? The current station at South Croydon is fine, yes it only gets 5tph but that is enough for a residential area that is very well served by other transport too. IMHO there doesn't even need to be a station at South Croydon, let alone a Croydon Gateway! The current East Croydon (with the extra platforms inserted) will be perfectly fine, as it already has a bus station that is very well served and never overcrowded, as well as the biggest tram stop on the Tramlink! The gateway station just is not needed, it will just create a huge pain in the backside for buses and trams, and will end up like East Midlands Parkway that currently gets less than half a million passengers anually. East Croydon is in a far better location and, besides, the allotments provide a green, peaceful haven in the middle of a large, polluted housing area!

 

[Minstral25]

Isn't it time this project was finally kicked into touch.

It really is the London & Suburbs end that needs fixing, probably with a new tunnelled line that starts around Redhill (just before the North Downs) with one intermediate station around Croydon and then reappear for a couple of stops in London itself and out the other side to connect with one of the North of London lines.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Quite correct, the Uckfield line drags people in from far and wide as the season tickets are so cheap. I know people who live within walking distance of stations on the Hastings line who drive to Eridge / Buxted.

Not disagreeing with you but there are also a significant number of people who live in Crowborough who use the Hastings line, and those that live in Uckfield and use Haywards Heath. Not long ago I did look in some detail at pricing of the various options and the reality is that whilst the Uckfield line is cheap the service both in times of frequency and journey time is significanly inferior to the other lines. On Monday there were no trains on the Uckfield line so I left my house at the normal time walked to the bus stop caught a 29 bus to T Wells, then train to London and arrived at London Bridge at the same time I would have done had I walked to Crowborough Station and caught the train there. Crowborough to London Bridge is an hour 10 these days (fast - used to be less) T Wells to London Bridge is 45 minutes (fast train). Crowborough has 2 trains an hour in peak T Wells 4. The advantage the Uckfield Line does have other the Hastings Line is that it offers relatively easy connections to Victoria and of course those that need to go to East Croydon.

I seem to recall Southern suggesting that the Uckfield Line was only carrying 25% of the commuters in its catchment area, attracting them back would reduce an overcrowding on the other options.

As regards the proposal itself I suspect the reality is that there are a number of new conservative MPs with constituncies on the line. They have seen the abuse given to Southern about over-crowdings, delays, cancellations on the Uckfield line and complained accordingly. The £100k on the research is a small price to pay to shut them up.

The reality is that the Uckfield Line should never have been single tracked in the first place. It suffered from a lack of investment by British Rail and an attrocious service. Southern have invested in the route, the new (well 14 yrs old now) rolling stock, through services odff peak, last train from London now 23:00 not 21:00 first train up 5:00am not 6 or was it 6:30 etc. Southern have effectively shown that a decent railway at a sensible price works, however at the same time have done too well, as they now get all the criticism when units fail in spite of the reason is part of the problem is increased demand due to Southern actions mean there are no spare units!

Will Uckfield Lewes reopen? Will the Uckfield line be twin tracked? Will BML2 occur? Not in our lifetimes!

 

[physics34]

Hadn't heard about external consultants. For this sort of work they don't get out of bed for £100k.

THIS is one of the main problems with this country and why we are so slow to get anything done.

 

[Bald Rick]

THIS is one of the main problems with this country and why we are so slow to get anything done.

To be fair, the same consultants will be do work for railways all over the world.

 

[JamesRowden]

I would suggest that extra commuting capacity into London in the long term does not necessarily need to be located where there is present demand. HS1 has spare capacity for London commuters, HS2 should add more. Therefore the people who will work in London in the future can decide where they live based upon the spare capacity along the route that they would use. I think that measuring demand during the off-peak relative to the capacity of the infrastructure may be a better method for deciding in the long term where extra capacity into London is requried. Uckfield trains seem to only be an hourly 4-car off-peak.

 

[Chris125]

No, if there is a demand North on the route, there is also likely to be a demand from that hinterland South (albeit smaller).

Yes, but where has the growth come from? If it's not primarily people living along the route, but instead commuters railheading from further afield, it won't make any significant difference.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but where has the growth come from? If it's not primarily people living along the route, but instead commuters railheading from further afield, it won't make any significant difference.

And exactly what surveying have you done to ascertain that a significant proportion of the growth isn't from people who live in the area but who previously used other main lines or transport modes due to the comparatively poor service in the past?

You also haven't address my earlier point that potential passengers from the Hastings line might be attracted to the route for a more direct service to Brighton.

 

[Hophead]

The growth has come, in part from a larger population and an increase in the number of jobs in Central London, most of which pay considerably more than jobs nearer home.

Traffic has grown on other lines into London as well, for much the same reasons.

 

[Chris125]

And exactly what surveying have you done to ascertain that a significant proportion of the growth isn't from people who live in the area but who previously used other main lines or transport modes due to the comparatively poor service in the past?

I imagine I've done no more surveying than you, I'm simply going by the consensus that's emerged over recent years from everyone I've seen discuss the issue - perhaps they've all been wrong and the principal source of growth is from the line itself, but I find the idea of railheading commuters taking advantage of direct services and cheaper season tickets a much more likely explanation for the rapid growth.

Besides, whatever the explanation I can't see it making a fundamental difference to the demand for travel south.

You also haven't address my earlier point that potential passengers from the Hastings line might be attracted to the route for a more direct service to Brighton.

I didn't address it because I can't see the relevance - it's unlikely to be significant enough to make or break the case for reinstatement, and was presumably taken into account the last time demand was forecast anyway.

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

What surveying have you done? I'm simply going by the consensus that's emerged over recent years from everyone I've seen discuss the issue - perhaps they've all been wrong and the principal source of growth is from the line itself, but I find that very hard to believe.



I didn't address it because I can't see the relevance - it's unlikely to be significant enough to make or break the case for reinstatement, and was presumably taken account the last time demand was forecast anyway.

Well, the 2008 study took account of very little outside of the route itself. You're inviting me to believe that all of the current growth has come from outside the catchment area of the route, yet if the remainder of it were opened, none of it would come from outside of the route's catchment area.

Infact the study didn't even come close to predicting the sort of growth we have on the existing line. It's inconceivable that all of that growth has come from outside of the natural catchment area of the route and none of it from surpressed demand from within the catchment area of the route.

 

[Philip C]

You also haven't address my earlier point that potential passengers from the Hastings line might be attracted to the route for a more direct service to Brighton.

I don't think you will find that there is much travel from West St Leonards and stations north thereof to Lewes and points west. My wife used to buy a ticket, at Warrior Square valid from Battle to Brighton, as the peak fares undercut those from St Leonards. Despite having thus an option to return to West St Leonards I cannot remember her ever actually doing so.

Years of observation of usage in the area makes me very doubtful that there is any significant round the corner traffic that would be susceptible to being affected by re-opening the Uckfield-Lewes section.

I've no idea where the proposed reopening would fit in the list of national priorities, but feel that (1) it should not have been closed in the first place and (2) would attract a significant all-day, year round traffic, without taking any account of London traffic or diversion opportunities. Projecting the Uckfield service to Lewes/Brighton would mainly help balance the loads along the line. Some passengers from Lewes to Croydon/London might use it but I cannot see how it would be attractive to Brighton area passengers unless the fares were skewed.

The pre-war electrification of the Southern created a rail-mindedness, along the coast, which still persists. 5tph between Brighton and Lewes and 6tph between Brighton and Worthing (4tph plus 2tph changing at Hove) are not run for the fun of it, but because there is considerable traffic offering. Unlike in the London area this does not require the prop of free rail travel for the elderly or massive off-peak stock availability. It does benefit from the growing population being constrained by the South Downs which tightly defines the area available for building, a vibrant student population, less than superb roads, a significant 'grey market' (including yours truly!) and a built and unbuilt environment worth fighting for.

My view is that this re-opening would pass the Scottish-test but, of course, it is in non-metropolitan England.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think you will find that there is much travel from West St Leonards and stations north thereof to Lewes and points west. My wife used to buy a ticket, at Warrior Square valid from Battle to Brighton, as the peak fares undercut those from St Leonards. Despite having thus an option to return to West St Leonards I cannot remember her ever actually doing so.

Years of observation of usage in the area makes me very doubtful that there is any significant round the corner traffic that would be susceptible to being affected by re-opening the Uckfield-Lewes section.

I've no idea where the proposed reopening would fit in the list of national priorities, but feel that (1) it should not have been closed in the first place and (2) would attract a significant all-day, year round traffic, without taking any account of London traffic or diversion opportunities. Projecting the Uckfield service to Lewes/Brighton would mainly help balance the loads along the line. Some passengers from Lewes to Croydon/London might use it but I cannot see how it would be attractive to Brighton area passengers unless the fares were skewed.

The pre-war electrification of the Southern created a rail-mindedness, along the coast, which still persists. 5tph between Brighton and Lewes and 6tph between Brighton and Worthing (4tph plus 2tph changing at Hove) are not run for the fun of it, but because there is considerable traffic offering. Unlike in the London area this does not require the prop of free rail travel for the elderly or massive off-peak stock availability. It does benefit from the growing population being constrained by the South Downs which tightly defines the area available for building, a vibrant student population, less than superb roads, a significant 'grey market' (including yours truly!) and a built and unbuilt environment worth fighting for.

My view is that this re-opening would pass the Scottish-test but, of course, it is in non-metropolitan England.

There is much I agree with in this post.

Infact, it doesn't surprise me that there isn't a heavy traffic from stations North of West St Leonards to west of Lewes because such journeys aren't currently attractive by rail. My point is that were the line from Uckfield through to Brighton to reopen, you might find a small traffic of passengers from the Hastings line area using the Uckfield line to reach Brighton who wouldn't previously have considered the train.

 

[Chris125]

You're inviting me to believe that all of the current growth has come from outside the catchment area of the route, yet if the remainder of it were opened, none of it would come from outside of the route's catchment area.

No, because I've never claimed either - but even if local demand was responsible for the majority of the growth in London commuters on the Uckfield Line I still doubt that would significantly change previous forecasts of demand for travel south of Uckfield.

Infact the study didn't even come close to predicting the sort of growth we have on the existing line. It's inconceivable that all of that growth has come from outside of the natural catchment area of the route and none of it from surpressed demand from within the catchment area of the route.

Again, where have I said that none of the growth is local?

Clearly that is a factor, and one the study may well have predicted relatively accurately, but trying to predict how demand further afield would also impact the catchment area of the line for London commuters must have been far harder to predict - it would surely have been of little relevance to the case for reopening Lewes-Uckfield anyway.

 

[JohnElliott]

What is the point? The current station at South Croydon is fine, yes it only gets 5tph but that is enough for a residential area that is very well served by other transport too. IMHO there doesn't even need to be a station at South Croydon, let alone a Croydon Gateway!

I used South Croydon for seven years so would dispute that it's unnecessary

The FAQ on the BML2 website goes into their reasons for why they want Croydon Gateway, for what that's worth.

 

[yorksrob]

No, because I've never claimed either - but even if local demand was responsible for the majority of the growth in London commuters on the Uckfield Line I still doubt that would significantly change previous forecasts of demand for travel south of Uckfield.



Again, where have I said that none of the growth is local?

Clearly that is a factor, and one the study may well have predicted relatively accurately, but trying to predict how demand further afield would also impact the catchment area of the line for London commuters must have been far harder to predict - it would surely have been of little relevance to the case for reopening Lewes-Uckfield anyway.

On the one hand, you argue that the growth north of Uckfield is irrelevant to the case for reopening because it originates from outside of the Uckfield lines catchment area, yet you also argue that the line would be unlikely to attract passengers from outside of the Uckfield lines catchment area to travel South.

The reality is that passengers along the Hastings route have shown a willingness in recent years to travel to Uckfield line stations for a better service, even though they already have a mainline to London. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that passengers would also be willing to travel to the route for a journey South for which there isn’t currently an attractive rail option.

The 2008 study didn't take account of additional passenger usage generated from outside of the Uckfield line catchment area and certainly didn't envisage the level of growth on the open section due to formerly suppressed demand in the area.

The reality is that the growth on the open section of the route probably represents both previously suppressed demand from the Uckfield lines own catchment area and people railheading from outside of it. However, both of these sources of growth point to potential passengers on a reopened link to Lewes, the fact that an out of date study from seven years ago failed to predict such growth shouldn't be used as a reason not to reinvestigate the reopening by those with an inexplicable agenda against the reopening.

 

[steamybrian]

I used South Croydon for seven years so would dispute that it's unnecessary

The FAQ on the BML2 website goes into their reasons for why they want Croydon Gateway, for what that's worth.

Wikipedia states South Croydon used by 1.2 million passengers in 2012-3 and numbers rising.
I was a relief booking clerk there many years ago in BR days.


On the Uckfield line station useage
2007/8 .. Uckfield 310k, Buxted 159k, Crowborough 366k, Eridge 94k, Ashurst 17k
2012/3 .. Uckfield 538k, Buxted 176k, Crowborough 406k, Eridge 136k, Ashurst 24k
and still rising

 

[B&W]

There is much I agree with in this post.

Infact, it doesn't surprise me that there isn't a heavy traffic from stations North of West St Leonards to west of Lewes because such journeys aren't currently attractive by rail. My point is that were the line from Uckfield through to Brighton to reopen, you might find a small traffic of passengers from the Hastings line area using the Uckfield line to reach Brighton who wouldn't previously have considered the train.

Have to agree with points made earlier by Philippe C and Yorksrob.

The current timetable offered by Govia and their poor performance has led to hundreds if not thousands of people clogging up the A29, A24, A23, A22 every day to avoid using Govia and the BML. I drive from Chichester to Orpington or the O2 to go into central London, the train from Sussex is no longer a good enough option. The other day I was in convoy of half a dozen cars who all followed each other from Orpington along the M25 and M23 and we all turned off to go west on the A272. The suppressed demand from east and west of the BML is massive and would support better service up the Mid Sussex via Dorking as well as a reopened Uckfield Lewes.
Nothing will happen however as Horton who runs Govia and the DfT have limited vision and aptitude in the first place.

Brian

 

[Chrisgr31]

I imagine I've done no more surveying than you, I'm simply going by the consensus that's emerged over recent years from everyone I've seen discuss the issue - perhaps they've all been wrong and the principal source of growth is from the line itself, but I find the idea of railheading commuters taking advantage of direct services and cheaper season tickets a much more likely explanation for the rapid growth.

Besides, whatever the explanation I can't see it making a fundamental difference to the demand for travel south.

If the suggestion is that the increase in growth of the line is predominately caused by railheading by passengers who one would normally expect to use an alternative (other things being equal) then I believe that is incorrect.

As mentioned before by myself until Southern introduced the new rolling stock the service on the line was poor to say the least, and many passengers had been discouraged by the service alterations caused by Cowden, unreliability of rolling stock, changing at Oxted etc. Certainly in Crowborough virtually everyone would use Tunbridge Wells as their preferred rail uroute, and I believe virtually everyone in Uckfield would use Haywards Heath.

It has taken an incredibly long time for that mindset to change and there are still many people in Crowborough who's defulat train route is Tunbridge Wells because of the "poor" service on the Uckfield line.

Yes there are a large number of people who railhead but I don't believe they are the majority reason for the increase in traffic on the Uckfield Line.

Govia will of course know where season tickets live and who travels from where etc, but they might not tell us!