New lines and improvements for Sussex railways

[JonathanH]

I just can't see Fast Line capacity to Three Bridges being given up to such a branch line service as this.

In a way, it is easier to have another branch at Three Bridges to which there are four tracks from London, than try to do something beyond Balcombe Tunnel Junction from which point it becomes two track railway.

It remains unfortunate that the Horsham to Peterborough service has to cross slow to fast at Stoats Nest Junction to allow the Caterham to London Bridge and East Grinstead to London Victoria trains use the slow line through East Croydon. This appears to prevent an even pattern of departures from Gatwick towards East Croydon.

For East Grinstead - Three Bridges just ask Metrobus to up the 400 to half-hourly. Threaten them with bus franchising if they don't play ball.

There is also the 281 and 291, albeit less direct.

 

[zwk500]

In a way, it is easier to have another branch at Three Bridges to which there are four tracks from London, than try to do something beyond Balcombe Tunnel Junction from which point it becomes two track railway.

1. How is a capacity crunch *after* a divergence relevant here? At least the EG-HH suggestion was bypassing half the issue...
2. Doing something unhelpful because it is easier instead of the thing that should be done but is very difficult is incredibly silly.

FWIW,
4-tracking from Balcombe Tunnel Jn to Keymer Junction is very difficult, but serves a population along the coast approaching of more than 0.5 million people. (Brighton/Hove/Worthing 475k, Eastbourne 100k, Hastings 90k, Littlehampton 50k) which are also significant destinations in their own right for Tourism, particularly by day-trippers on trains.

Building a branch from Three Bridges to East Grinstead isn't easy either (just less difficult), and serves a village of 5,000 and a town of 25,000.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I just can't see Fast Line capacity to Three Bridges being given up to such a branch line service as this.

Why would you give up any fast line capacity at Three Bridges? If the trains from London via East Grinstead terminate there, then all you need as an extra bay platform that requires no interaction with the existing lines - and I see you're suggesting something similar anyway for your VLR proposal. In a way I think what you're suggesting is similar to what I'm suggesting - except I'd prefer to just extend the London-East Grinstead trains, and avoid the extra change + need to operate a micro-fleet of one - albeit my idea lacks the ability to further extend to the East.

The old line from East Grinstead to Three Bridges would start from a separate station in EG with no track connection, so EG would be a terminus both for trains from London via Oxted and from Three Bridges (or wherever they extend to beyond it) – this will always look less attractive to people drawing lines on a map, even if it doesn't necessarily reduce the utility of the service.

You're assuming I just want to exactly reopen the old line. But I'm looking for extensions that make the railway more useful and allow more journeys to not have to be made by cars: I don't really care whether they run precisely over old trackbeds. At the East Grinstead end, I'd probably do something more like this: Share with or run parallel to the Bluebell railway as far as the Imberhorne viaduct and then veer to the NorthWest to join the existing trackbed to Three Bridges.

 

[zwk500]

Why would you give up any fast line capacity at Three Bridges?

Because I was assuming any proposal would be for London-Gatwick-EG, and the junction has to be on the fast lines.

If the trains from London via East Grinstead terminate there, then all you need as an extra bay platform that requires no interaction with the existing lines - and I see you're suggesting something similar anyway for your VLR proposal. In a way I think what you're suggesting is similar to what I'm suggesting - except I'd prefer to just extend the London-East Grinstead trains, and avoid the extra change + need to operate a micro-fleet of one - albeit my idea lacks the ability to further extend to the East.

I'd take the micro-organisation and it's costs of small-scale over the need to rebuild the curve and build a brand new station, as well as retaining the ability to potentially run to Forest Row. Importantly, the VLR would be run as a light rail, not heavy rail system. Much cheaper whole-life operating costs, meaning ability to hold fares down. The use of 1 unit (and therefore 1 crew) for a half-hourly service was a starting reference point, not saying it could only ever be one unit. Put a loop in at Crawley Down and you could run a 15-minute service, for instance.

I've just seen your proposal to avoid rebuilding the old curve/loop and I don't see that being viable within the space available at the north end of the viaduct. The Bluebell's platform is right across the formation immediately beyond the station and only just squeezes in before the points need to be placed. You'd also need to completely reconfigure the NR/BRPS interface and boundaries.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because I was assuming any proposal would be for London-Gatwick-EG, and the junction has to be on the fast lines.

Ah fair enough. I was possibly not too clear on that. No, what I was thinking was, extending the London-East Grinstead services to run London-East Grinstead-Three Bridges.

 

[A S Leib]

Passengers from South Dorset prefer to have 2tph to London than a through service to Brighton having been offered that choice.

From Bournemouth, there's 25,000 passengers per year to Reading, 10,000 each to Brighton and Portsmouth and 8,000 to Oxford, but Winchester, Southampton Airport Parkway and Basingstoke combined are 84,000 per year so removing a fast service to there would presumably outweigh having Bournemouth towards Fareham services.

 

[Zomboid]

I've just seen your proposal to avoid rebuilding the old curve/loop and I don't see that being viable within the space available at the north end of the viaduct. The Bluebell's platform is right across the formation immediately beyond the station and only just squeezes in before the points need to be placed

Physically it doesn't look like a huge problem from the aerial photos. The Bluebell looks like it uses the up (western) side of the formation over the viaduct, and by reversing the crossover at the entrance to their platform they could run on the down side of the formation.

That would probably be the easiest problem with the plan to solve.

 

[NCT]

When something is 3 buses per hour with 2 of them round the houses, that is not a rail market. Between East Grinsted and Haywards Heath there's one man and his dog.

 

[mr_jrt]

Principle is that it's essentially unobstructed, makes better use of capacity through London as you are combining the paths north of Croydon, and provides a diversionary route when the line through Gatwick is closed. Essentially, Eastbourne is served by the East Grinstead paths.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Is it that difficult? I could understand the problem if we were talking about hundreds of houses. But I just had a close look on Google maps, and as far as I can make out, between Polegate and Station Road, Hailsham it's basically a couple of car parks plus a few gardens. After that it gets much harder for the next quarter mile or so, although it looks from Google maps like the Cuckoo Trail is already in some kind of tunnel under the houses there. And from Christs Hospital almost as far as Worthing Road, Southwater, I can't see anything really in the way. Except for the issue that the trackbeds for both lines have been turned into footpaths/cycle paths, which you'd want to do something about. (Even as a keen cyclist, I'd rather have railway there than a cycle path that just mostly goes through open countryside).

I think zwk500 was right, there's room for a cycle path, but the width required for a cycle path is very different to the width required for heavy rail.
That's why I suggested a "single-track" guided busway with passing loops for Christ's Hospital to Eames View in Southwater/ close to Otham Court Lane in Polegate and Freshfield Close in Hailsham.
I don't usually advocate for busways, but I think it allows you to get much closer into the town centres of smaller towns at an acceptable cost, while perhaps preserving a trackside path for pedestrians and cyclists. This would be easier with the Southwater proposal - in Hailsham, the busway would penetrate much further in.

 

[zwk500]

Principle is that it's essentially unobstructed,

East Grinstead to Haywards Heath isn't essentially unobstructed, there's a heritage railway on one half and a freight terminal on the other half, with a viaduct missing in the middle.

makes better use of capacity through London as you are combining the paths north of Croydon, and provides a diversionary route when the line through Gatwick is closed.

South Croydon to Three Bridges is already 4-track, and a substantial portion of that has spatially separate pairs of track. If the goal is diversionary capability, route Uckfield to Lewes via Ringmer.

Essentially, Eastbourne is served by the East Grinstead paths.

The East Grinstead Paths are often delayed at Selhurst crossing from Fasts to Slows, and then call all stations from East Croydon to East Grinstead. From East Grinstead to Haywards Heath will also be much slower than the current routing. How is massively slowing down travel to Lewes, Polegate and Eastbourne good?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Principle is that it's essentially unobstructed, makes better use of capacity through London as you are combining the paths north of Croydon, and provides a diversionary route when the line through Gatwick is closed. Essentially, Eastbourne is served by the East Grinstead paths.

Why not reinstate the roughly 8 miles of railway between Uckfield and the outskirts of Lewes (with realigned sections where they are needed) instead? That's much more direct for Eastbourne/Ore services and takes traffic off the Brighton Main Line much earlier.

All you'd need is a bi-mode 3rd rail/battery EMU with a reasonable distance (approx. 30 miles) available off 3rd rail.

You could use the same order to cover BEMUs of the same type for Marshlink services too, with a suitable charger during layovers at Ashford International.

 

[NCT]

Principle is that it's essentially unobstructed, makes better use of capacity through London as you are combining the paths north of Croydon, and provides a diversionary route when the line through Gatwick is closed. Essentially, Eastbourne is served by the East Grinstead paths.

You are giving Lewis and Eastbourne an inferior path. East Grinsted is an all-shacks slow railway, and is a far less useful intermediate destination than Gatwick and Three Bridges.

 

[stevieinselby]

You're assuming I just want to exactly reopen the old line. But I'm looking for extensions that make the railway more useful and allow more journeys to not have to be made by cars: I don't really care whether they run precisely over old trackbeds. At the East Grinstead end, I'd probably do something more like this: Share with or run parallel to the Bluebell railway as far as the Imberhorne viaduct and then veer to the NorthWest to join the existing trackbed to Three Bridges.

View attachment 181002

Looking top-down is one thing – looking at the topography is quite another.
Obviously, it can be done – if the Victorians could built a railway through the same terrain then we could do that now ... as long as we were prepared for the outcry about the destruction of woodland and despoilation of the scenic countryside, and above all the cost.
The picture below shows Imberholme viaduct from ground level, to give a sense of the scale of the challenge that this terrain would pose.

 

[yorksrob]

My key ask of this would be reinstating Tunbridge Wells through to Lewes and Brighton.

Also electrify Marshlink to reinstate through services to Brighton. This was a popular link.

I'm attracted by @DynamicSpirit 's idea to take East Grinsted services back round to Three Bridges. This would increase connectivity with a comparatively short section of new track.

 

[AlastairFraser]

My key ask of this would be reinstating Tunbridge Wells through to Lewes and Brighton.

Also electrify Marshlink to reinstate through services to Brighton. This was a popular link.

I'm attracted by @DynamicSpirit 's idea to take East Grinsted services back round to Three Bridges. This would increase connectivity with a comparatively short section of new track.

Why Tunbridge Wells instead of Uckfield?

I agree about Marshlink - although bimode BEMUs (either converted 350/450s or newbuild) would probably be the easiest way to do it, avoiding the mitigations you need for the ORR to be able to approve new 3rd rail.

 

[yorksrob]

Why Tunbridge Wells instead of Uckfield?

I agree about Marshlink - although bimode BEMUs (either converted 350/450s or newbuild) would probably be the easiest way to do it, avoiding the mitigations you need for the ORR to be able to approve new 3rd rail.

It would definitely be via Uckfield

 

[AlastairFraser]

It would definitely be via Uckfield

Oh, you mean via the Spa Valley? Not sure that the Tunbridge Wells to Eridge section could sustain a mainline GBR service, but we'll see I guess.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh, you mean via the Spa Valley? Not sure that the Tunbridge Wells to Eridge section could sustain a mainline GBR service, but we'll see I guess.

I suppose if we didn't want to relocate the Spa Valley preserved line (which is a magnificent enterprise in itself) they might find some way of linking to the Redhill - Tonbridge line. This would be tricky though, given the tunnels around Eridge !

 

[Mike Machin]

With 38 stations open in West Sussex and another 38 in East Sussex, I would suggest that with 76 stations, Sussex is amazingly well served by rail services compared with most counties in the UK.

 

[A S Leib]

With 38 stations open in West Sussex and another 38 in East Sussex, I would suggest that with 76 stations, Sussex is amazingly well served by rail services compared with most counties in the UK.

Population distribution plays a role as well; Northamptonshire only has six stations but Northampton, Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough make up around half the county's population. It takes the seven largest settlements in West Sussex to reach half the population (Worthing, Crawley, Bognor, Littlehampton, Shoreham, Horsham, Haywards Heath). More of those towns can be said to have multiple stations than in Northamptonshire, which isn't a sign that Sussex has a relatively poor service but that it doesn't necessarily have a better provision to smaller places.

As another comparison point, Surrey has 84 stations and it takes its seventeen most populous settlements to reach half of its population.

 

[yorksrob]

With 38 stations open in West Sussex and another 38 in East Sussex, I would suggest that with 76 stations, Sussex is amazingly well served by rail services compared with most counties in the UK.

I disagree.

Sussex was well served up until about 1966, however with the current moth-eaten network, important settlements are left off of the network whilst too much of the area is over-reliant on one single main line North.

 

[zwk500]

Oh, you mean via the Spa Valley? Not sure that the Tunbridge Wells to Eridge section could sustain a mainline GBR service, but we'll see I guess.

Tunbridge Wells to Brighton likely could. Whether it could sustain enough of a service to justify the capital outlay I'm less convinced of, but the A26 is a terrible road and relieving it would be a good thing. The 29 bus does an OK job, but the potential demand is there for a train.

I suppose if we didn't want to relocate the Spa Valley preserved line (which is a magnificent enterprise in itself) they might find some way of linking to the Redhill - Tonbridge line. This would be tricky though, given the tunnels around Eridge !

And then you'd have a really uncompetitive journey time from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton. The demand from Tonbridge to Sussex is much reduced compared to that from it's neighbour to the south.

 

[yorksrob]

]

And then you'd have a really uncompetitive journey time from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton. The demand from Tonbridge to Sussex is much reduced compared to that from it's neighbour to the south.

Indeed, that's the tricky thing !

Maybe if we ever get to the holy grail of heritage and main line services sharing infrastructure. I suppose one would only need an hourly service between Tunbridge Wells and Brighton, which leaves capacity.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I suppose if we didn't want to relocate the Spa Valley preserved line (which is a magnificent enterprise in itself) they might find some way of linking to the Redhill - Tonbridge line. This would be tricky though, given the tunnels around Eridge !

I don't think the business case would stack up personally.

Tunbridge Wells to Brighton likely could. Whether it could sustain enough of a service to justify the capital outlay I'm less convinced of, but the A26 is a terrible road and relieving it would be a good thing. The 29 bus does an OK job, but the potential demand is there for a train.

Although fare integration of the 29 and the train from Eridge if Uckfield to Lewes was rebuilt (in the sense that it is an official option in the Routeing Guide, rather than Plusbus) could be a reasonable option, given that it's 20 mins on the bus at worst from Eridge station into Tunbridge Wells, and you also dodge most of the worst congestion (especially on the A27 at the Brighton end).

 

[Recessio]

Why would you give up any fast line capacity at Three Bridges? If the trains from London via East Grinstead terminate there, then all you need as an extra bay platform that requires no interaction with the existing lines - and I see you're suggesting something similar anyway for your VLR proposal. In a way I think what you're suggesting is similar to what I'm suggesting - except I'd prefer to just extend the London-East Grinstead trains, and avoid the extra change + need to operate a micro-fleet of one - albeit my idea lacks the ability to further extend to the East.



You're assuming I just want to exactly reopen the old line. But I'm looking for extensions that make the railway more useful and allow more journeys to not have to be made by cars: I don't really care whether they run precisely over old trackbeds. At the East Grinstead end, I'd probably do something more like this: Share with or run parallel to the Bluebell railway as far as the Imberhorne viaduct and then veer to the NorthWest to join the existing trackbed to Three Bridges.

View attachment 181002

Given there's been a failure to build a sorely needed A22 bypass there for the last half a century - and road schemes have a far better success/funding rate than rail schemes - I think the chances of a railway being built there are even less

 

[JohnElliott]

My preference for the Three Bridges - East Grinstead formation would be a tram or a guided busway rather than heavy rail -- my aim would be to improve local transport links and hopefully take some of the traffic off the roads between East Grinstead and Crawley.

For improved connectivity I'd put in chords at Crowhurst and Redhill, so it would be possible to reach Gatwick Airport and Brighton from Oxted via the Redhill to Tonbridge line without reversing.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The first improvement for Sussex rail lines should be to de-dieselise the Uckfield line (and the North Downs line, though that might actually be Wessex, not sure where the boundaries are).

And sort out the Windmill Bridge junction complex.

Something about the Uckfield line stock is going to need to be done sooner than later. Pre covid the Uckfield line platforms were extended and with extra units from Scotrail 9 & occasionally 10 car trains were run. During Covid someone made the decision to move all the Scotrail units to EMR and to increase the length of trains on the Marshlink.

the peak hour trains on the Uckfield line are now standing room only from Hurst Green to London Bridge and vice versa. There is no rolling stock to lengthen the trains so only solution is different rolling stock.

 

[JonathanH]

the peak hour trains on the Uckfield line are now standing room only from Hurst Green to London Bridge and vice versa. There is no rolling stock to lengthen the trains so only solution is different rolling stock.

Standing from Hurst Green seems about right, given that Hurst Green and Oxted also have the Thameslink trains. The 171s are somewhat low density rolling stock.

 

[PGAT]

Something about the Uckfield line stock is going to need to be done sooner than later. Pre covid the Uckfield line platforms were extended and with extra units from Scotrail 9 & occasionally 10 car trains were run. During Covid someone made the decision to move all the Scotrail units to EMR and to increase the length of trains on the Marshlink.

the peak hour trains on the Uckfield line are now standing room only from Hurst Green to London Bridge and vice versa. There is no rolling stock to lengthen the trains so only solution is different rolling stock.

8 cars sounds about right for Post-covid peak demand. I’d say the 3 car off-peak formations are probably more questionable