New lines and improvements for Sussex railways

[The Ham]

The thing I would say is that bus useage doesn't always reliability predict rail useage.

From what I can find online before Okehampton reopened the bus to Exeter ran 15 times a day (2018), whilst that's now reduced to 9 buses a day there's also 15 trains a day now.

It's not uncommon to come across people who would strongly favour using a train over a bus (for various reasons).

 

[Zomboid]

I think a reasonable generalisation is that people without a realistic alternative will use the bus, but a decent number of people will choose the train over another viable option.

Not the case for everyone of course, but certainly in my anecdotal experience it holds pretty true until free bus travel comes into play.

 

[mr_jrt]

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.

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.

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?

The heritage railway isn't an obstacle in the same way a housing estate would be. I'd find it a very strange situation that the sort of railway fans that would operate a heritage railway, when push comes to shove, prefer to have a train set than a better national network.

Uckfield to Lewes as an alternative would be a considerably longer massive slow diversion, and fails to maintain interchange connectivity to Gatwick and Three Bridges.

You'll have to throw some numbers out for your claim this route would be much slower - many years ago I took a look at old sectional appendices and concluded that distance-wise the route would be 2 miles 61 chains longer (feel free to correct me!), so forgive me some bad imperial-ey maths, but I make that ~4 minutes at an average of 30pmh.

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.

It's a much longer routing, and any points about the East Grinstead route being too slow are going to apply here as well, and some, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Uckfield to Lewes would absolutely be a very, very useful regional link that would make a lot of lives much easier. But it's simply never going to be a good radial route to London.

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.

The general point being that passengers who want Gatwick or Three Bridges would have cross-platform interchange at Haywards Heath to a more frequent Brighton main line service. Yes, those wanting London would have a fractionally slower journey - but Brighton main line journeys have been slowed down by more than this multiple times over the last few years by the addition of calls at smaller stations, so it's not exactly in the realm of impossibility.

It's not inconceivable to perhaps route services both ways, with some fast Eastbournes continuing on the existing route and some slower Brightons being routed via East Grinstead, as the stopping service patterns permit. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. That's one of the reasons why I propose grade separation at Copyhold and Keymer. Otherwise you would just have the "new" route as the eastern pair of tracks and sack off the possibility of cross-platform interchange at Haywards Heath.

My broader point is that when you have a more connected network you gain a lot of flexibility.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It's a much longer routing, and any points about the East Grinstead route being too slow are going to apply here as well, and some, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Uckfield to Lewes would absolutely be a very, very useful regional link that would make a lot of lives much easier. But it's simply never going to be a good radial route to London.

It may be longer in terms of distances, but it doesn't seem to be that much slower compared to existing services to Eastbourne and Ore - especially given you'd replace slow DMUs with EMUs.
Yes, it wouldn't connect to Gatwick, but you'd free up capacity on the Brighton Main Line by moving the Eastbourne services across to the Uckfield line, so there is potential for a Lewes terminator to provide connectivity that way.
Running over even part of the Bluebell's metals to shoehorn a few more services through Haywards Heath is nuts.

 

[Mark J]

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.

No thanks!

No more guided bus ways on old rail routes.

That is part of the problem why East-West rail is having issues getting back into Cambridge.

Both western facing former rail formations are now guided bus ways.

The heritage railway isn't an obstacle in the same way a housing estate would be. I'd find it a very strange situation that the sort of railway fans that would operate a heritage railway, when push comes to shove, prefer to have a train set than a better national network.

Plus hasn't there has been talk about GWR operating passenger services over the West Somerset Railway to Minehead. Whilst maintaining a heritage operation.

With many of the heritage railways needing the money, surely extra paying traffic (through track access charges, or a % of the fare) would help their finances somewhat.

 

[NCT]

The general point being that passengers who want Gatwick or Three Bridges would have cross-platform interchange at Haywards Heath to a more frequent Brighton main line service. Yes, those wanting London would have a fractionally slower journey - but Brighton main line journeys have been slowed down by more than this multiple times over the last few years by the addition of calls at smaller stations, so it's not exactly in the realm of impossibility.

What good is a frequent service beyond Haywards Heath (which is already 10tph today) when Eastbourne - Haywards Heath is only 2tph anyway? You've made people's journeys slower and less direct without a gain in frequency. What gain are those passengers' sacrifices intended to achieve?

It's not inconceivable to perhaps route services both ways, with some fast Eastbournes continuing on the existing route and some slower Brightons being routed via East Grinstead, as the stopping service patterns permit. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. That's one of the reasons why I propose grade separation at Copyhold and Keymer. Otherwise you would just have the "new" route as the eastern pair of tracks and sack off the possibility of cross-platform interchange at Haywards Heath.

Other than wanting to draw a lot of criss-crossing lines on a map with a crayon, what problem is it you are trying to solve with your solution?

My broader point is that when you have a more connected network you gain a lot of flexibility.

You end up with a mess of a network which becomes a liability.

 

[zwk500]

The heritage railway isn't an obstacle in the same way a housing estate would be. I'd find it a very strange situation that the sort of railway fans that would operate a heritage railway, when push comes to shove, prefer to have a train set than a better national network.

While the BRPS want the railways as a whole to flourish, they are particularly interested in *their* railway and accepting NR trains onto their network would be a significant financial risk to them if they are required to operate a full-spec modern railway not a 'train set'.

Uckfield to Lewes as an alternative would be a considerably longer massive slow diversion, and fails to maintain interchange connectivity to Gatwick and Three Bridges.

Uckfield to Lewes misses out the congested bit of Balcombe Tunnel Junction to Keymer Junction, so the longer journey times is acceptable because you are freeing up other useful capacity.

You'll have to throw some numbers out for your claim this route would be much slower - many years ago I took a look at old sectional appendices and concluded that distance-wise the route would be 2 miles 61 chains longer (feel free to correct me!), so forgive me some bad imperial-ey maths, but I make that ~4 minutes at an average of 30pmh.

ATM trains to East Grinstead are all stations from Sanderstead to EG. There journey time difference between Stopping and non-stopping trains is such that trying to run any non-stopping extras at 2tph would lead them to catch up the trains in front. Then they'd have to be in different paths across Selhurst Jns and up the fasts.

For reference, London Victoria to Eastbourne is scheduled to take 44 minutes to HHE with stops at Clapham Jn, East Croydon and Gatwick Airport. London Victoria to East Grinstead is timetabled for 60 minutes with all stops from Sanderstead. The current stopping pattern takes 27.5 minutes from Windmill Bridge Jn to Hurst Green. An Uckfield train calling ECR, Oxted and HG only does it in 19 minutes. The difference will be worse if the East Grinstead - HG portion is considered as well.

It's a much longer routing, and any points about the East Grinstead route being too slow are going to apply here as well, and some, for hopefully obvious reasons.

But it serves a corridor far more people from the East Sussex coast actually want to travel!

Uckfield to Lewes would absolutely be a very, very useful regional link that would make a lot of lives much easier. But it's simply never going to be a good radial route to London.

It'll be very good radial route to Brighton for the places that don't currently have one, and offer direct services to London to an area of Brighton that doesn't have it, which includes several university campuses and a major stadium.

 

[mr_jrt]

What good is a frequent service beyond Haywards Heath (which is already 10tph today) when Eastbourne - Haywards Heath is only 2tph anyway? You've made people's journeys slower and less direct without a gain in frequency. What gain are those passengers' sacrifices intended to achieve?

Combining the East Grinstead services with the Eastbournes would enable you to combine their frequencies. Say 2tph to Eastbourne + 4tph to East Grinstead becomes 6tph to Eastbourne via East Grinstead. Eastbourne's frequencies go up, meaning the average journey time to London for someone arriving to Eastbourne at an arbitrary time will go down dramatically due to the increased frequency.

Other than wanting to draw a lot of criss-crossing lines on a map with a crayon, what problem is it you are trying to solve with your solution?

Improved connectivity, combining services to make better use of paths in London, increasing frequency to Eastbourne, and potentially freeing up paths for more services to Brighton.

You end up with a mess of a network which becomes a liability.

I think you may be somewhat over-egging the pudding a tad here, good sir.

While the BRPS want the railways as a whole to flourish, they are particularly interested in *their* railway and accepting NR trains onto their network would be a significant financial risk to them if they are required to operate a full-spec modern railway not a 'train set'.

I was thinking more they are suitably compensated and the line is bought off them and returned to the national network.

Uckfield to Lewes misses out the congested bit of Balcombe Tunnel Junction to Keymer Junction, so the longer journey times is acceptable because you are freeing up other useful capacity.

Four tracking Keymer Junction to Copyhold Junction frees up all the same paths as the lines become potentially operationally segregated.

ATM trains to East Grinstead are all stations from Sanderstead to EG. There journey time difference between Stopping and non-stopping trains is such that trying to run any non-stopping extras at 2tph would lead them to catch up the trains in front. Then they'd have to be in different paths across Selhurst Jns and up the fasts.

Adjust the timetables and flight them, then. I'm sure a solution could be found. There's a lot of double track railways out there that manage to mix fast and stopping services.

Have a gander at the old 2015 Sussex Area Route Study. Obviously it's somewhat outdated now, but the analysis and proposals show the various interventions that are likely to be needed in the future, and what they may look like. NR believe an additional 6tph will be needed, and to achieve that they wanted to build the southern part of what I'm proposing (it's what initially got me musing, actually):


...but it's all just part of a a package of interventions, so things like the Windmill Bridge remodelling and extra platforms at East Croydon would also all be needed.

For reference, London Victoria to Eastbourne is scheduled to take 44 minutes to HHE with stops at Clapham Jn, East Croydon and Gatwick Airport. London Victoria to East Grinstead is timetabled for 60 minutes with all stops from Sanderstead. The current stopping pattern takes 27.5 minutes from Windmill Bridge Jn to Hurst Green. An Uckfield train calling ECR, Oxted and HG only does it in 19 minutes. The difference will be worse if the East Grinstead - HG portion is considered as well.

But it serves a corridor far more people from the East Sussex coast actually want to travel!

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying do both, as they solve different problems. NR had some interesting things to say on the concept in the 2015 study I referenced above. Well worth a read.

It'll be very good radial route to Brighton for the places that don't currently have one, and offer direct services to London to an area of Brighton that doesn't have it, which includes several university campuses and a major stadium.

They wouldn't be direct services to London from east Brighton unless you propose somehow smashing though a chunk of Cliffe High Street to restore the later direct high-level line, bypassing Lewes entirely to the north, or building the rather elegant southern loop someone concocted the proposal for many years ago. None of which would be cheap.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Combining the East Grinstead services with the Eastbournes would enable you to combine their frequencies. Say 2tph to Eastbourne + 4tph to East Grinstead becomes 6tph to Eastbourne via East Grinstead. Eastbourne's frequencies go up, meaning the average journey time to London for someone arriving to Eastbourne at an arbitrary time will go down dramatically due to the increased frequency.

Much as I'd love to see improved services and reopenings, I can't imagine that Eastbourne can generate enough traffic towards London to justify 6tph. Especially if this is via a route that doesn't serve Gatwick Airport or any of the population centres along the main line around there.

Have a gander at the old 2015 Sussex Area Route Study. Obviously it's somewhat outdated now, but the analysis and proposals show the various interventions that are likely to be needed in the future, and what they may look like. NR believe an additional 6tph will be needed, and to achieve that they wanted to build the southern part of what I'm proposing (it's what initially got me musing, actually):
View attachment 181180

Appreciate this Network Rail so presumably has been thought through, but how is that at all possible? That junction is just 200 m away from the ends of the platforms at Wivelsfield. Can a railway really descend far enough to build an underpass that goes under a railway and then a road in 200m?

 

[zwk500]

Combining the East Grinstead services with the Eastbournes would enable you to combine their frequencies. Say 2tph to Eastbourne + 4tph to East Grinstead becomes 6tph to Eastbourne via East Grinstead. Eastbourne's frequencies go up, meaning the average journey time to London for someone arriving to Eastbourne at an arbitrary time will go down dramatically due to the increased frequency.

This is going to stretch the fleet requirements ridiculously. While better frequencies do offset longer journey times people travelling from Eastbourne really don't have much business with East Grinstead!

I was thinking more they are suitably compensated and the line is bought off them and returned to the national network.

And then the Bluebell is left with a corner of Horsted Keynes and the line to Sheffield Park. Hope the compensation is enough for them to start extending southwards becaue with 6tph between HK and EG NR won't be letting a 25mph Steam train get in the way.

Four tracking Keymer Junction to Copyhold Junction frees up all the same paths as the lines become potentially operationally segregated.

If you do this, you don't need to divert trains off the mainline.

Adjust the timetables and flight them, then. I'm sure a solution could be found. There's a lot of double track railways out there that manage to mix fast and stopping services.

It Could be found, but at a compromise. And the compromise here is really poor value for what you're offering to the wider public transport in Sussex.

Have a gander at the old 2015 Sussex Area Route Study. Obviously it's somewhat outdated now, but the analysis and proposals show the various interventions that are likely to be needed in the future, and what they may look like. NR believe an additional 6tph will be needed, and to achieve that they wanted to build the southern part of what I'm proposing (it's what initially got me musing, actually):

...but it's all just part of a a package of interventions, so things like the Windmill Bridge remodelling and extra platforms at East Croydon would also all be needed.

I'm well aware of those proposals and strongly support them, just as part of allowing more paths on the mainline which is where the travel demand is.

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying do both, as they solve different problems. NR had some interesting things to say on the concept in the 2015 study I referenced above. Well worth a read.

They wouldn't be direct services to London from east Brighton unless you propose somehow smashing though a chunk of Cliffe High Street to restore the later direct high-level line, bypassing Lewes entirely to the north, or building the rather elegant southern loop someone concocted the proposal for many years ago. None of which would be cheap.

My proposal for Lewes-Uckfield is to run via Ringmer and join the East Coastway line immediately east of Glynde, circling the National Park, serving a town of 5,000 that's earmarked for rapid housing growth and offering far more flexible routing without needing vast amounts of signifiant civils and several new junctions. It'd be no more expensive than putting the old route back via Hamsey, as you've got to buy all the land anyway and then rebuild the formation from scratch.

 

[NCT]

Combining the East Grinstead services with the Eastbournes would enable you to combine their frequencies. Say 2tph to Eastbourne + 4tph to East Grinstead becomes 6tph to Eastbourne via East Grinstead. Eastbourne's frequencies go up, meaning the average journey time to London for someone arriving to Eastbourne at an arbitrary time will go down dramatically due to the increased frequency.

That's a lot of empty trains running for over large distances that you are paying not just opex but capex for.

When you considerably increase the running time, just piling on frequency doesn't recover your generalised journey time. Haywards Heath via East Grinstead would be about 30 minutes longer than the current route. That kind of journey time increase isn't recoverably by piling up frequency.

There's no cat in hell's chance the business case is going to fly and there's nowhere you can hide the costs and disbenefits.

 

[zwk500]

Appreciate this Network Rail so presumably has been thought through, but how is that at all possible? That junction is just 200 m away from the ends of the platforms at Wivelsfield. Can a railway really descend far enough to build an underpass that goes under a railway and then a road in 200m?

Believe NR's proposals would have had the Up Lewes platform at a higher level in most of the more 'buildable' scenarios.

 

[AlastairFraser]

My proposal for Lewes-Uckfield is to run via Ringmer and join the East Coastway line immediately east of Glynde, circling the National Park, serving a town of 5,000 that's earmarked for rapid housing growth and offering far more flexible routing without needing vast amounts of signifiant civils and several new junctions. It'd be no more expensive than putting the old route back via Hamsey, as you've got to buy all the land anyway and then rebuild the formation from scratch.

I generally support the idea of reopening Lewes - Uckfield, but how much would this increase route mileage and costs of reopening by?

Surely it would be best to reopen the existing alignment to a junction outside of Lewes and provide connections at Lewes onto good East Coastway services, rather than the upheaval of a new alignment?

 

[The Ham]

That's a lot of empty trains running for over large distances that you are paying not just opex but capex for.

When you considerably increase the running time, just piling on frequency doesn't recover your generalised journey time. Haywards Heath via East Grinstead would be about 30 minutes longer than the current route. That kind of journey time increase isn't recoverably by piling up frequency.

There's no cat in hell's chance the business case is going to fly and there's nowhere you can hide the costs and disbenefits.

Three things I've noticed.

1) it's only 4tph in the peaks, so arguably the point about a lot of trains is less of an issue, as East Grinstead has an hourly service off peak - this means that sharing a heritage line could be possible just with breaks in service for those times. If we're talking peak hour capacity, then the loss of Gatwick services are potentially less of an issue.

2) 2tph from East Grinstead are Thameslink services, as such you could deliver from Eastbourne 1tph (existing) and 2tph (Thameslink) and still find a lot of people use the new services because it better connects to other areas in London

3) the journey time between East Croydon and East Grinstead can be 13 minutes shorter by missing out most stations, if you timetable the stopping service far enough ahead of the faster services you could gain a bit of that 30 minutes back

For example 5tph:
xx:00 fast service (Thameslink)
xx:05 fast service (Victoria)
xx:20 stopping service (Victoria)
xx:30 fast service (Thameslink)
xx:40 stopping service (Victoria)

The fast services could extend to Eastbourne, giving it 5tph by retaining 1tph via the existing route.

Yes the second train per hour to Victoria would be longer but at (say) 20 minutes longer it would still get you to London sooner than waiting on the next service so people would still use it. Whilst that would put more pressure on the retained service, some of that would be reduced by being able to get a Thameslink train which would reduce the journey time to get to (say) Blackfriars (or at least make it much more attractive as it's then a direct service - as you could just sit in a seat when you get in and then get off in London rather than squeezing onto a train in Croydon to stand into Blackfriars).

 

[Chrisgr31]

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.

Doesn’t seem right to me as the one that needs to stand! The problem of course being that Hurst Green & Oxted passengers take the 171 as it’s a fast service, that’s fine going up as it’s their choice. Coming back they take the seats of those who are going further and don’t have the choice of train.

If we want to encourage people to use the train more we need to minimise standing and I wouldn’t say that standing for 30 minutes is something to considered to be right.

Maybe the solution is just not to stop the 171s at Hurst Green

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I generally support the idea of reopening Lewes - Uckfield, but how much would this increase route mileage and costs of reopening by?

Surely it would be best to reopen the existing alignment to a junction outside of Lewes and provide connections at Lewes onto good East Coastway services, rather than the upheaval of a new alignment?

I don't know the answer to that, but I would suspect the old alignment would need almost complete re-building anyway. That seems to be the experience of other re-openings where 50 years of neglect combines with required building standards today being much higher than when the lines were first built/last maintained. If that's the case, the cost difference might not be that great. The only doubt in my mind is, I don't know how hilly the countryside around Ringmer is and to what extent that might therefore require new cuttings/tunnels. But set against that, Brighton is going to be a MUCH bigger draw for passengers than Eastbourne - especially because running to Brighton means you're directly serving Falmer and the University. And - worse - opening on the old alignment and running to Eastbourne means you're throwing more services that don't serve Brighton onto the constricted flat junction at Lewes, and I would guess that's going to make it much harder to provide any additional Brighton services in the future. So I agree with @zwk500 about the route. It seems to me that opening on the original route and therefore making it impossible to run directly to Brighton would just be dooming the new route to failure from the start.

 

[PGAT]

Doesn’t seem right to me as the one that needs to stand! The problem of course being that Hurst Green & Oxted passengers take the 171 as it’s a fast service, that’s fine going up as it’s their choice. Coming back they take the seats of those who are going further and don’t have the choice of train.

If we want to encourage people to use the train more we need to minimise standing and I wouldn’t say that standing for 30 minutes is something to considered to be right.

Maybe the solution is just not to stop the 171s at Hurst Green

The Uckfield service isn’t fast enough to overtake the East Grinstead services so Oxted and Hurst Green passengers would just pick whatever shows up first. It’s unlikely they would be waiting at London Bridge for the inbound train arrive to nab all the seats before the others

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Uckfield service isn’t fast enough to overtake the East Grinstead services so Oxted and Hurst Green passengers would just pick whatever shows up first. It’s unlikely they would be waiting at London Bridge for the inbound train arrive to nab all the seats before the others

But regular commuters who can be somewhat flexible on timings but who prioritise minimising travelling time may well deliberately plan to arrive at the station when a fast train is due.

 

[Zomboid]

Isn't the fact that East Grinstead trains go to Victoria and Uckfield trains go to London Bridge significant?

 

[PGAT]

But regular commuters who can be somewhat flexible on timings but who prioritise minimising travelling time may well deliberately plan to arrive at the station when a fast train is due.

How many commuters are going to be flexible enough to leave their office half hour earlier to catch the earlier Uckfield departure or be willing to wait for nearly half an hour after letting the East Grinstead train go just to get a slightly quicker journey?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How many commuters are going to be flexible enough to leave their office half hour earlier to catch the earlier Uckfield departure or be willing to wait for nearly half an hour after letting the East Grinstead train go just to get a slightly quicker journey?

Probably quite a few. If you work in an office and you're not in a directly customer facing role that by its nature requires fixed hours, I'd expect it would be very common that your start time might be - say, allowed to start work any time between 8:30 and 9:30 am.

Isn't the fact that East Grinstead trains go to Victoria and Uckfield trains go to London Bridge significant?

A fair point. I'd guess that is important for those commuters who work very close to Victoria, or very close to London Bridge (or who work in the City or Canary Wharf so London Bridge is much closer for them). Possibly less significant for people who work elsewhere in central London and who would need to take a tube for the last part of their journey no matter which terminal they arrive at.

 

[PGAT]

Isn't the fact that East Grinstead trains go to Victoria and Uckfield trains go to London Bridge significant?

East Grinstead trains also go to London Bridge in the peaks. But even if they didn’t, thanks to the hourly service of the Uckfield line, it’s people living in Oxted or Hurst Green can usually get home quicker by changing at East Croydon and catching a train that started from Victoria

 

[zwk500]

I generally support the idea of reopening Lewes - Uckfield, but how much would this increase route mileage and costs of reopening by?

Surely it would be best to reopen the existing alignment to a junction outside of Lewes and provide connections at Lewes onto good East Coastway services, rather than the upheaval of a new alignment?

A junction just east of Lewes has to go through Mt Caburn, my alignment specifically avoids that issue. It will be about the same cost as reopening via Hamsey, for a relatively modest mileage increase and no need to reverse. Railways aren't built on a map, but on terrain - Google Maps's terrain view is quite useful for getting a sense of what gradients will be.

Importantly Lewes-Uckfield is about links to Brighton, not about providing another mainline to London.

 

[Chrisgr31]

How many commuters are going to be flexible enough to leave their office half hour earlier to catch the earlier Uckfield departure or be willing to wait for nearly half an hour after letting the East Grinstead train go just to get a slightly quicker journey?

Lots! Just need to see the numbers getting on or off at Hurst Green or Oxted!

Many commuters have flexibility in the time they arrive or leave work and that time will be based on their favourite train. I suspect that most prefer a train that they’ll get a seat on, and they prefer a direct train. They’ll also want the fastest train and the one with the most comfortable seat.

So I suggest anyone commuting from Oxted and Hurst Green to London Bridge and anywhere that is connectable from there but not voa Thameslink will bravitate to the 171s. Unlike the passengers from Edenbridge and beyond they have the advantage of having alternative services if they need to be later or earlier.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I don't know the answer to that, but I would suspect the old alignment would need almost complete re-building anyway. That seems to be the experience of other re-openings where 50 years of neglect combines with required building standards today being much higher than when the lines were first built/last maintained. If that's the case, the cost difference might not be that great. The only doubt in my mind is, I don't know how hilly the countryside around Ringmer is and to what extent that might therefore require new cuttings/tunnels. But set against that, Brighton is going to be a MUCH bigger draw for passengers than Eastbourne - especially because running to Brighton means you're directly serving Falmer and the University. And - worse - opening on the old alignment and running to Eastbourne means you're throwing more services that don't serve Brighton onto the constricted flat junction at Lewes, and I would guess that's going to make it much harder to provide any additional Brighton services in the future. So I agree with @zwk500 about the route. It seems to me that opening on the original route and therefore making it impossible to run directly to Brighton would just be dooming the new route to failure from the start.

It is going to be costly either way, I can appreciate that.
Isn't there already a decent service to Brighton (up to 4tph) on the East Coastway that can be interchanged with at Lewes?
I was also proposing replacing the existing London via Gatwick to Eastbourne/Ore services with an extension of the Uckfield services at least once an hour, and my replacement on the Victoria to Lewes section would probably terminate in Lewes (so no additional moves across the flat junction).

A junction just east of Lewes has to go through Mt Caburn, my alignment specifically avoids that issue. It will be about the same cost as reopening via Hamsey, for a relatively modest mileage increase and no need to reverse. Railways aren't built on a map, but on terrain - Google Maps's terrain view is quite useful for getting a sense of what gradients will be.

Importantly Lewes-Uckfield is about links to Brighton, not about providing another mainline to London.

Sorry, I was making a case that it should be rebuilt on the old alignment with a slightly realigned junction to the north of Lewes, not the east. Probably wasn't clear enough!

I agree that links to Brighton are important, but taking existing service off the Brighton Main Line also makes sense, in order to release capacity through Gatwick.

 

[Zomboid]

agree that links to Brighton are important, but taking existing service off the Brighton Main Line also makes sense, in order to release capacity through Gatwick

But to what end? If you're (partially or fully) disconnecting Eastbourne from Gatwick, what will the capacity the be used for? More trains on the other routes?

If Uckfield to Lewes is reinstated on the original alignment, wouldn't it make sense to send the trains to Newhaven & Seaford, which at present seem to lack a London service?

 

[AlastairFraser]

But to what end? If you're (partially or fully) disconnecting Eastbourne from Gatwick, what will the capacity the be used for? More trains on the other routes?

If Uckfield to Lewes is reinstated on the original alignment, wouldn't it make sense to send the trains to Newhaven & Seaford, which at present seem to lack a London service?

More trains from London via Gatwick to at least Haywards Heath and potentially Lewes.

Seaford is a destination worth considering, but the issue is that you'd break the link with Brighton, which is one of the key destinations for people travelling from Newhaven/Seaford. You'd also face issues with sending the existing East Coastway service to Seaford elsewhere.

 

[Zomboid]

Eastbourne trains already run via Haywards and Lewes, don't they?

I'd send the London via Uckfield train to Seaford in addition to the existing coastway service.

It'd no doubt need some infrastructure especially along the single track bit beyond Newhaven, but this is a project that is building a new line further upstream.

Would the via Uckfield line need more than 1tph? If it needs 2 then they might be able to alternate between Seaford and Eastbourne, so Eastbourne gets an extra train to London and links to a few different destinations.

 

[zwk500]

Sorry, I was making a case that it should be rebuilt on the old alignment with a slightly realigned junction to the north of Lewes, not the east. Probably wasn't clear enough!

If you join north of Lewes you need a reversal beyond the station to access Brighton. Simplicity is key for todays network. Joining east of Glynde allows for the maximum flexibility with minimal additional infrastructure. No need for reversing turnbacks or extra chords, just 1 junction and then trains have a choice of platforms at Lewes to reverse in if needed, or can head straight on to Brighton.

People are far too interested in trying to rebuild yesteryear's network, and don't look at what the changes since the 60s have meant for both demand and how the network operates.

I agree that links to Brighton are important, but taking existing service off the Brighton Main Line also makes sense, in order to release capacity through Gatwick.

East Coastway currently only has 2tph + freight from the BML, and they would almost certainly need to remain.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The issue with making the Uckfield line a through line is the ticket price. Season tickets on the Uckfield Line are far cheaper on the Uckfield line than Brighton Mainline or Tunbridge Wells line. This will either mean split ticketing shoukd the line be extended to the coast, or higher prices on the Uckfield Line which in turn potentially means passengers deciding they might as well seal to the alternative lines for the better service.