New lines and improvements for Sussex railways

[DynamicSpirit]

(Split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...e-money-spent-elsewhere-on-the-network.285461). The discussion has veered on to in what way rail services in Sussex are inadequate and need improving.

Perhaps you could identify the corridors of travel which you think are wholly inadequately served, rather than sticking to the rather broad generalisation so that people can't start picking holes in it?

I lived in East Sussex for 20 years and the only corridor that I think is 'wholly inadequate' for Sussex is Tunbridge Wells-Brighton via Uckfield and Lewes. Funnily enough, that's a line I've supported reopening since I've been interested in rail! Hailsham and Steyning also arguably justify a rail connection but would not justify their own through routes necessarily.

The main ones are:

Tunbridge Wells - Crowborough - Uckfield - Brighton

Hailsham and Heathfield

Steyning and Henfield.

These are major gaps for an area of the South East commuter belt.

I can't see that Steyning/etc. and Hailsham/etc. serve enough population to justify reopening as through routes. I'd suggest a more limited ambition for those routes.

1. Reopen Eastbourne to Hailsham to provide a commuter service with connections to Brighton at Polegate (only requires 3 miles of new track, or 4 if you run to Horsebridge, and serves a population of 20K)
2. Reopen Christs Hospital to Southwater, serving by extending the London-Horsham trains. This requires only 1.5 miles of new track and serves a population of 10K.

And also:

1. Reopen the Polegate-Pevensey chord to allow fast Brighton-Hastings-Ashford trains that don't run via Eastbourne. Electrify Ore-Ashford.
2. As you suggest, open new lines to provide a through service Tonbridge-Tunbridge Wells-Uckfield-Ringmer-Lewes-Brighton (So, not following the old Uckfield-Lewes route). In fact I'd probably think about an East-South chord just outside Tonbridge, to allow the service to run to Paddock Wood, Maidstone and Medway rather than to Tonbridge.
3. 4-tracking parts of the West Coastway to allow recasting the timetable into frequent all-stops metro services plus longer distance services that run much faster between Brighton and Barnham/Chichester.
4. Reopen East Grinstead-Three Bridges, with a new chord at East Grinstead to allow the London-East Grinstead services to run through to Three Bridges.
5. Consider a tram/light rail system for Brighton.

I think all that is ambitious but would allow much better services for all the main population centres.

 

[brad465]

Getting a true Brighton express back would be nice, but would require some major works to achieve. Chief amongst them would be the remodelling of East Croydon and Windmill Bridge jct.

The main improvements needed though are more rolling stock, to at least replace the net loss from scrapping 313s and 455s, as a means for re-growth potential. I'd have said the 377s being displaced by 387s shouldn't have been displaced, but in future one way of doing it would be for Southeastern's fleet tender to include scope to replace all the 377s it has (including the /5s), which return to Southern.

I'm not sure how much of a bottleneck it is, but some form of remodelling of Arundel junction would unlock capacity/improve reliability, but the terrain makes this difficult.

 

[30907]

1. 4-tracking parts of the West Coastway to allow recasting the timetable into frequent all-stops metro services plus longer distance services that run much faster between Brighton and Barnham/Chichester.

Is there any way this could be done without major property demolition, bearing in mind that your 4-track section has to include 2 consecutive stations to avoid the stoppers having to sit at a signal? I fear not.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Getting a true Brighton express back would be nice, but would require some major works to achieve. Chief amongst them would be the remodelling of East Croydon and Windmill Bridge jct.

The main improvements needed though are more rolling stock, to at least replace the net loss from scrapping 313s and 455s, as a means for re-growth potential. I'd have said the 377s being displaced by 387s shouldn't have been displaced, but in future one way of doing it would be for Southeastern's fleet tender to include scope to replace all the 377s it has (including the /5s), which return to Southern.

I'm not sure how much of a bottleneck it is, but some form of remodelling of Arundel junction would unlock capacity/improve reliability, but the terrain makes this difficult.

Yes it was always lovely seeing a 12car Electrostar come racing through on its way to Brighton

 

[AlastairFraser]

(Split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...e-money-spent-elsewhere-on-the-network.285461). The discussion has veered on to in what way rail services in Sussex are inadequate and need improving.





I can't see that Steyning/etc. and Hailsham/etc. serve enough population to justify reopening as through routes. I'd suggest a more limited ambition for those routes.

1. Reopen Eastbourne to Hailsham to provide a commuter service with connections to Brighton at Polegate (only requires 3 miles of new track, or 4 if you run to Horsebridge, and serves a population of 20K)
2. Reopen Christs Hospital to Southwater, serving by extending the London-Horsham trains. This requires only 1.5 miles of new track and serves a population of 10K.

And also:

1. Reopen the Polegate-Pevensey chord to allow fast Brighton-Hastings-Ashford trains that don't run via Eastbourne. Electrify Ore-Ashford.
2. As you suggest, open new lines to provide a through service Tonbridge-Tunbridge Wells-Uckfield-Ringmer-Lewes-Brighton (So, not following the old Uckfield-Lewes route). In fact I'd probably think about an East-South chord just outside Tonbridge, to allow the service to run to Paddock Wood, Maidstone and Medway rather than to Tonbridge.
3. 4-tracking parts of the West Coastway to allow recasting the timetable into frequent all-stops metro services plus longer distance services that run much faster between Brighton and Barnham/Chichester.
4. Reopen East Grinstead-Three Bridges, with a new chord at East Grinstead to allow the London-East Grinstead services to run through to Three Bridges.
5. Consider a tram/light rail system for Brighton.

I think all that is ambitious but would allow much better services for all the main population centres.

I agree with most of your ideas, but I can't see how you get far into either Hailsham or Southwater (because of extensive housebuilding) to make a rail reopening worthwhile.
Perhaps a frequent shuttle from Polegate to Hailsham/Christ's Hospital to Southwater involving a core guided busway section and loops on different routes serving different housing estates to provide a guaranteed connection into rail services in Polegate/Christ's Hospital.

 

[BayPaul]

Is there any way this could be done without major property demolition, bearing in mind that your 4-track section has to include 2 consecutive stations to avoid the stoppers having to sit at a signal? I fear not.

Fishersgate to Southwick looks possible, though not easy. The corridor around the line is fairly wide, and there are no level crossings. There are two footbridges and two underbridges that would need replacing. Both stations appear to have (just) enough room to move the platforms outwards to allow through lines without platforms and loops with new platforms.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

What about reinstated the Eastbourne avoiding line to speed up Victoria to Hastings journeys?

 

[Mark J]

Would it not be feasible to reopen East Grinstead to Haywards Heath using the Bluebell route via Horsted Keynes and Ardingly.

Surely some kind of arrangement could be made, so that NR and Bluebell trains could share the same infrastructure.

 

[NCT]

Cross-posted from the other thread

Arun - Horsham - Epsom equally feels underused as a trunk route.

That's not the trunk route though is it - trunk route - fast services to London - is in the Three Bridges direction, and that direction gets 4tph.

Pre-Covid Horsham - Epsom had 2tph *I think* - we'll have to wait until the rolling stock situation improves before this can be restored.

Barnham - Horsham is 4tph, 2 fast 2 slow - for a rural setting with only small towns that's a Swiss-level frequency.

 

[Zomboid]

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.

 

[NCT]

My understanding is the ORR is being extremely cautious in approving any new third rail electrification.

 

[Zomboid]

Rightly so. But BEMUs are becoming a thing, and it's not that far from Hurst Green to Uckfield.

The North Downs (if in scope for this thread) is more of an issue, but a shortish infill (eg Wokingham - Ash) to charge batteries for the remainder of the route could probably be justified as ALARP.

 

[NCT]

When you are in a sea of third rail, surely infill even on the scale of Uckfield and Marshlink Line should pass ALARP ...

 

[Zomboid]

And with some mitigations around the highest risk areas they might, but there's also the economics of electrifying them. Which will look less impressive when BEMUs are a bigger thing than they already are - and it's definitely viable technology already. All the unelectrified routes in the area are pretty much branches served by a single service group, so they lack any strategic importance for electrification.

But however it's achieved, my first priority for improving Sussex's rail network would be to get rid of the diesels from the area.

Fixing the Croydon/ Selhurst junction complex might be a pretty big ticket item, so the next thing might be to restore the longer distance services along the west coastway in some form. Maybe a proper coastway service to Bournemouth or even Weymouth to Brighton might do some worthwhile business, if Bristol is too much to hope for.

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe a proper coastway service to Bournemouth or even Weymouth to Brighton might do some worthwhile business, if Bristol is too much to hope for.

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

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What about reinstated the Eastbourne avoiding line to speed up Victoria to Hastings journeys?

Even speeded up that way, I doubt they would be at all time-competitive with the existing Hasting-Tonbridge-Charing X trains. I'd use the avoiding line to provide fast Hastings-Brighton trains, not for London trains.

 

[Thebaz]

One of the issues with the Uckfield diesel island that often seems to be forgotten when proposing replacement by BEMU's is the reliability of current stock and its lack of interchangeability with other Southern stock. If you replace the 171s with BEMUs you still have the same problem if stock breaks down, but if you electrify with third rail then you can run any EMU down there that clears the Oxted tunnel.

 

[Zomboid]

True, it just changes the details of the specialist stock.

But if they needed 20 BEMUs to support the line and Ashford - Hastings, they could quite easily buy 40 and have some that spend most of their diagrams on electrified lines, and which could potentially interwork with the Uckfield line during the day. And no diesel would need to be burned in the name of traction. And if they have any life left once this happens, the 171s could be redeployed somewhere that needs some extra DMUs.

Proper electrification is almost always the best solution and I'd prefer to see that on the Uckfield, Ashford - Hastings and North Downs lines, but BEMUs are better than diesel.

 

[MarkyT]

Even speeded up that way, I doubt they would be at all time-competitive with the existing Hasting-Tonbridge-Charing X trains.

Agree. That would cut the number of London services at Eastbourne. Not practical.

I'd use the avoiding line to provide fast Hastings-Brighton trains, not for London trains.

Extended to Ashford for Kent connections, and for the continent once some international operator resumes calls there. Brighton would be limited stop to Ashford while an all stations train from Ashford could go to Eastbourne to terminate (assumptions made about single line capacity on Marshlink!)

True, it just changes the details of the specialist stock.

But if they needed 20 BEMUs to support the line and Ashford - Hastings, they could quite easily buy 40 and have some that spend most of their diagrams on electrified lines, and which could potentially interwork with the Uckfield line during the day. And no diesel would need to be burned in the name of traction. And if they have any life left once this happens, the 171s could be redeployed somewhere that needs some extra DMUs.

Proper electrification is almost always the best solution and I'd prefer to see that on the Uckfield, Ashford - Hastings and North Downs lines, but BEMUs are better than diesel.

There's a good argument that all DC units should have at least a modest emergency traction battery for planned or emergency isolations and faults.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

One of the issues with the Uckfield diesel island that often seems to be forgotten when proposing replacement by BEMU's is the reliability of current stock and its lack of interchangeability with other Southern stock. If you replace the 171s with BEMUs you still have the same problem if stock breaks down, but if you electrify with third rail then you can run any EMU down there that clears the Oxted tunnel.

Imagine if we could just lay the third rail.

 

[zwk500]

Would it not be feasible to reopen East Grinstead to Haywards Heath using the Bluebell route via Horsted Keynes and Ardingly.

Surely some kind of arrangement could be made, so that NR and Bluebell trains could share the same infrastructure.

No.
1. There's minimal passenger demand from EG southwards - it gravitates towards Crawley after London. The intermediate settlements are tiny and Ardingly station isn't well sited for the village so railheading to HHE/Three Bridges would continue.
2. There's very little capacity between HHE and Brighton to run any extra trains.
3. It wouldn't be financially viable for the Bluebell to operate track sufficient for a public transport need. (>25mph for a start).
4. The Ardingly freight terminal would need completely rebuilding to allow the passenger line through.
5. The Ardingly branch would need completely rebuilding for passenger traffic.
6. Either Copyhold junction would need to be reconfigured or Up trains would need to use the down loop in the wrong direction from HHE.
7. Replacement stock would be needed for the non-electrified section.

The costs involved in this, for the demand/need you'd be serving, is completely unjustifiable.

Imagine if we could just lay the third rail.

Or just buy a BEMU fleet for southern.

Similar to @MarkyT, I think ALL EMUs should be BEMUs, just with some specced for an 'emergency' battery that isn't expected to need charging in normal service, and some specced for a proper traction power battery. The Emergency-only units would use the battery to bridge an isolation while an incident is still being dealt with or move into a position of safety in the event of REC or isolation leaving them out of a platform. It would come into it's own in a range of situations, such as trespassers or OLE damage as well as on 3rd rail lines.

 

[al78]

Barnham - Horsham is 4tph, 2 fast 2 slow - for a rural setting with only small towns that's a Swiss-level frequency.

Isn't that because Barnham is at a junction where trains going too/from Bognor and Portsmouth/Southampton stop there with the addition of a split at Horsham.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree with most of your ideas, but I can't see how you get far into either Hailsham or Southwater (because of extensive housebuilding) to make a rail reopening worthwhile.

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).

 

[MarkyT]

I think ALL EMUs should be BEMUs, just with some specced for an 'emergency' battery that isn't expected to need charging in normal service, and some specced for a proper traction power battery. The Emergency-only units would use the battery to bridge an isolation while an incident is still being dealt with or move into a position of safety in the event of REC or isolation leaving them out of a platform. It would come into it's own in a range of situations, such as trespassers or OLE damage as well as on 3rd rail lines.

Might have allowed at least some service to continue in the Ramsgate area during the major power failure there recently.

 

[mr_jrt]

My pet project would be to reopen East Grinstead to Hayward's Heath, but grade separate Copyhold Junction and run four tracks down to HH (kind of already there), quad track through to a grade-separated Keymer Junction (short tunnel and short viaduct being the only real obstacles), then combine the East Grinstead and Eastbourne services. In an ideal world it might be better for the service to run more quickly direct via Sheffield Park, but by diverting via Haywards Heath you at least maintain a good interchange with the Brighton main line for easy access to those major destinations, and it isn't that much slower than direct would be.

 

[zwk500]

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.

Yes, there are multiple houses in the way of the future alignment, especially once you allow for the construction width required. And Porters Way, Station Road/B2247 would both need Severing, level crossings, or bridging.

To get out of Polegate you are looking at an entirely new alignment to the west of the A27, which will require bridging the A22 at some point.

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.

Nope, the Cuckoo trail simply diverts up the path and the entire development of Lindfield Drive is on the trackbed. And the A295 is way too low for a rail bridge.

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).

Generally, old branch lines give far better value to the public path as cycle paths than as rail lines.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My pet project would be to reopen East Grinstead to Hayward's Heath, but grade separate Copyhold Junction and run four tracks down to HH (kind of already there), quad track through to a grade-separated Keymer Junction (short tunnel and short viaduct being the only real obstacles), then combine the East Grinstead and Eastbourne services. In an ideal world it might be better for the service to run more quickly direct via Sheffield Park, but by diverting via Haywards Heath you at least maintain a good interchange with the Brighton main line for easy access to those major destinations, and it isn't that much slower than direct would be.

I have to admit to some puzzlement at why you would want to prioritise East Grinstead to Haywards Heath (which a couple of people have expressed preferences for, not just you). Why?

I mean, opening from East Grinstead to Three Bridges would give you all the same connectivity from East Grinstead line stations to the South/Brighton (just with a change at Three Bridges). It's a shorter route (so might well be cheaper to re-open, and doesn't involve potentially destroying an existing heritage railway). And compared to the Ardingly route, it gives the additional benefits of serving a much more obvious commuter route (East Grinstead to Three Bridges/Crawley), opens up rail access to Gatwick Airport from the East, and allows for a new station at Crawley Down that serves a much bigger community than anything on the Ardingly route. Why would you (re)open the longer, less useful, route in preference to the shorter, more useful one?

 

[zwk500]

I have to admit to some puzzlement at why you would want to prioritise East Grinstead to Haywards Heath (which a couple of people have expressed preferences for, not just you). Why?

Presumably because the intention is to reopen closed lines, not to actually serve the public transport demand. EG-HHE is superficially the easiest as there's already track down for much of it.

I mean, opening from East Grinstead to Three Bridges would give you all the same connectivity from East Grinstead line stations to the South/Brighton (just with a change at Three Bridges). It's a shorter route (so might well be cheaper to re-open, and doesn't involve potentially destroying an existing heritage railway). And compared to the Ardingly route, it gives the additional benefits of serving a much more obvious commuter route (East Grinstead to Three Bridges/Crawley), opens up rail access to Gatwick Airport from the East, and allows for a new station at Crawley Down that serves a much bigger community than anything on the Ardingly route. Why would you (re)open the longer, less useful, route in preference to the shorter, more useful one?

I just can't see Fast Line capacity to Three Bridges being given up to such a branch line service as this. Personally, Three Bridges - East Grinstead would look to me to be a good place to trial some of the VLR technology. Run a short train from a bay at Three Bridges to EG Station car park, the unit(s) could be maintained at Three Bridges (would only need connections to the sidings for occasional use), and 750V DC tram OLE could be provided from both ends to charge the battery for the middle section. It's about 7 miles from Three Bridges to EG, so allowing for a 10min runtime each way (60mph speed, plus stop at Crawley Down), you would still have turnround for a half-hourly service with a single unit.

If a bypass is built or an solution is found to sharing/bridging Beeching Way, the VLR could then be extended to Forest Row at a later date.

 

[stevieinselby]

I have to admit to some puzzlement at why you would want to prioritise East Grinstead to Haywards Heath (which a couple of people have expressed preferences for, not just you). Why?

My guess would be that it looks more viable.

Reopening East Grinstead to Haywards Heath would allow trains to run through from London, much of the track is still in place, and where it isn't the trackbed looks to be unobstructed.

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. But also, the trackbed through Crawley Down has been extensively built over and so the old surface route couldn't be reinstated. Diverting around the village would be difficult and disruptive, so the only option would be to dive down and tunnel underneath it, which would be very expensive for a relatively low volume branch line. So while the route to Three Bridges might be better if it was a viable option, realistically I don't think it is.

 

[NCT]

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.