Proposals for Uckfield Line Electrification following Gibb Report

[hwl]

Their profile does not fit in oxted, neither does and mk3 based stock

As an educated guess - The sharpish reverse curves are probably a big part of the reason

 

[Sig01]

......

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe the signalling could be another hurdle. The type of track circuit changes as the line ducks under the redhill-tonbridge's due to the D.C traction interfering with the non electrified Uckfield lines.
Not sure on signalling vs electrification costs mind..

Well they're both quite expensive.

But then again, NSE seemed to manage third rail electrification during the 'dark days' of BR, so perhaps not so much.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure I understand the question you finish with. I hate to think how much the platform extensions cost. Today's railway seems to fall into the 'Stick an extra zero on the bill" category.

Benefits of redoubling? Put it this way - a single line sectioned railway is half a railway twice as likely to go wrong. Electrification benefit? Is it not a benefit to integrate a busy commuter railway into a predominantly 3rd rail network thus doing away with the need for route specific trains thus releasing diesels to lines that need them? Neither of these jobs are difficult and if there is more hands on project management by NR, costs will hopefully fall.

Platform extensions? Well I would have put them 3rd in the list of priorities. A longer platform accomodates longer trains and you can't walk through a 10 car 171 and the extension cuts out the need for selective door opening.

Putting it simply:

Platform extensions cost (from memory) around £15-20m. And enabled an immediate beenfit to passengers in the form of longer trains, ie passengers had a much better chance of a seat indeed a much better chance of actually getting on the train.

Redoubling and electrification, by themselves, offer little benefit to passengers. As capacity on the network is limited through Croydon and into London, doubling would not offer any additional trains. It would offer a small performance benefit, but that is at the margins. Meanwhile electrification would offer many benefits to the rail companies (lower maintanence costs, lower fuel costs) but little benefit to passengers. Unless of course the platforms were extended. And the cost of redoubling and electrification would easily be £200m.

So, spend £20m on something that provides noticeable benefit to passengers, or 10 times as much on something that, frankly, doesn't.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Putting it simply:

Platform extensions cost (from memory) around £15-20m. And enabled an immediate beenfit to passengers in the form of longer trains, ie passengers had a much better chance of a seat indeed a much better chance of actually getting on the train.

Redoubling and electrification, by themselves, offer little benefit to passengers. As capacity on the network is limited through Croydon and into London, doubling would not offer any additional trains. It would offer a small performance benefit, but that is at the margins. Meanwhile electrification would offer many benefits to the rail companies (lower maintanence costs, lower fuel costs) but little benefit to passengers. Unless of course the platforms were extended. And the cost of redoubling and electrification would easily be £200m.

So, spend £20m on something that provides noticeable benefit to passengers, or 10 times as much on something that, frankly, doesn't.

Do you know what the impact on journey times would have been?

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you know what the impact on journey times would have been?

Nothing north of Hurst Green (the timetable is tight). Maybe 2-3 minutes total from Hurst Green to Uckfield. More if the electric trains were DOO as dwells could be shorter, but I don't want to open the door to that debate! (Pun intended).

 

[HSTEd]

Well they're both quite expensive.

But then again, NSE seemed to manage third rail electrification during the 'dark days' of BR, so perhaps not so much.

A lot of late BR schemes (especially Weymouth) appear to have been cobbled together largely with existing manpower and plant equipment.

And the only new rolling stock items purchased were the Mark 3 bodyshells/interiors (in the Weymouth case).
And in some cases (Merseyrail) appear to have ad no new rolling stock purchased at all.

Can't do anything like that in the 'modern' railway.

 

[yorksrob]

A lot of late BR schemes (especially Weymouth) appear to have been cobbled together largely with existing manpower and plant equipment.

And the only new rolling stock items purchased were the Mark 3 bodyshells/interiors (in the Weymouth case).
And in some cases (Merseyrail) appear to have ad no new rolling stock purchased at all.

Can't do anything like that in the 'modern' railway.

Oh yes, cascades drove the electrification schemes of NSE. But we have cascades now as well.

 

[nomis1066]

A subtle hint:
the the first pair of questions lead to a good BCR and fairly low cost, the second pair of questions lead to an abysmal BCR and high cost.

Hence why the platform extensions were the first on the list.

And BCR formulae are notably unreliable. How many times is that proved wrong when - for example- a reopening scheme actually makes it past the No can do desk and passenger useage far exceeds what is predicted?

High costs? How much of that can go down to poor project management? How much of that is the railway allowing itself to be taken to the cleaners?

There are three pockets of diesel operation in the South - two routes are well used, one of them very much so (Reading Gatwick) and Marshlink is a busy through service on it's day. If the levels of useage on these routes doesn't warrant a few miles of 3rd rail and the requisite sub stations with the obvious benefits of integrated fleet operating then all those new platform ends will do is show up the inadequacies of the Uckfield line which will see patronage on a hugely increased scale if (when!) the link to the Sussex coast is restored as part of BML2.

If this BCR formula is to be believed then BR were clearly wrong to electrify the routes it did?

 

[nomis1066]

Re earlier posts about mooted costs of platform extensions etc on the Uckfield line.....£20 million or so just to extend platforms, up to £200 million to electrify and restore to twin track? Really? 30 years have passed - but BR electrified Hastings Tonbridge with associated infrastructure work for around £25 million. I hate to think how much NR would pay for that today.

My comments re the passenger benefits of electrification and redoubling the Uckfield line are questioned. Well, if a busy well used railway doesnt justify investment like this - what does? Specifically - redoubling offers obvious passenger benefits in the form of a far more reliable service. And they would benefit from trains having access to more London destinations than they currently do. Like East Grinstead line passengers do.

 

[yorksrob]

Putting it simply:

Platform extensions cost (from memory) around £15-20m. And enabled an immediate beenfit to passengers in the form of longer trains, ie passengers had a much better chance of a seat indeed a much better chance of actually getting on the train.

Redoubling and electrification, by themselves, offer little benefit to passengers. As capacity on the network is limited through Croydon and into London, doubling would not offer any additional trains. It would offer a small performance benefit, but that is at the margins. Meanwhile electrification would offer many benefits to the rail companies (lower maintanence costs, lower fuel costs) but little benefit to passengers. Unless of course the platforms were extended. And the cost of redoubling and electrification would easily be £200m.

So, spend £20m on something that provides noticeable benefit to passengers, or 10 times as much on something that, frankly, doesn't.

Now that EMU's are apparently available like candy from a sweet shop, electrification would at least allow DMU's to be cascaded to strengthen the Ashford - Brighton service.

Of course, if you wanted to offer a step-change in the service to passengers, you could provide them with a whole range of destinations to the South (and the 2008 study even concluded that such a reinstatement could cover it's own revenue costs).

 

[rob w]

As an educated guess - The sharpish reverse curves are probably a big part of the reason

Yup they are pretty sharp basedon this pic: https://500px.com/photo/116554929/oxted-tunnel-1-by-adrian-backshall

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Yup they are pretty sharp basedon this pic: https://500px.com/photo/116554929/oxted-tunnel-1-by-adrian-backshall

How many trains per hour pass through there? Would it be low enough to make singling the track through the tunnel, to allow a more types of train? Where is that approx on Google Earth? Looking at the track south of Oxted it doesn't seem that sharp. Would it cost tens of millions or hundreds of millions to alter the tunnel itself?

 

[Bald Rick]

Re earlier posts about mooted costs of platform extensions etc on the Uckfield line.....£20 million or so just to extend platforms, up to £200 million to electrify and restore to twin track? Really? 30 years have passed - but BR electrified Hastings Tonbridge with associated infrastructure work for around £25 million. I hate to think how much NR would pay for that today.

Ah, good old BR days, when cost accounting was a little, shall we say, adventurous.

 

[mr_jrt]

How many trains per hour pass through there? Would it be low enough to make singling the track through the tunnel, to allow a more types of train? Where is that approx on Google Earth? Looking at the track south of Oxted it doesn't seem that sharp. Would it cost tens of millions or hundreds of millions to alter the tunnel itself?

£BIGNUMBER

...does anyone know why it was built in such a manner in the first place? I can't imagine you'd do something like that unless you had to.

 

[rob w]

How many trains per hour pass through there? Would it be low enough to make singling the track through the tunnel, to allow a more types of train? Where is that approx on Google Earth? Looking at the track south of Oxted it doesn't seem that sharp. Would it cost tens of millions or hundreds of millions to alter the tunnel itself?

The northern part of the tunnel

 

[Thebaz]

£BIGNUMBER

...does anyone know why it was built in such a manner in the first place? I can't imagine you'd do something like that unless you had to.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Oxted tunnel is a rebore. The original tunnel wasn't finished due to serious geological issues or something like that. So geology is likely to have played a major role in how the tunnel was re-bored. Either that or Victorian surveyors were crap.

Anyway I suspect someone will confirm/correct me!

 

[HSTEd]

Ah, good old BR days, when cost accounting was a little, shall we say, adventurous.

Eh, cost accounting in an integrated enterprise like BR is less important.

It doesn't really matter where precisely the resources are accounted for if each requirement is necessary to the operation of the whole.

The track gang that would be sitting in the messroom between jobs being out doing overtime laying third rail to Weymouth is still paid for largely by the renewals budget.

 

[fgwrich]

As for rolling stock issues, surely Southern could use Electrostars down there in the event of electrification with either power source? Be it 387s or even a swap for some of SEs never touched the AC 375s?

 

[tsr]

How many trains per hour pass through there? Would it be low enough to make singling the track through the tunnel, to allow a more types of train? Where is that approx on Google Earth? Looking at the track south of Oxted it doesn't seem that sharp. Would it cost tens of millions or hundreds of millions to alter the tunnel itself?

You could never single-track Oxted Tunnel. Indeed, one of my major bugbears about the Gibb report (more to be revealed in the next instalment) is that he has completely underestimated the sheer chaos which can be caused by the single-line sections of the Uckfield Line after it diverges at Hurst Green Junction. Adding the regulatory nightmare of a single line in Oxted Tunnel would be bonkers. It would, in fact, be preferable to enhance the signalling rather than reduce routes. The route between South Croydon and Hurst Green might benefit more from better crossover layouts and bi-directional signalling than the BML has benefited from any of its schemes, especially if the line is ever re-extended to other destinations.

Weekday service frequencies as follows:
Northbound: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...17/07/11/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
Southbound: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...17/07/11/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Be aware the track to the south of the Tunnel is unusually straight for the area, and does not in any way reflect the line of route further north. Oxted Tunnel is so tight that you can only see the signal at the end, on the Down Line, within a few hundred yards of the portal, with no repeaters or other visual cues, therefore also causing performance issues as Uckfield Line services receive a single yellow at the signal at the north end, then crawl through the latter half of the tunnel, only to receive a green when they exit.

The northern part of the tunnel

The tunnel wall on the Down East Grinstead is actually closest at one of the last curves at the south end. It is not too hard to hear this on a diesel unit, especially if a hopper window has been opened.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Oxted tunnel is a rebore. The original tunnel wasn't finished due to serious geological issues or something like that. So geology is likely to have played a major role in how the tunnel was re-bored. Either that or Victorian surveyors were crap.

Anyway I suspect someone will confirm/correct me!

You're basically correct. It was something of a project of several parts, by accident of history vice intention. The design was modified to make it shorter (originally Marden Cutting, beyond the north portal, was meant to be in tunnel too, apparently), then partly dug, and then finished some time later, with a rebore through a section which was deemed less than ideal. To make matters more complicated, there are also hidden rooms and shafts in the vicinity of the tunnel, according to my esteemed colleagues who have worked on it.

 

[JohnElliott]

You're basically correct. It was something of a project of several parts, by accident of history vice intention. The design was modified to make it shorter (originally Marden Cutting, beyond the north portal, was meant to be in tunnel too, apparently), then partly dug, and then finished some time later, with a rebore through a section which was deemed less than ideal. To make matters more complicated, there are also hidden rooms and shafts in the vicinity of the tunnel, according to my esteemed colleagues who have worked on it.

This site has pictures of the interior, including one of the rooms.

 

[tsr]

This site has pictures of the interior, including one of the rooms.

I knew there'd be some photos out there! I've been through that tunnel approximately a billion times but I've never had the chance to go in one of those rooms. One day...

 

[nomis1066]

Ah, good old BR days, when cost accounting was a little, shall we say, adventurous.

Meaning?

 

[Bald Rick]

Meaning?

Meaning that whole tracts of cost were not accounted to the project. Design? In corporate overhead costs. Engineering trains? Same. Often the gangers doing the work were costed to the local renewals / maintenance budget. Lost revenue? A reduction on the income line.

All of which means that a cost reported of, say, £25m in 1987 is very unlikely to have been the actual cost of the project. This suited BR very well, as it enabled more projects to be put through the DfTs rules on investment. Back then, any project over £2m required Secretary of State approval, and would only get that approval if it generated a cash return on investment of 8% or more. Socioeconomic and environmental benefits could not be counted. I know of some junction renewal projects where the cost reported was basically the cost of the materials; everything else was accounted for in operating budgets or overheads.

Also back then, DfT involvement in the detail of running the railway was almost non-existent. BR had cash targets to meet, but these were basically based on the previous year. There was a huge corporate overhead, which covered al sorts of stuff that should have been allocated to projects, but wasn't.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Now that EMU's are apparently available like candy from a sweet shop, electrification would at least allow DMU's to be cascaded to strengthen the Ashford - Brighton service.

Surely it would be sweets from a sweet shop?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Redoubling and electrification, by themselves, offer little benefit to passengers. As capacity on the network is limited through Croydon and into London, doubling would not offer any additional trains. It would offer a small performance benefit, but that is at the margins. Meanwhile electrification would offer many benefits to the rail companies (lower maintanence costs, lower fuel costs) but little benefit to passengers. Unless of course the platforms were extended. And the cost of redoubling and electrification would easily be £200m.

So, spend £20m on something that provides noticeable benefit to passengers, or 10 times as much on something that, frankly, doesn't.

I think there is a lot of truth in that, but from what I saw of the Gibbs report, there did seem to be some passenger benefits from electrification. Most obviously, the report suggests it would allow trains to run that split at Oxted/Hurst Green into East Grinstead and Uckfield portions. That implies fewer short trains running through East Croydon, so slightly more passenger capacity nearer to London.

He also pointed out the operational benefits: Right now a train arriving at London Bridge from Uckfield cannot go anywhere except back to Uckfield - in contrast to most trains, which - if required - can form any of lots of different services. I would've thought the increased flexibility from removing that constraint would benefit passengers - especially in times of disruption.

Plus, electrification would release some high quality DMUs to be used elsewhere in the network - which in view of the DMU shortage - will benefit passengers somewhere else!

And of course, presumably, any money saved by the TOC from electrification ought to eventually lead to improved services, or more revenue for the DtT when the next franchise comes up (which at least benefits the taxpayer).

 

[D6975]

As for rolling stock issues, surely Southern could use Electrostars down there in the event of electrification with either power source? Be it 387s or even a swap for some of SEs never touched the AC 375s?

Dual voltage stock shouldn't be a problem. Southern will be getting all the 377/2s back before too long (if not already). And then there's the 377/5s, what's happening to them?

 

[nomis1066]

Meaning that whole tracts of cost were not accounted to the project. Design? In corporate overhead costs. Engineering trains? Same. Often the gangers doing the work were costed to the local renewals / maintenance budget. Lost revenue? A reduction on the income line.

All of which means that a cost reported of, say, £25m in 1987 is very unlikely to have been the actual cost of the project. This suited BR very well, as it enabled more projects to be put through the DfTs rules on investment. Back then, any project over £2m required Secretary of State approval, and would only get that approval if it generated a cash return on investment of 8% or more. Socioeconomic and environmental benefits could not be counted. I know of some junction renewal projects where the cost reported was basically the cost of the materials; everything else was accounted for in operating budgets or overheads.

Also back then, DfT involvement in the detail of running the railway was almost non-existent. BR had cash targets to meet, but these were basically based on the previous year. There was a huge corporate overhead, which covered al sorts of stuff that should have been allocated to projects, but wasn't.

So Peter being robbed to pay Paul? I recall hearing that the Tunbridge Wells West - Eridge closure in 85 was a part exchange for electrification of Hastings - Tonbridge. Today's bits and pieces railway probably couldn't be so creative then. And today's costs are going off planet. BR did a decent job with what they had with the Hastings Tonbridge job and got it done on time.

 

[XDM]

Surely there is no need to single Oxted tunnel. The excellent Gibbs report advocates third rail onto the Uckfield branch well south of the tunnel & south of the Hurst Green stop. Changeover to 25 kv will be on the move several miles south of the tunnel. Mr Gibbs is well aware of the need to keep Oxted tunnel double & third rail.

 

[tbtc]

Tricky one.

I’m pro-electrification, especially when there’s a “diesel island” to sort out. You’d free many more DMU coaches (per mile of electrification) by wiring Uckfield than you would with pretty much any other scheme in the UK – due to the long formations and the fact that they spend so much time on Third Rail.

(Okay, you’ve have to then take those DMUs out of service for a couple of years whilst someone turned the couplers back to what they used to be - if Southern’s slow progress at converting 170s to 171s is anything to go by - but even still…)

You can then run from Uckfield to a choice of London destinations (rather than DMUs being restricted to certain platforms at London Bridge due to emissions and banned from Victoria), you can interwork them with other Southern services, you can use the stock more efficiently… it all sounds positive.

I suppose that the difference is that, on most lines electrification is that wiring a line is enough to give other benefits too. In blunt terms, a lot of the other schemes around the UK have seen electrification as the means to provide longer trains, newer trains, better acceleration, better frequency etc. So we look at the increased passenger numbers as proof that electrification works but some of the benefit comes from seeing knackered two coach trains replaced by more reliable four coach trains.

Given the “cold feet” that the industry has had about ordering new DMUs and the potential surplus of midlife EMUs, electrification has seemed the best way of achieving these kind of improvements elsewhere in the UK. It’s a one-step way of getting from thirty/forty metre 75mph DMU to an eighty metre 100mph EMU with better acceleration. It can solve a number of issues in one move.

But, the Uckfield line has seen extensions to ten coaches anyway to cope with demand (so “EMUs = longer trains” doesn’t work here). It’s had additional DMUs acquired for it (so not like electrification was the only option to get more seats). It’s all run by post-privatisation stock (unlike most of Southern). The 171s already have the joint-fastest top speed of any Southern stock (so speed benefits are marginal, rather than replacing a 142/150/156 with a 100mph EMU). There are no gaping gaps in the timetable that can only be filled by more stock (given the bottlenecks further north). So the marginal benefits of electrification are less significant here than they would be on some other routes (e.g. if you can replace a thirty metre 75mph Pacer in the Valleys with a mid-life 100mph EMU then you’ve got a quicker/ longer train that can accelerate better and deliver a faster more reliable timetable… but replacing a Turbostar with an Electrostar won’t give those improvements).

So, given the other schemes available around the UK, it starts to feel like less of a priority. Especially given the other schemes committed to that have stalled (MML, elements of the TPML and GWML). We’ve still got a long list of “things that were promised before now” without getting into the “nice to have” list.

There’s also the issue of what to do about Marsh Link… since the two can share resources at the moment but electrifying one without the other may leave a headache. D-trains? Bundle it to Uckfield electrification (in which case the costs go up a lot but with only a smaller marginal benefit)?

I’d still consider Uckfield a reasonable priority, I can think of a lot of lines that could do with the dozens of turbostar coaches it would cascade to other lines, I have no problem with electrifying a line in “the south” if it frees up lots of DMUs to benefit lines in “the north” that don’t have a great for electrification (e.g. hourly branches up here may not have a great case for wiring but could do with some post-privatisation 23m long DMU carriages).

However, whilst I’m not a big fan of the idea of making places pay directly for infrastructure improvements (since there’s not a level playing field of abilities to pay for things), any further investment (on a line that has seen new DMUs, extended platforms etc in recent years) may mean that the local fares are brought into line with the BML – which would be unpopular and potentially push more people off Uckfield stations towards already busy BML… but the idea of allowing cheaper fares on the branch is only really explainable on the basis that they see a second-class level of service compared to the main line. How do you get the passengers to accept a higher fare to pay for electrification when the service isn’t appreciably different (modern ten coach 100mph trains being replaced by modern ten coach 100mph trains)?

Talking of the BML, the idea that electrification to Uckfield justifies another rehash of reopening a line through the countryside to Lewes… please, not again – we’ve already had threads about SELRAP (Skipton – Colne), the Somerset & Dorset and the line from Tavistock to Okehampton in the past month… could we not spread out the wistful threads about re-opening scenic lines through relatively empty sections of the countryside out a bit?

If we’ve just spent millions extending Uckfield line stations to ten coach trains and passenger demand is keeping up with the supply of new seats then that suggests there’s not going to be a lot of scope for Lewes passengers to get seats too. And that’s before anyone focusses their attention away from the quaint quiet end of “BML2” and starts thinking about how to get beyond Croydon and whether it’s worth finding something north of the Thames for this scheme to connect to. Solution seeks problem, GSOH essential