Uckfield Line Platforms extended to hold 10 cars...

Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by physics34, 18 Feb 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. physics34

    physics34 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2013
    We know plans are afoot, but apparently Uckfield station's platform extensionhas hit a snag....

    http://uckfieldnews.com/uckfield-rail-platform-extension-plan-hits-snag/

    The previous article and info about the work needed to get materials to the work site is here..

    http://uckfieldnews.com/uckfield-rail-platform-extension-work-looms/

    I honestly cant see why they need to do this and need all this access just to extend the platform by 48 metres??
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 18 Feb 2015
  2. Registered users do not see these banners - join or log in today!

    Rail Forums

     
  3. Chrisgr31

    Chrisgr31 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,560
    Joined:
    2 Aug 2011
    The Wealden Town Councila are an odd lot. Crowborough Town Council have just agreed to increase their part of the Council Tax bill by 18% whilst you have Uckfield doing their best to prevent Network Rail taking action to inprove the overcrowding on the Uckfield Line which they are usually the first to complain about!

    I assume the issue is that the station itelf has very limited frontage to a road. The line is at right angles to the road (there used to be a level crossing) and the line is single track at this point. Its possible that the platform itself is built on the old down line with the up line in use. Therefore all the construction kit, materials etc would have to come down either the line, or the platform.

    To compound the issue immediatley behind the platform is the River Uck, so I wouldnt be surprised if the platform foundations need piling, which needs heavy plant.

    Its jardly as if a nature reserve in Uckfield is really needed. Its a small town surrounded by countryside, with Ashdown Forest only a few miles away!

    I really cannot believe the town council are being so difficult.
     
  4. physics34

    physics34 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2013
    Exactly, the duck comment made me chuckle too.

    Its odd that councillors often try to stop things that will improve transport etc, whilst bleeting on about the environment etc etc...

    Not only are these people only a few years away from death (excuse me if that sounds out of order but i hope you get my point), they probably drive 6litre 4x4s everywhere pumping fumes into the air.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    yeh i can see there being limited access from the road to the platform for heavy plant..... i dont want to sound simple, but id have thought extending a platform, simply, would just mean making a few foundations for the "pillars" and then laying concrete slabs (by crane maybe...they could do this by rail??) or metal beaming, which has been used in several platform extension projects in the southern area.

    Dont see the need for big building equipment.

    The issue might be, as you said, the River Uck being so close.
     
    Last edited: 18 Feb 2015
  5. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    22,071
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    Network Rail really need a special train that can do piled foundations during overnight possessions, it could even carry its own concrete batching plant and have all sorts of cranes and stuff for lifting pre-fabricated platform sections straight onto previously prepared sites.

    They could call it the High Output Platform System, or HOPS.

    I know it all sounds a bit far fetched though... :D
     
  6. physics34

    physics34 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2013
    i just dont remember seeing heavy plant requirement when doing other platforms expensions, especially the ones which are just metal beams bolted together.
     
  7. steamybrian

    steamybrian Member

    Messages:
    1,084
    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Location:
    Kent
    Personally I do not see the need for the temporary access road for the platform extension.
    No-one has mentioned that the site is on a flood plain which has flooded frequently in recent years.
    No-one has mentioned that a temporary access road was not required when the platform was built around 1990-1991.
    I agree with "swt-passenger" that it could be done overnight with a special train.
     
  8. deltic08

    deltic08 On Moderation

    Messages:
    2,466
    Joined:
    26 Aug 2013
    Location:
    Ripon
    Or just sod them all in Uckfield and let them have overcrowding. There is more in life to worry about than nesting ducks.
     
  9. 21C101

    21C101 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,177
    Joined:
    19 Jul 2014
    Perfectly good station on the other side of the High St that could be 10 cars no problem......
     
  10. talldave

    talldave Established Member

    Messages:
    1,441
    Joined:
    24 Jan 2013
    You can't help thinking that the railway provides the best means of access?!

    However, the platform extensions at Littlehaven seemed to take shape with all access being by wheelbarrow from the adjacent road - so surely it is possible to do it in a low-key way?
     
  11. Chrisgr31

    Chrisgr31 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,560
    Joined:
    2 Aug 2011
    I suspect the difference with the existing platform is that it was built whilst the old station was still in use. The platform extensions will have to be done whilst the existing platforms are in use so I suspect there is an issue with access along the platform.
     
  12. yorksrob

    yorksrob Veteran Member

    Messages:
    22,185
    Joined:
    6 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Yorks
    Quite.

    Isn't the long term plan to re-site the station to it's original site anyway ?

    That said, I'm not convinced that they need a huge access road and building site to build the platform extension. Perhaps plant and materials could be moved to the site via the platform at night after the end of services ?
     
  13. 3141

    3141 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,475
    Joined:
    1 Apr 2012
    Location:
    Overton, Hampshire
    I like the bit in the original quote that "The amount of money talked about is woefully inadequate,” he said. Presumably this refers to Network Rail's offer to pay £5,000 to be spent on the nature reserve or similar areas. Apparently, if NR offered a sufficiently larger amount, their anxieties about the nature reserve would disappear. Which suggests it is not the nature reserve that matters to them but how much money they can get for allowing NR access over it.
     
  14. Bald Rick

    Bald Rick Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,328
    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Only if the line south is reopened. So no.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    Spot on.

    Dear council. Do you want your platform extensions over a year early AND you get £5k? No? Ok we'll stick with the original plan for 2017 then...
     
  15. DynamicSpirit

    DynamicSpirit Established Member

    Messages:
    4,426
    Joined:
    12 Apr 2012
    Umm, Uckfield is at the end of the line. I suspect the people who would suffer most from the overcrowding (at least in the am peak) would be the people who get on the train nearer to London, not the people who live in Uckfield!
     
  16. Chrisgr31

    Chrisgr31 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,560
    Joined:
    2 Aug 2011
    On the journey north its not a problem, well other than on some trains a lot of people catch the train down to Uckfield first to ensure they have their preferred seat back!

    However on the journey south they'll be standing the longest!
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    LOL not a believer in reopening the line to Lewes then! :D (not saying you are wrong btw)
     
  17. tsr

    tsr Established Member

    Messages:
    7,401
    Joined:
    15 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Between the parallel lines
    I believe there are precedents on other parts of the network for SDO being used at terminal stations (and indeed this already happens with 4-car Oxted-Uckfield shuttles at Oxted Pl. 3). So it's a pity there can't be any way of finding a shorter and simpler way of extending the platform to reduce access needs, etc.

    All this should hopefully really mean for passengers is that they could not travel in a wheelchair in the London-end coach.
     
  18. ushawk

    ushawk Established Member

    Messages:
    1,965
    Joined:
    5 Nov 2010
    Location:
    Eastbourne
    Probably not, since a car park is currently being built on that site. That and since there currently isnt (and probably wont be for a while) plans to extend South - its pointless it being on the other side of the road. The traffic congestion it would cause would be horrific.

    Network Rail should just simply say "Alright, we wont bother then".
     
  19. physics34

    physics34 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2013
    I couldnt believe it when i saw this the other day. Mainly tends to be the 06.30ish from uckfield. People at crowborough and buxted for london get on the train on the way down!!!!!
     
  20. paul1609

    paul1609 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,763
    Joined:
    28 Jan 2006
    Location:
    Wittersham Kent
    "We will shortly be arriving at London Charing Cross where this train terminates, would passengers please note that you cannot alight from the rear coach as this station has a short platform"
     
  21. tsr

    tsr Established Member

    Messages:
    7,401
    Joined:
    15 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Between the parallel lines
    A few conductors don't especially like it - but, to put it bluntly, it's better to remain on the side of regular passengers to enable better mutual respect during disruptions and suchlike, so it is unofficially allowed by many.

    That would be a bit harder, obviously! Uckfield might be a better location for this as the rear coach of any train on arrival tends to be emptier (apart from First Class, on occasion), there is no starting signal to have to deal with, and there's already an approved method of terminus SDO operation used each weekday at Oxted which could be put in place elsewhere.

    If local councils et al continue to be obstructive, it may only be possible to commit to a very short extension, and an extra coach may be the limit. Eight coaches fit comfortably so you'd have to extend over the existing platform end and then just a little further. With a weekend possession between Uckfield and Crowborough or even (if there could be a safe system of work agreed) Buxted, I'd hope there would be relatively few materials needed and they could be transported from the station car park and then manually (perhaps using trolleys?) down the railway line. Then foundations would be the only worry, and even then I am sure there must be rail-based plant somewhere which could be brought down from the nearest occupational crossing or access point (there's a fairly decent one at Crowborough, if Crowborough Tunnel and viaducts permit) for a small structure such as 20m worth of raised pedestrian walkway, which is effectively what the new part of the platform would be.
     
    Last edited: 19 Feb 2015
  22. physics34

    physics34 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2013
    And it must add 20-30 mins on top of these people journeys. Maybe not so bad i suppose if they want a table so they can look through emails or do other work i guess.
     
  23. Chrisgr31

    Chrisgr31 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,560
    Joined:
    2 Aug 2011
    Conductors may not like it but there is a question as to what loss has been suffered. The reason being the season ticket to London is the same price from Uckfield as it is Crowborough and Eridge and possibly the whole way up to Edenbridge. Many people actually have their tickets stating that their start point is Uckfield.

    I usually board at Crowborough but the only time I go to Uckfield first is if I am there in time for the 7.13 to Uckfield, and I am aware that the 7.18 up train is either cancelled or only 4 carriages. By going down I know I will get a seat on the way back!
     
  24. physics34

    physics34 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2013
    It depends whether the conductor is a jobsworth or new i suppose. To be there is nothing wrong with it at that time of day.
     
  25. hassaanhc

    hassaanhc Established Member

    Messages:
    2,190
    Joined:
    5 Jan 2014
    Location:
    Southall
    If their season ticket does not cover Uckfield, then the guard is well within their rights to charge them.
     
  26. physics34

    physics34 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2013
    i think with the poor quality of the service down there recently i think its fair to waiver this.
     
  27. tsr

    tsr Established Member

    Messages:
    7,401
    Joined:
    15 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Between the parallel lines
    If the ticket covers the full journey that is fine. I have not heard of anyone being charged extra anyway.

    New conductors usually get to hear about this and everyone makes their own decisions. It's unlikely that anyone would want to wind up commuters by making them pay up, and also early turn Selhurst conductors really do start early and may only be bothered with actually staying alert for dispatch and selling tickets only to those who more urgently need them!

    Maybe so, and they may be a bit annoyed with people taking seats in the "wrong direction", but the fact of the matter is that I haven't heard of this being done and I doubt most would. Not that I endorse it if a valid ticket isn't held.

    Indeed, hence what I tried to say earlier - in that it is better to keep commuters on side and not get distracted by whether or not someone is, at the end of the day, perhaps paying a tiny bit less than they should, but at the same time happier.
     
  28. paul1609

    paul1609 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,763
    Joined:
    28 Jan 2006
    Location:
    Wittersham Kent
    I was trying to demonstrate the precedent. Charing Cross can only accommodate 11 CARs on 12 car trains
     
  29. RichardN

    RichardN Member

    Messages:
    430
    Joined:
    29 Nov 2013
    The trains don't have inter unit connections, so if they run a 4-4-2 somebody sitting in the 2 couldn't walk down to get off. I suppose you could cover this with operating instructions not to use a 2 coach unit at the up end.
     
  30. physics34

    physics34 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,101
    Joined:
    1 Dec 2013
  31. Chrisgr31

    Chrisgr31 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,560
    Joined:
    2 Aug 2011
    I went down to Uckfield the other day due to some issue with the trains, and tried to look at the platform extension options. The issue I suspect is the River, unless they come through Waitrose and the "Nature Reserve" then they will have to come across the river. I also suspect it might be the river that causes the time delay, to ensure the platform doesnt fall in it!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page