What's the plausible diversion route? (We're getting off-topic mods, sorry!). The original approach route is impossible through the town centre, the BML2 tunnel is not a viable option financially and the Hamsey route ends up pointing to Eastbourne, requiring a reversal beyond the junction at Lewes.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Uckfield line to be electrified?
- Thread starter sussexbythesea
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If you could make a business case for diversions to fund improvements the Arundel Chord must have a hugely better business case than Lewes to Uckfield. Its about 1/3 mile plus two junctions through fields. The Arun Valley line is already set up for 12 car operation and power supplies and provides multiple diversionary routes in to South London including Waterloo via the SWML avoiding bottlenecks like East Croydon. A semi fast diverted service via Three bridges, Arundel and the West Coastway to Brighton would actually be faster than via Uckfield and Lewes. Eastbourne would be faster via a reversal at Hastings.
Would need more power, and very little extra benefit - that diversion is worth nothing really, as you can’t easily get the trains there (capacity on the single line sections, and reversing beyond Lewes). Oh, and what @paul1609 said!
Peregrine 4903
Established Member
It sadly doesn't have much a business case either though as reversals are done easilly enough at Littlehampton for this move.
Plus adding 2 flat junctions into an area that already has 4 will be making things rather complicated. That or a chord at Lewes from a financial standpoint does make much more sense than Uckfield - Lewes as a diversionary route.
Redoubling the Uckfield Line and improving the headway between Hurst Green and South Croydon would be the only way to make it really useful, and I wouldn't want to know how much that would cost.
You won’t want to know how much electrification will be either then! (You’ll need a sit down).
Peregrine 4903
Established Member
And both combined!
Would make Windmill Bridge remodelling seem like being some sweets from poundland. Ok maybe not that bad, but you get the point!
I think you could easily discount a chord at Lewes: its geographically difficult (in a National Park) and a diversionary route that way doesn't offer any way of avoiding either the Ouse Viaduct or Balcombe Tunnel which are the BMLs no. 1 and 2 vulnerable structures.
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,586
Fair point!
Agree with the sentiment, but the #1 and #2 ‘vulnerable’ structures south of Three Bridges are Balcombe Tunnel and Clayton Tunnel. Ouse Viaduct is no trouble at all.
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,586
Seems so! Ouse Valley Viaduct is fine, the tunnels, even with works are still not in the best shape!
Vulnerable in the structural sense maybe but in the strategic sense how long would it take for the viaduct to be re-opened in the event of for instance a derailment that went through the parapets? Clayton Tunnel at least has the alternative of (admittedly awkward) diversions via Lewes.
The viaduct could be put right quicker than the tunnel, is less likely to be damaged in the first place and any damage that does occur is likely to be less serious than anything in the tunnel.
Strategic usefulness is not enough to justify a new line. Any business case for a second link between London and the East Sussex coast would be about the social & economic benefit to the Coast, Brighton, and the Weald that the additional connectivity would provide.
Also an Arundel Chord is similarly ineffective - you would probably get caught behind a Stopper, for one, and it would prevent the plans to improve the East-West and North-South Linespeeds, that are being talked about (very early stages).
See Page 7 of this document: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...ssex-Connectivity-Modular-Strategic-Study.pdf
You'll have to excuse my scepticism. I lived in Littlehampton when the Lancing re-signalling was carried out in 1986/7. One of the justification for years of disruption and RRBs was that the signalling spacing was going to be for 90 mph to improve journey times. Journeytimes have since lengthened. I now live on Marshlink 10 years ago we suffered months of closure and then disruptions for the Ore Tunnel rebuild that was going to include line speed increase to shorten journey times. Today the Doleham to Ore line limit is still 40 mph (down from 85mph in BR days).
Im not advocating the Arundel Chord by the way, Im just pointing out that any case for it must be a lot better than Lewes to Uckfield.
I share it!
this is often more impacted by service structure than linespeed.
Fair enough.
Has anyone actually calculated the efficiency of battery trains charging off 750 vdc? Ive been reading an article on the efficiency of cars where it suggested that the losses from the power station to 1ph 230 volts are 12% Then the losses of tranforming rectifying etc to the battery charge are on average a further 25 to 40%(in the case of one model it was nearly 60%). This would seem to mean that the overall battery train would need to draw a lot more current than a straight electric train.
Its been confirmed by Steve White of GTR that they are working on a business case for electrification of Uckfield line. Mind you doesn't mean it will happen! https://twitter.com/SteveWhiteRail/status/1384768750143033350?s=20
The press release is slightly optimistic, it's not confirmed. But all 3 parties are putting serious efforts into it.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 7,570
Excellent news, though not counting any chickens
No news about how they're going to electrify it, which is of course what everyone here is interested in
No news about how they're going to electrify it, which is of course what everyone here is interested in
greatvoyager
Established Member
Positive news they are working on a case for it, hope it comes to fruition.
Developing the business case will involve considering several options to make sure you've got the best value for money. There's only 2 viable systems in reality though.Excellent news, though not counting any chickens
No news about how they're going to electrify it, which is of course what everyone here is interested in
I appreciate that you probably can't expand on that, but I wonder if that's 2 viable electrification systems, or 2 viable "electric train" systems - ie is it third rail vs OLE, or third rail (presumably!) vs BEMU
Well it's sort of both meanings, but I was specifically meaning 3rd Rail or Battery for the Uckfield Line.
Some of us would argue that BEMUs arent a viable option. There is as far as I'm aware no BEMU service operating anywhere that charges off a dc 3rd rail system. The 750v dc system between South Croydon and Hurst Green doesnt have spare capacity for the battery units to charge anyway.
Doesn't mean they aren't viable full stop. However being viable as a concept is very different to being viable for a specific application considering things like time and performance pressures.
The charging could take place between South Croydon and London Bridge as well. The issue is more can the units do HG-HG one a single charge, as there is no plans for electrical equipment at Uckfield (sensibly, given the station is as close as you can get to the river without getting wet)
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 32,914
Somebody did suggest that, but without any evidence whatsoever. There’d be no normal requirement to link the power systems of units in multiple across a coupler, doesn’t happen with any other EMUs.
No, but there are Battery trams operating off 750v D.C. in this country, and there will be soon BEMUs running off the 750vDC in this country (Merseyside). The electrons don’t care (or even know) how they get into the train.
I think the issue is what happens when three 4 car bemus pull away from Hurst Green with their charging circuits trying to fast charge their nearly empty batteries from one 750 vdc third rail. Thats an awful lot of amps.
Power management software would deal with this - trains wouldn't draw full traction & charging power at the same time, they'd wait until they're coasting traction wise to pull power into the batteries. But the ins and outs of how it might work could well be irrelevant if they go with the other option.
Indeed but a West Midland tram trundling around pedestrian areas of birmingham isnt really in the same league, have any of the 777s actually had the mainline rather than the depot shunting batteries fitted yet?
The issue is that the trains wouldnt be able to recharge the batteries in a normal Hurst Green to London Bridge cycle.
When Southern did the calculations for Marshlink a train had to run from Ashford to Brighton then a short turn to Seaford and back to recover then back to Ashford. This is with only a 4 car unit. Peak turns on Uckfield line would be 10 to 12 cars. The limitation is the amount of power you can draw from the third rail. The amount of power you draw from the rail will actually be a lot more than you get at the rail because of conversion and heat losses.
Last edited:
- Status