Uckfield to Victoria - When and why did this route stop?

[Alteran Ancient]

I've become an infrequent traveller on the Uckfield line and wondered why the service only goes to London Bridge once an hour and that's it.

I also got thinking: Why only London Bridge? Surely there's nothing stopping the line from running to Victoria in addition to or instead of London Bridge?

I then found out that there was indeed a service to Victoria that stopped some time during the 2000s. Does anyone know the reasoning behind why this service was stopped?

I'd also be interested to hear if anyone knows about some interesting trivia regarding the line?

Thanks!

 

[swt_passenger]

The rolling stock change to 171s forced the move from Victoria, the exhaust ventilation in the covered platforms didn’t line up with the exhaust positions in the new stock.

Allegedly too costly to fix.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

I don't know but wondered if it was to keep diesels out of the shed at Victoria?

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

Ah you answered at the same time swt thank you for confirming.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

The rolling stock change to 171s forced the move from Victoria, the exhaust ventilation in the covered platforms didn’t line up with the exhaust positions in the new stock.

Allegedly too costly to fix.

This seems like a bit one of those "silly" problem to have. If you can't move the extractors, you could move the stop markers so the train is parked over the extractors whilst in the platform. Or at least, if something prevents London Bridge from being accessible in normal service, the 171s could use Platforms 6-7 at Victoria, which don't have the same issue of ventilation as 9-19 do.

The extractors do still work, because they were running when I was at Victoria on Sunday. You could hear the extractor motors all the way from the end of Platforms 1-2 and they make one hell of a racket!

 

[bramling]

This seems like a bit one of those "silly" problem to have. If you can't move the extractors, you could move the stop markers so the train is parked over the extractors whilst in the platform. Or at least, if something prevents London Bridge from being accessible in normal service, the 171s could use Platforms 6-7 at Victoria, which don't have the same issue of ventilation as 9-19 do.

The extractors do still work, because they were running when I was at Victoria on Sunday. You could hear the extractor motors all the way from the end of Platforms 1-2 and they make one hell of a racket!

I suspect it's not quite that simple, as the (23 metre) 171s have their exhausts laid out differently to the (20 metre) 205s/207s. Likewise there's not a massive amount of scope to vary the stopping position with a 10-car 171, which pretty much fills the platform berth equivalent to a 12-car EMU.

Having said that, the DEMUs didn't exactly run to a uniform configuration, with 2 and 3 car units which regularly turned so the motor car could be at either end. One wonders if the issue might be more that the exhaust on the DEMUs was in the centre of the roofline, whereas on the 171s it's more towards the side of the train? Just a thought.

As regards historic services to Victoria, by the end wasn't it only one with-flow 6-car DEMU to/from Victoria each peak? Apart from the one through service to each of London Bridge and Victoria in the peaks, and the odd positioning move from or to East Croydon, the rest of the Uckfield service was a solid Oxted-Uckfield shuttle.

 

[tsr]

You can run to Victoria but engines must be shut down immediately on arrival on any of Platforms 9-19. Diesel trains of many configurations have run into the enclosed Brighton Mainline platforms. It is, however, only done in the direst emergencies, not just to avoid exhaust issues and having to increase risk by restarting diesel engines on every round trip, but also to avoid congesting Victoria with excess trains. Uckfield Line crews are required to retain sufficient diversionary route knowledge to keep traffic flowing towards London Bridge for as long as possible during disruption.

There isn’t the demand to run trains to both termini, really, especially not off-peak (these trains are deadly quiet south of Oxted in the middle of the day). The system of changing trains at Oxted (with a Victoria service usually 3-4 mins behind) or East Croydon for Victoria is fairly effective. Having only one terminus in use keeps the north end of the route fairly simple, which is beneficial if you’re trying to get crews and stock in the right place during disruption.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suspect it's not quite that simple, as the (23 metre) 171s have their exhausts laid out differently to the (20 metre) 205s/207s. Likewise there's not a massive amount of scope to vary the stopping position with a 10-car 171, which pretty much fills the platform berth equivalent to a 12-car EMU.

I think the many permutations of 171 possible, eg 4+4+2 being different to 2+4+4 etc etc, would mean they’d need almost a continuous array of vent terminals all the way along. But the opportunity to get rid of DMUs may have been their preference anyway, the vent position was just the easy excuse.

 

[geoffk]

Solution - extend the live rail to Uckfield then, and you can have a Victoria service.

 

[Hophead]

You also run into the problem of running another train over the flat junction at Selhurst (unless it's proposed to replace an East Grinstead). In any case, a consistent East Grinstead - Victoria & Uckfield - London Bridge pair of routes makes for a service that is easier to understand and more resilient to disruption.

 

[Ianno87]

Solution - extend the live rail to Uckfield then, and you can have a Victoria service.

Only if you kick something else out of Victoria to provide the paths....

Though I do wonder if, at least off-peak, 2tph Victoria to East Grinstead & Uckfield splitting at Oxted, might be a better use of capacity than 2tph to each?

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Only if you kick something else out of Victoria to provide the paths....

Though I do wonder if, at least off-peak, 2tph Victoria to East Grinstead & Uckfield splitting at Oxted, might be a better use of capacity than 2tph to each?

That would be very logical. I often wonder why they did not electrify the Uckfield line when the did the East Grinstead Line. I do remember the old diesel trains units that ran on those routes, they seemed to make quite a sound.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

Solution - extend the live rail to Uckfield then, and you can have a Victoria service.

They've talked about doing this for a while. As we know, the powers that be don't like installing third rail now. They've decided that for the cost of energising 30 miles worth of third rail, they could just as easily erect the same distance of overhead gantries and cabling for 25kV, as you'd need an energiser for every mile of third rail vs a single energiser for the whole stretch of OHLE.

I really would like to see some kind of improvement to the line - there is demand for it, and Uckfield in particular is growing. Having electrification would enable better acceleration and make it easier to provide a more regular service.

 

[tsr]

Only if you kick something else out of Victoria to provide the paths....

Though I do wonder if, at least off-peak, 2tph Victoria to East Grinstead & Uckfield splitting at Oxted, might be a better use of capacity than 2tph to each?

But there are so many questions!
- Who is going to re-signal Oxted to allow permissive working on both Up and Down lines, instead of the halfway house, with just the Up line being permissively signalled at the moment? Is this to wait until Oxted is eventually re-controlled to (say) TBROC?
- Who is going employ enough staff to split and attach four trains each hour?
- How are the trains going to have their schedules and diagrams juggled? Oxted to East Grinstead is considerably shorter than Oxted to Uckfield. You will get the balance of units wrong somewhere.

They've talked about doing this for a while. As we know, the powers that be don't like installing third rail now. They've decided that for the cost of energising 30 miles worth of third rail, they could just as easily erect the same distance of overhead gantries and cabling for 25kV, as you'd need an energiser for every mile of third rail vs a single energiser for the whole stretch of OHLE.

I really would like to see some kind of improvement to the line - there is demand for it, and Uckfield in particular is growing. Having electrification would enable better acceleration and make it easier to provide a more regular service.

There’s barely enough demand for the current 8 and 10 coach diesel services. It’s only really north of Oxted that demand actually exists. To show how much demand there actually is on the Uckfield branch... the old 1908 Oxted to Uckfield shuttle (which ran up to May this year) used to be formed of 4 coaches and it was barely ever properly full. It connected with several peak time trains from both applicable London termini. There now isn’t even a train service in that path at all.

To some degree, you can argue that a fair amount of demand may be supressed by service reliability. This is mostly caused by Class 171 issues and the single line sections south of Hever Junction. The most sensible proposals would be to re-double Cowden and then Eridge. The single line from Greenhurst Junction to Uckfield is basically not a problem most of the time, but the other two bits are. Both projects would be a little tricky but by no means insurmountable. The overwhelming majority of the old trackbed exists, or is in other railway use.

The 171 units, when they work, are perfectly capable of the job they are intended to do, but they need to get a lot more TLC. Acceleration tends not to solve any problems as it simply means the trains catch up with stopping services more easily, which currently seems impossible to avoid anyway - the Oxted Lines were pretty much the only GTR routes without a major re-write in May, with the exception of peak time Thameslinks directly replacing the old Southern peak time London Bridge services, and a few changes to which peak hour paths to Uckfield were chosen for use with the stock available. The fasts catching up with stoppers was a problem too far for that project to stretch to. And the political appetite for stopping Uckfield trains at all shacks will be nil, so (perversely) those services will always end up stuck behind stopping trains at every red signal in suburbia... witness at least half of all southbound journeys from about Sanderstead to Woldingham. What you really need is more reliability with pathing out of Victoria, not to have everything bunching up because somebody thought it was a bright idea to hire in trains which are too quick for their own good.

One further note on electrification. The diesel island which is Uckfield was never originally an “island”, more like part of a sort of continental landmass, if you will. The Uckfield Line just happens to be the one bit which both didn’t succumb to the rising tide of rail closures and also didn’t really become a proper part of the Brighton Mainline branches. It really is a quirk of history, but unfortunately quirks of history do not always justify electrification!

 

[MatthewRead]

When did the last Uckfield service to Victoria run may I ask?

 

[Bald Rick]

The Victoria service stopped on the evening of 21/5/2004; I happened to be at Victoria en route to several beers having just lost my job and wondered why there were so many people with anoraks hanging around.

By all accounts more people on that route head for the city than the west end, so London Bridge is the right place.

 

[bramling]

But there are so many questions!
- Who is going to re-signal Oxted to allow permissive working on both Up and Down lines, instead of the halfway house, with just the Up line being permissively signalled at the moment? Is this to wait until Oxted is eventually re-controlled to (say) TBROC?
- Who is going employ enough staff to split and attach four trains each hour?
- How are the trains going to have their schedules and diagrams juggled? Oxted to East Grinstead is considerably shorter than Oxted to Uckfield. You will get the balance of units wrong somewhere.



There’s barely enough demand for the current 8 and 10 coach diesel services. It’s only really north of Oxted that demand actually exists. To show how much demand there actually is on the Uckfield branch... the old 1908 Oxted to Uckfield shuttle (which ran up to May this year) used to be formed of 4 coaches and it was barely ever properly full. It connected with several peak time trains from both applicable London termini. There now isn’t even a train service in that path at all.

To some degree, you can argue that a fair amount of demand may be supressed by service reliability. This is mostly caused by Class 171 issues and the single line sections south of Hever Junction. The most sensible proposals would be to re-double Cowden and then Eridge. The single line from Greenhurst Junction to Uckfield is basically not a problem most of the time, but the other two bits are. Both projects would be a little tricky but by no means insurmountable. The overwhelming majority of the old trackbed exists, or is in other railway use.

The 171 units, when they work, are perfectly capable of the job they are intended to do, but they need to get a lot more TLC. Acceleration tends not to solve any problems as it simply means the trains catch up with stopping services more easily, which currently seems impossible to avoid anyway - the Oxted Lines were pretty much the only GTR routes without a major re-write in May, with the exception of peak time Thameslinks directly replacing the old Southern peak time London Bridge services, and a few changes to which peak hour paths to Uckfield were chosen for use with the stock available. The fasts catching up with stoppers was a problem too far for that project to stretch to. And the political appetite for stopping Uckfield trains at all shacks will be nil, so (perversely) those services will always end up stuck behind stopping trains at every red signal in suburbia... witness at least half of all southbound journeys from about Sanderstead to Woldingham. What you really need is more reliability with pathing out of Victoria, not to have everything bunching up because somebody thought it was a bright idea to hire in trains which are too quick for their own good.

One further note on electrification. The diesel island which is Uckfield was never originally an “island”, more like part of a sort of continental landmass, if you will. The Uckfield Line just happens to be the one bit which both didn’t succumb to the rising tide of rail closures and also didn’t really become a proper part of the Brighton Mainline branches. It really is a quirk of history, but unfortunately quirks of history do not always justify electrification!

It does continue to surprise me that Uckfield doesn’t make a case
for electrification. A relatively short route, not massive electrical loads (albeit a little skewed towards the peak), and an opportunity to eliminate a diesel island right in the middle of a very intense suburban system.

No doubt part of the issue is planning blight. An AC system will be a problem because of the need to have two supply points for resilience - which is highly uneconomic for a short branch line. Then we run into the issue of whether a DC system would be acceptable. And finally there’s the complication of whether all or part of the line should be redoubled in the interest of performance for the wider area.

For sure it’s one of those things which “ought to be done”, but apparently the case isn’t there. One wonders if Ashford-Hastings was removed from the mix (for example going over to a High Speed service) whether the even smaller DMU island might improve the case slightly.

Are there any other complications to electrifying Uckfield beyond those I’ve mentioned?

 

[Bald Rick]

It does continue to surprise me that Uckfield doesn’t make a case
for electrification. A relatively short route, not massive electrical loads (albeit a little skewed towards the peak), and an opportunity to eliminate a diesel island right in the middle of a very intense suburban system.

No doubt part of the issue is planning blight. An AC system will be a problem because of the need to have two supply points for resilience - which is highly uneconomic for a short branch line. Then we run into the issue of whether a DC system would be acceptable. And finally there’s the complication of whether all or part of the line should be redoubled in the interest of performance for the wider area.

For sure it’s one of those things which “ought to be done”, but apparently the case isn’t there. One wonders if Ashford-Hastings was removed from the mix (for example going over to a High Speed service) whether the even smaller DMU island might improve the case slightly.

Are there any other complications to electrifying Uckfield beyond those I’ve mentioned?

The main issue is getting the juice to it. AIUI there isn’t enough in the local grid, so it needs a whole new connection. Battery hybrid EMUs trains will be the answer down here, I’d have a tenner on it for the next franchise.

 

[mmh]

Worth remembering that before the 171s Uckfield only had a limited direct London service - e.g. two peak hour trains southbound from London Bridge. I can't remember what the Victoria service was - was it any more?

Since the 171s it must count as one of the routes that's had one of the best, if not the best, improvements in service. Sadly it was for many years terrible at the north end with ludicrous levels of overcrowding with 2 and 4 car allocations and regular short forming.

Hopefully the extra units and platform lengthening have made that better. I can't imagine a 10x23m train being full south of Oxted, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Perhaps the line is a good example of suppressed demand.

 

[bramling]

The main issue is getting the juice to it. AIUI there isn’t enough in the local grid, so it needs a whole new connection. Battery hybrid EMUs trains will be the answer down here, I’d have a tenner on it for the next franchise.

Interesting - thanks for your insight. Is it right to say that this would be slightly less of a problem were a DC scheme being pursued, or doesn’t it make much difference?

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting - thanks for your insight. Is it right to say that this would be slightly less of a problem were a DC scheme being pursued, or doesn’t it make much difference?

Not much difference, it just needs x Megawatts from the grid, and that means a new connection. It doesn’t matter whether it comes out wavy or straight.

I think battery electric hybrids, perhaps with a short extension of the con rail for a mile down the branch from Hurst Green, which would not need any more juice or even a substation (and would surely get past the ORR) which enables acceleration from that stop on the juice. That leaves a 48 mile round trip, which is well within the range of battery hybrids coming to the market now. For belt and braces you might have a mile or two of con rail at the Uckfield end with one substation and no back up, which should be within capacity of the local grid there. That’s would give every train 20 mins or so to part charge at the country end of the round trip.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Not much difference, it just needs x Megawatts from the grid, and that means a new connection. It doesn’t matter whether it comes out wavy or straight.

I think battery electric hybrids, perhaps with a short extension of the con rail for a mile down the branch from Hurst Green, which would not need any more juice or even a substation (and would surely get past the ORR) which enables acceleration from that stop on the juice. That leaves a 48 mile round trip, which is well within the range of battery hybrids coming to the market now. For belt and braces you might have a mile or two of con rail at the Uckfield end with one substation and no back up, which should be within capacity of the local grid there. That’s would give every train 20 mins or so to part charge at the country end of the round trip.

That sounds a very good and not hopefully, too expensive.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s certainly much cheaper than electrification. Whether there is a case for it or not is a different matter. You’d still need a small sub fleet, but they would be cheaper to maintain and operate. The 37x fleet can be converted to BEMU, apparently, so a small sub fleet of those would do the trick.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

The issue with the 171s right now is that they're not the most reliable units - there was a gap in service on Tuesday afternoon after a 171 failed and warranted a replacement bus to run to Oxted via Tunbridge Wells. A battery hybrid could replace the 171s, but would need to be able to handle a range of about 60 miles without access to the juice. The 379 BEMU trial had this range, but only just, and might not be able to fully recharge in the 90 minutes it has access to the 750v. The range might last a bit longer with "eco driving", regen braking and taking advantage of any downhill inclines on the route.

There’s barely enough demand for the current 8 and 10 coach diesel services. It’s only really north of Oxted that demand actually exists. To show how much demand there actually is on the Uckfield branch... the old 1908 Oxted to Uckfield shuttle (which ran up to May this year) used to be formed of 4 coaches and it was barely ever properly full.

After having spoken to a few of the locals, I feel like the demand only isn't there because the current service isn't great. The appeal to a lot of people is that the fare is cheaper than travelling from alternative stations. During the Monday to Friday peaks, it does go up to a half-hourly service with 8 or 10 coach trains, but outside of those times, it's more appealing to drive over to Haywards Heath in 25 minutes, where there is a more frequent service and you can get to Victoria in about 45 minutes.

Uckfield and the neighbouring towns are growing - property developers are building a lot of new homes in the area, and I've been told that the nearby Tesco is one of the busist in the country in terms of shoppers per square metre, with plans to make it bigger to cope with the anticipated demand. The question is whether the railway will adapt to meet this demand.

 

[tbtc]

Having only one terminus in use keeps the north end of the route fairly simple, which is beneficial if you’re trying to get crews and stock in the right place during disruption.

That'd be one of my criteria - given the vast range of places to serve, rationalise the network to give a simpler map where places get a London Bridge *or* Victoria service, rather than muddling about trying to give everywhere a link to everywhere - keep things simple - plenty of opportunity to change services at places like East Croydon - I'd hoped that the Thameslink changes would facilitate this but they seem to have kept the service patterns just as messy.

 

[edwin_m]

Not much difference, it just needs x Megawatts from the grid, and that means a new connection. It doesn’t matter whether it comes out wavy or straight.

A DC scheme would actually need more Grid power because the DC system is about 20% less efficient at delivering the power to the trains. However AC feeder stations tend to be designed to feed a much larger area than the Uckfield line, require a correspondingly higher voltage Grid connection, so unless someone came up with something innovative (inverters for phase balancing?) an AC feeder just for this route would probably be disproportionately costly.

 

[Taunton]

They've talked about doing this for a while. As we know, the powers that be don't like installing third rail now. They've decided that for the cost of energising 30 miles worth of third rail, they could just as easily erect the same distance of overhead gantries and cabling for 25kV, as you'd need an energiser for every mile of third rail vs a single energiser for the whole stretch of OHLE.

I presume by "Energiser" you mean substation. And the ratio is not 30:1 between substations needed for DC and for AC. But you are actually just transferring some costs elsewhere, this would be the infrastructure provider (Network Rail) sticking the cost onto the rolling stock provider (Southern). Not for the first time. Because you still need to transform the voltage down. A DC emu can use the power "as is". A 3 x 4-car AC emu has three significantly expensive substations running round under the car floors.

When it comes to the actual installations, the substations are built lineside at your convenience. The third rail from Hurst Green to Uckfield would go down in a few weekends. That's how the old Southern Railway long ago managed to do it. I've seen it done. OHLE, in comparison - well just look at the recent GW project. Years of disruption and cost.

Back to the original question. Before the electrification to East Grinstead (1980s) there were services from both East Grinstead and Uckfield to both London termini. Afterwards the principal services from Uckfield were peak hour loco hauled, with Class 33 locos and Mk 1 passenger stock. With the movements required for turnover locos at the London termini it was operationally convenient to concentrate things on one point, which for peak hour services was London Bridge. The loco that brought in the first train had a second loco take the stock out to the sidings. The first loco then was used to take the stock of the next train out. And so on. So for n peak Uckfield services you needed n+1 locos. The opposite in the evening. This operation was far more straightforward if you served one London terminus and not two. And nowadays the pattern just continues.

I've never been too impressed with the "efficiency" of Southern with these services. an 8-car diesel 0800 morning arrival at London Bridge becomes 6 cars sent off to Selhurst sidings, and just a 2-car used on the return to East Croydon and the Uckfield line. Which on departure is far more crushed and squashed than anything inward. London peak hour flows are by no means unidirectional now, or indeed ever were. 2 car sets in the peak is just silly.

 

[Ianno87]

But there are so many questions!
- Who is going to re-signal Oxted to allow permissive working on both Up and Down lines, instead of the halfway house, with just the Up line being permissively signalled at the moment? Is this to wait until Oxted is eventually re-controlled to (say) TBROC?
- Who is going employ enough staff to split and attach four trains each hour?
- How are the trains going to have their schedules and diagrams juggled? Oxted to East Grinstead is considerably shorter than Oxted to Uckfield. You will get the balance of units wrong somewhere.

Yes, you'd need re-signalling etc. of course to permit the splits and joins.

I'd argue that there might be a case to be made by, in essence removing in totality the current off-peak 1tph London Bridge-Uckfield service (3 x Class 171 circuits in the cycle all day, plus associated staffing that could be re-distributed) without re-use of this path (i.e. an operational cost saving).

Instead, Uckfield would get 2tph all day, by way of being split off from East Grinstead services at Oxted; East Grinstead services I'd imagine almost certainly don't need 10 cars' worth of capacity south of Oxted off-peak. So off-peak (very simplistically) you serve Uckfield *And* East Grinstead with the current rolling stock currently employed for East Grinstead alone.

The turnrounds at East Grinstead today (16 minutes) could just about absorb the extra time needed for a split join; 16 minutes would become 9 minutes or so (versus minimum of 6 minutes in the Rules)

Only sticking point would be getting pathing on the single lines to/from Uckfield to be compatible with the current East Grinstead paths. Don't have time to work it out now, but worth noting that already the Uckfield trains already follow the East Grinsteads on the Down / precede them on the Up through Oxted (due to being fast vs. slow), so has a fighting chance of working.

But the difference in running times mean that, from a splitting service, an East Grinstead service would get back to Oxted 1 hour (2 x service intervals) before the Uckfield portion that it dropped; so the Uckfield portion attaches to an East Grinstead service one hour later than the one it originally split off from.


On the flip side, there is the argument that the stock for a standalone service to Uckfield is being used in the peak anyway, so there is only a marginal cost of continuing to use it off-peak. And returning it to a depot (e.g. Selhurst) for the off-peak is not itself a trivial matter.