Willingdon Chord

[HowardGWR]

I can't believe what i have just read here.

http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news...tary-in-support-of-willingdon-chord-1-5995678

So the ex-transport secretary is writing to ask for the re-instatement (nowhere is he reported as asking for the re-instatement), when in fact he was the person to whom he is writing, only a little while ago.

I must be dreaming. :roll:

 

[Railsigns]

Mr. Baker has never been Transport Secretary.

 

[swt_passenger]

Mr. Baker has never been Transport Secretary.

He was however an under-secretary at transport before being moved to the home office, which may account for HowardGWR's misunderstanding...

 

[snowball]

I'm not familiar with the area and had never heard of Willingdon until I read the above, but to judge from the OS map, I'd guess that the former chord is unlikely to be reinstated on its original alignment. It appears that that (a) was quite long (best part of two miles), (b) has had houses built on it at its west end, (c) has had the dual carriageway A22 built across it on an embankment. A shorter curve further south could avoid these obstacles (though it might have to be a quite tight radius because of the angle of the bridge under the A22 at its east end).

Edit: looking at it on Google it wouldn't need to be particularly tight. The bridge may even have been designed with a new chord in mind. It's not a reinstatement though.

 

[sarahj]

TBH, a waste of money. Sorry, bexhill etc but Eastbourne is the traffic generator in the area. Bypassing and getting folks to change at polegate for Eastbourne(where there is no space to expand) would just be a pain in the behind. Trains are also timed so that a majority of passengers who need pevensey and onwards or VV change at Hampden park.

The land of the old route can still be seen, its got a lot of gardens etc on it. Some new houses have just been built next to where the junction was, and some landscaping there means a bit hole has just been cut out. But yes, the A22 does cut right though it. A tighter junction could be built further south, but the land looks marshy with streams etc. But TBH, my view is, why?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It was only yesterday where I was reading some of my historical research papers about the London Brighton and South Coast Railway and when the currently named Hampden Park was first opened on 1st January 1888, it was named Willingdon, but on 1st July 1903, its name was changed to that of Hampden Park for Willingdon.

You don't run the Closed Stations Journey quiz on the Quizzes and Games Forum, without learning much that you would not normally look at in depth on matters concerning the original railway companies...

 

[mister-sparky]

If they did ever re-instate it they'd have to divide the London trains at Polegate, with half going to Eastbourne and the other half to Hastings. Otherwise there'd be a reduction of service to Eastbourne, which wouldn't be allowed to happen because it's a major traffic generator on that line. But the splitting wouldn't happen either, because they're already a portion of a train that splits at Haywards Heath!

The Brighton-Ashford fast and the Brighton-Ore stopper wouldn't skip Eastbourne either, because they both usually empty out and fill up again at Eastbourne.

So I can't really see how the chord could work.

 

[sarahj]

There are some trains which do split twice:

eg 12 car dept london.
Arrives Haywards Heath. Front 4 Littlehampton, Rear 8 Eastbourne/Ore
Arrives Eastbourne. Front 4 terminates, rear 4 goes onto Ore.

But to have these split at Polegate would mean:
All the eastbourne passengers in the front 4, when TBH about 70%+ of the passengers will be for Eastbourne
Having staff based at Polegate to oversee the split
5 min extra journey time for passengers needing Eastbourne.

Plus any extra trains running to/via Polegate would require more signals/points/units, and the level crossing would be down for longer.

TBH, the extra money could just be spent turning the 171's from 2 to 3 car giving some needed extra capacity.


I know a few on here will be going, typical railway staff, saying how it carnt be done, but IMHO, I just dont think passenger numbers decree it.

 

[HowardGWR]

He was however an under-secretary at transport before being moved to the home office, which may account for HowardGWR's misunderstanding...

Yes I knew he was not SoS but he was responsible for local rail while there and I don't remember him saying anything about it before. They are supposed to operate as a ministerial team if you read DfT blurbs. I certainly wasn't making a party political point.

As other posters have since reminded us, the chord was closed because it was decided that trains needed to go to Eastbourne even if coastal, as opposed to London-destined. Perhaps historians can remind us about the traffic that did use it (perhaps freight?) in the past.

A similar situation is Weymouth, where I have opined previously that a coastal service, if it ever comes about, needs to go down to there from Dorchester and back again. I expect there are other examples, the most obvious to me is Bristol where reversals happen several times an hour!

 

[steevp]

I think that a lot of traffic is centered on Eastbourne, but never say never - I am reminded of when I used to work at Portsmouth and couldn't see how any trains could miss going into Portsmouth (such an important place) and back out again instead of heading straight across the triangle at Cosham/Farringdon, but now several services do and are very useful if you are traveling from east to west or vice versa

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I could only see an Eastbourne avoiding line being any use if there was an intensive freight service along the South coast- reversals aren't an issue with modern multiple unit stock, and as several users have pointed out Eastbourne is one of the major population centres along the line. If Eastbourne was a small fishing village with a population of c.500 there'd be a point (though if that were the case, it would have lost its railway years ago and the avoiding line would have been built!). The idea of a chord, much like 'Bradford Crossrail' is a classic case of a solution looking for a problem.

 

[MarkyT]

Norman Baker says:

“ Obviously many people do want to use the train to get to Eastbourne, but it makes no sense for every single coastway train to have to divert in and out of Eastbourne as presently happens. The Ashford trains in particular should not have to do this.”

So he's advocating removal of the direct service between Ashford and Eastbourne, and probably half of the direct service between there and Brighton. The only way I could see this working is if additional services plugged those gaps. From Ashford, that could perhaps be the high speed service that has been touted over an AC electrified Marshlink, extended through to Eastbourne. Additional DC services would also be required from Brighton terminating at Eastbourne. With AC Marshlink, Brighton - Ashford could be operated by dual voltage ex-Thameslink 319 units, changing over at Ore. Those units going up north under current plans though so perhaps some later units could be converted to dual voltage.

 

[HowardGWR]

Norman Baker says:



So he's advocating removal of the direct service between Ashford and Eastbourne, and probably half of the direct service between there and Brighton. The only way I could see this working is if additional services plugged those gaps. From Ashford, that could perhaps be the high speed service that has been touted over an AC electrified Marshlink, extended through to Eastbourne. Additional DC services would also be required from Brighton terminating at Eastbourne. With AC Marshlink, Brighton - Ashford could be operated by dual voltage ex-Thameslink 319 units, changing over at Ore. Those units going up north under current plans though so perhaps some later units could be converted to dual voltage.

What got me interested is that Baker is not unknowledgeable about these matters, indeed has in-depth knowledge about the area and the history of the chord's abandonment. That's what puzzled me and I found so surprising.

I forgot about Pompey - good point, other poster.

 

[ushawk]

It would never happen, simple as that.

Eastbourne is the main station on the East Coastway line, other than Brighton, so avoiding it would cause big problems for a lot of passengers - For the year 12/13, Eastbourne had a passenger count of 3.589 Million, up by half a million in 9 years. It doesnt really make much sense to save a bit of time, for Bexhill (12/13 useage 1.6M).

Im also not sure that the biggest flows from Lewes and Polegate are to Bexhill and Hastings either, more like to Brighton and Eastbourne.

This suggestion made the front page of the local paper in Eastbourne too (http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/local/rail-bypass-plan-could-damage-local-economy-1-5996578), the reaction from Eastbourne isnt brilliant either. There is certainly more chance of the Lewes - Uckfield line reopening for me, and despite the fact I doubt that would happen - it has more merit providing a rail service between 2 towns which currently doesnt exist over a line which already has a perfectly fine rail service.

It should also be pointed out that some services connect with other services at Hampden Park which reduces some journey times via Eastbourne.

 

[SussexMan]

I have no idea whether it would be "worth it" - and that could be interpreted in many ways. However to use the argument that passenger numbers don't decree it misses the point about people who aren't currently passengers but would be if the journey was quicker.

Hastings to Brighton by road is 37 miles. Direct trains take between 1hr 6min and 1hr 20 min. That's the equivalent of 33mph and 27mph respectively. Driving between those two places is not that practical if you work in central Brighton. Not calling at Eastbourne could save between 15 and 20 mins. If you could get a service which called at Bexhill, Polegate, Lewes and Brighton and could get the journey down to 45 mins then I wonder how many more people would then use the train? The savings would be proportionately greater if travelling from Bexhill. Remove the 10mph speed restriction out of Lewes and you could save another minute or two.

I would have thought the potential passengers between Brighton and Hastings (and stations along the route) are considerably more than the potential passengers from Eastbourne to Ashford.

It's these sort of changes which I think could get more people to transfer to train or do journeys which they previously wouldn't have considered.

PS: It would also give a turning triangle near Eastbourne so could attract steam charters .

 

[Bald Rick]

I have no idea whether it would be "worth it" - and that could be interpreted in many ways. However to use the argument that passenger numbers don't decree it misses the point about people who aren't currently passengers but would be if the journey was quicker.

Hastings to Brighton by road is 37 miles. Direct trains take between 1hr 6min and 1hr 20 min. That's the equivalent of 33mph and 27mph respectively. Driving between those two places is not that practical if you work in central Brighton. Not calling at Eastbourne could save between 15 and 20 mins. If you could get a service which called at Bexhill, Polegate, Lewes and Brighton and could get the journey down to 45 mins then I wonder how many more people would then use the train? The savings would be proportionately greater if travelling from Bexhill. Remove the 10mph speed restriction out of Lewes and you could save another minute or two.

I would have thought the potential passengers between Brighton and Hastings (and stations along the route) are considerably more than the potential passengers from Eastbourne to Ashford.

It's these sort of changes which I think could get more people to transfer to train or do journeys which they previously wouldn't have considered.

You've sort of hit the nail on the head. You could save roughly the same amount of journey time as spending (at a guess) £25-40m on the Willingdon chord, by cutting out some stops and improving line speeds. Indeed linespeeds are going to be improved in places when the new signalling is (eventually) commissioned. And this would help passengers to / from Eastbourne rather than disadvantaging them by removing some of the train service.

So we will be able tree how many extra passengers reduced journey times will bring in.

 

[JamesRowden]

I agree that Eastbourne needs 2tph to Brighton and 2tph to London via Gatwick. It however does not need the present 3tph to Hastings. If the Willingdon Chord (a short section of track to the West of the A22) were built, I would suggest running the following service pattern between Lewes and Ashford:

(Stations shown in blue are only served by 1tph of a 2tph service)

• London Victoria - Eastbourne (2tph)
  • (Stops North of Lewes)
  • Lewes
  • Polegate
  • Hampden Park
• Brighton - Eastbourne (2tph)
  • London Road
  • Moulsecombe
  • Falmer
  • Lewes
  • Glynde
  • Berwick
  • Polegate
  • Hampden Park
• Brighton - Ashford (1tph) (effectively an extension of the Brighton-Lewes shuttle)
  • London Road
  • Moulsecombe
  • Falmer
  • Lewes
  • Polegate
  • Pevensy & Westham
  • Cooden Beach
  • Collington
  • Bexhill
  • St Leonards Warrior Square
  • Hastings
  • Rye
• Eastbourne - Ashford (1tph)
  • Hampden Park
  • Bexhill
  • St Leonards Warrior Sqaure
  • Hastings
  • Ore
  • Three Oaks
  • Winchelsea
  • Rye
  • Appledore
  • Ham Street
• Eastbourne - Ore (1tph)
  • Hampden Park
  • Pevensy & Westham
  • Normans Bay
  • Cooden Beach
  • Collington
  • Bexhill
  • St Leonards Warrior Square
  • Hastings

The difference in service level compared to the present service is:

• Plus 1tph Lewes - Pevensy & Westham
• Minus 1tph Eastbourne - Pevensy & Westham
• Plus 1tph Ore - Ashford

Bexhill would lose its through service to London but same platform connections should be possible at Polegate to provide a shorter journey time, although connections to HS1 via Ashford might make this issue insignificant.

The Kent Route Specification document shows there being up to 2tph Brighton/Eastbourne-Ashford in ten years time.

My suggestion might well require electrification between Ore and Ashford.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . £25-40m on the Willingdon chord

Probably quite a bit cheaper than that. Allington Junction chord near Grantham was about £12m ISTR. Willingdon would probably be slightly longer with a larger radius but assuming the A22 bridge didn't need altering it would be just as simple, with only open fields to cross, over a smaller embankment.

Even if direct service between Eastbourne and Ashford wasn't retained, I think there would definitely need to be some extra locals between Brighton and Eastbourne. Your traffic growth following significant journey time reduction theory might support a more frequent service all the way through to Ashford anyway assuming the infrastructure could take it, in which case alternate trains could have different stopping patterns, one an hour going via Eastbourne, one avoiding it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Probably quite a bit cheaper than that. Allington Junction chord near Grantham was about £12m ISTR. Willingdon would probably be slightly longer with a larger radius but assuming the A22 bridge didn't need altering it would be just as simple, with only open fields to cross, over a smaller embankment.

Allington was £14m when the final account was done. A decade ago. No electrification either.

Willingdon won't be less than £25m, ditto the much more likely Arundel chord.

 

[MarkyT]

Allington was £14m when the final account was done. A decade ago. No electrification either.

I was hoping recession conditions might have kept prices low, but railway costs seem to be only loosely connected to the outside world, and by the time Willingdon could be started perhaps we could be under full-on boom conditions again! Electrification would be an element true, but a minor one for 3rd rail assuming additional traffic didn't overload existing substation capacity.

 

[JamesRowden]

To add some official data to this thread I have attached Network Rail's assessment of the Willingdon Chord:

Assessment of Option 6.2.2 – Improve connections on the East Coastway by speeding up services on the Willingdon Chord and providing an additional service between Hastings and Brighton

Concept
The option routes the current service between Ashford International and Brighton via a newly constructed Willingdon Chord, bypassing Eastbourne and saving 10 minutes of journey time. The current service frequency to Eastbourne is maintained by providing an additional electric service between Hastings and Brighton.

Operational analysis
Paths for the new service between Hastings and Brighton have not been proven. There may be conflicts during the peaks on the busier parts of the line in Brighton, Hastings and Lewes.

Infrastructure required
The Willingdon Chord would have to be constructed to facilitate faster journey times. This would be on a new alignment as the old alignment conflicts with a road bypass and housing developments. Passenger impact The option will provide additional capacity on the East Coastway, providing crowding relief for the peak service into Brighton. It would also provide faster connections between areas east and west of Eastbourne. There are also more frequent journey opportunities along the East Coastway. Direct services between Eastbourne and areas east of Hastings would be lost.

Freight impact
None identified

Financial and economic analysis
The following table outlines the appraisal results:
60-year appraisal £million (2002 PV)
Costs (Present value)
Investment cost 25.2
Operating cost 38.4
Revenue –7.2
Other government impacts 1.6
Total costs 57.9
Benefits (Present value)
Rail user benefits 17.2
Non-user benefits 1.5
Total quantified benefits 18.7
NPV –39.3
Quantified BCR 0.3

Conclusion
Not recommended as demand does not justify the additional service and construction costs.

The service suggestion that I made earlier was thought up considering this analysis.

 

[ushawk]

To add some official data to this thread I have attached Network Rail's assessment of the Willingdon Chord:



The service suggestion that I made earlier was thought up considering this analysis.

Which sums it up nicely, it simply isnt worth it. A few may travel from Hastings to Brighton, but a few also would travel from Lewes to West Coastway stations for example - doesnt mean there should be a complicated direct line connecting the East and West Coastway lines to save 10 minutes.

Linespeed/signalling upgrades will be completed later this year anyway, that will save a bit of time too.

 

[JamesRowden]

Which sums it up nicely, it simply isnt worth it. A few may travel from Hastings to Brighton, but a few also would travel from Lewes to West Coastway stations for example - doesnt mean there should be a complicated direct line connecting the East and West Coastway lines to save 10 minutes.

Linespeed/signalling upgrades will be completed later this year anyway, that will save a bit of time too.

From experience, the majority of people on the very well used Brighton-Ashford service do not appear to disembark at Eastbourne. Whilst the Brighton/London-Ore services are quite empty east of Eastbourne. The service pattern used for this analysis therefore did not combat this over provision (3tph between Eastbourne and Hastings was increased to 4tph) and also did not include through services between Eastbourne and Ashford (but even so still had an overall positive effect ignoring cost). I think that Hastings-Ashford electrification (when it eventually occurs) and 2tph between Brighton/Eastbourne and Ashford should significantly improve the business case.

 

[HowardGWR]

Does anyone remember when the right of way of the Willingdon Chord was allowed to be breached and which was first? I'll bet the bypass. I suspect if one did not have to add in all the (now) extra costs of reinstatement, we would not be discussing this today.

The chord is just another example of the 'it's all over with rail' attitude of the 70s.

 

[SussexMan]

Willingdon won't be less than £25m.

Is there any way this can be broken down? Seems like such a massive amount of money for less than 500m of track. Works out at over £50,000 per metre!

For three times this amount 2.4 miles of the A23 is being rebuilt into 3 lanes dual carriageway which has involved some serious groundworks. Would love to know where the £25m would go.