The Wealden Line.

[Leekbrookgull]

Is there any up to date information as to the status of this project ? If the Govt is thinking about 'captital spending projects' would such a scheme as this fit the bill ? Or is it a non-runner ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealden_Line

 

[Lord Bracknell]

There is a letter in this week's Sussex Express from Peter Foot, Rail Operations Advisor at the Department of Transport, explaining why the re-opening of the Uckfield to Lewes line is not a priority for government funded investment. The argument is basically that the proposal does nothing to provide additional rail capacity where it is required - on the approaches to London.

It's too long a letter to type out in full, but here are some key extracts:-

"Multi-million pound investment in the route would produce no additional capacity into London, which is where the majority of passengers wish to go".

"It is not possible to construct a value-for-money case to re-open a railway line that could only be of use at off-peak times or when blockages occur on the Brighton Main Line. Even as an off-peak railway it would be of dubious value because journey times would be much slower than via the existing Brighton Main Line".

"We will continue to consider the re-opening of former railways where they are able to make an immediate contribution to the capacity shortfall - as East-West rail will do for Oxford and for Milton Keynes. Sadly the re-opening of the railway between Lewes and Uckfield cannot do this and it cannot therefore be a priority for Government investment at the moment".

 

[Diego Napier]

Is there any up to date information as to the status of this project ? If the Govt is thinking about 'captital spending projects' would such a scheme as this fit the bill ? Or is it a non-runner ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealden_Line

You'd hope so.

Unfortunately I think their priorities may lie with spending many billions on "prestige" projects like the high-speed London to Birmingham rail link to shave half hour off the journey on an already efficient route rather than 100 million on providing a means of relieving the overcrowding nightmare on the Brighton/Eastbourne/Hasting/South coast to London route.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Interesting reply,but i always thought the Ldn to Bton line was at it's limit (?) and that H/Heath is bit of a bottleneck ?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

You'd hope so.

Unfortunately I think their priorities may lie with spending many billions on "prestige" projects like the high-speed London to Birmingham rail link to shave half hour off the journey on an already efficient route rather than 100 million on providing a means of relieving the overcrowding nightmare on the Brighton/Eastbourne/Hasting/South coast to London route.

That is a good point it takes an hour to travel the 30 odd miles from Stoke to Derby,it needs 3rd electric power supply and not what it has now and yet many here are happy with that level of service and when i try to explain Ldn to Btn fast in around 55 mins 'oh well that's the south for you' no it's not just invest.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Interesting reply,but i always thought the Ldn to Bton line was at it's limit (?) and that H/Heath is bit of a bottleneck ?

The real bottleneck is north of Croydon, where all lines into London are running at full capacity. The DfT letter is making the point that the only way extra trains could run from Brighton to London via Uckfield is to reduce the number of trains running from Gatwick to London - and this would make things worse for most passengers travelling to London.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It's obviously the case that the Department for Transport are finally knocking this idea on the head. If there was even a smidgeon of a case to re-open the Lewes-Uckfield line, it would get a good airing now, with the local (pro-re-opening) MP, Norman Baker, being one of the ministers in the department with responsibilities for local transport. If they are saying NO, they obviously mean NO. NEVER.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Non-runner as there is no business case.

The people doing the BML2 project dont help the case either, by saying real fantasy suggestions for it to be opened - last they said was to have "double-deck" track going through Croydon (train on top with tram track underneath) with a tunnel into Canary Wharf - and how to they propose paying for that ? As said above, real problem is the junction north of East Croydon (although there is work planned i believe to do work to it to reduce the congestion).

One alternative to sort diversions from the Mainline to London from Brighton is a "chord" near the junction at Arundel, allowing trains to be diverted via Worthing and Horsham to London without having to reverse at Littlehampton, also allows direct trains to Horsham, and you can have services to London without going through the bottleneck at Croydon - would cost a lot less too.

 

[perseus]

Non-runner as there is no business case.


One alternative to sort diversions from the Mainline to London from Brighton is a "chord" near the junction at Arundel, allowing trains to be diverted via Worthing and Horsham to London without having to reverse at Littlehampton, also allows direct trains to Horsham, and you can have services to London without going through the bottleneck at Croydon - would cost a lot less too.

Makes sense. Practical.

 

[KNC]

Important BML2 Information, Facts, Figures and News Reports

 

[Leekbrookgull]

It's obviously the case that the Department for Transport are finally knocking this idea on the head. If there was even a smidgeon of a case to re-open the Lewes-Uckfield line, it would get a good airing now, with the local (pro-re-opening) MP, Norman Baker, being one of the ministers in the department with responsibilities for local transport. If they are saying NO, they obviously mean NO. NEVER.

Don't think you can ever say no (?) Fuel/motoring/parking/congestion cost forever rising and when i have been on it always busy,never rule it out surely ?

 

[Diego Napier]

The real bottleneck is north of Croydon, where all lines into London are running at full capacity. The DfT letter is making the point that the only way extra trains could run from Brighton to London via Uckfield is to reduce the number of trains running from Gatwick to London - and this would make things worse for most passengers travelling to London.

What about linking Lewes to Uckfield and then on into London Bridge via Oxted?

£500 million is being spent to improve LB including providing 3 more through lines to reduce congestion.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What about linking Lewes to Uckfield and then on into London Bridge via Oxted?

£500 million is being spent to improve LB including providing 3 more through lines to reduce congestion.

But the extra capacity that is being provided through London Bridge is already fully committed to the improved Thameslink network. Quite right too, since that will relieve congestion on London Underground services.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

What about linking Lewes to Uckfield and then on into London Bridge via Oxted?

£500 million is being spent to improve LB including providing 3 more through lines to reduce congestion.

That is what they want to do, but there isnt a viable business case for it. I wouldnt read into the BML2 group myself, plans arent realistic and would cost far too much - would probably be cheaper to demolish Wivelsfield, Burgess Hill and Hassocks to make the whole line "4 track", that includes changing all the tunnels, bridges and viaducts.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Non-runner as there is no business case.

The people doing the BML2 project dont help the case either, by saying real fantasy suggestions for it to be opened - last they said was to have "double-deck" track going through Croydon (train on top with tram track underneath) with a tunnel into Canary Wharf - and how to they propose paying for that ? As said above, real problem is the junction north of East Croydon (although there is work planned i believe to do work to it to reduce the congestion).

One alternative to sort diversions from the Mainline to London from Brighton is a "chord" near the junction at Arundel, allowing trains to be diverted via Worthing and Horsham to London without having to reverse at Littlehampton, also allows direct trains to Horsham, and you can have services to London without going through the bottleneck at Croydon - would cost a lot less too.

But how many passengers would CHOOSE to travel from Brighton to London via Worthing, Horsham and Epsom?

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

But how many passengers would CHOOSE to travel from Brighton to London via Horsham and Epsom?

Depends on a number of factors - journey time being the main one. If they could make it a fast service (Hove, Worthing, Horsham, Sutton, Clapham, Victoria) then it shouldnt be more than 90 minutes, maybe add slightly cheaper "Via Arundel" fares as well to encourage people to use it. Maybe an extra hourly stopping service between Horsham and Brighton too.

 

[KNC]

What a shame Marples and his henchman, Beeching, ripped out what would now be important links in Sussex.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What a shame Marples and his henchman, Beeching, ripped out what would now be important links in Sussex.

Don't blame Beeching for the loss of the Lewes - Uckfield line. It survived his axe. It closed in 1969, when East Sussex County Council built the Phoenix Causeway bridge in Lewes.

 

[Uter]

An article about the capacity constraints on the Brighton Main Line for those who like that sort of thing:



The East Croydon Problem – A Look At the Brighton Mainline
15 March, 2011


The Brighton Main Line is quite simple and a complete contrast to its neighbour in the South-East sector. Effectively it features a single trunk line running from East Croydon to Brighton via Gatwick Airport in an almost perfect north-south alignment, with a series of branches running off from it. In general there are no shuttle services on the branches – just about every train starts from, goes through, or ends up in central London.

Over the years, great efforts have been made to improve capacity. The signalling allows for an intensive service and one would probably have to go for some kind of automatic train operation to improve significantly on what is already there. In terms of improvement possibilities, that really only leaves the other perennial favourite – lengthening the trains. Here too though, options are becoming limited as most of the trains are already 12 carriages long. There has been a long tradition of splitting trains en route to maximise overall throughput even if it is at the expense of journey times. Even Purley, which is still in the London suburbs (even if most of its inhabitants like to pretend it is in Surrey), sees the attachment and splitting of trains because there simply aren’t the paths available in the rush hour to run the Tattenham Corner and Caterham trains as separate services to London.

For years the critical factor preventing more trains from being run has been the lack of terminal capacity in London. The route diverges at East Croydon with some trains going to Victoria and others to London Bridge (and possibly onwards onto the Thameslink route). A few Thameslink trains currently have a tortuous journey to Blackfriars via Herne Hill, but anybody who has experienced this journey will know that it is not ideal. Furthermore, crossing the main South-Eastern route from Victoria to Bromley South on the flat at Herne Hill does nothing for maximising train paths in this area.

It is against this background that the Thameslink programme is seen as a potential saviour, because terminal capacity in London will no longer be the critical constraint providing sufficient Thameslink services make their way onto the Brighton Main Line. However, like a 1960′s road planner, one quickly discovers that when one removes a bottleneck at one location another one has a habit of popping up elsewhere.

In theory then, if Thameslink is up and running could there be more services on the Brighton Main Line?

Yes. A few. But there is a problem – East Croydon.

Be in no doubt, once Thameslink is complete East Croydon is going to be the critical factor on just about everything on the Brighton Main Line. North of East Croydon there is a spaghetti arrangement of tracks as the route diverge to go to Victoria and London Bridge.

There are six platforms at East Croydon, four lines to and from Victoria and four lines to and from London Bridge. Into this feeds two further tracks to and from West Croydon. So basically six lines through East Croydon and two emerging from West Croydon (West Croydon has a bay platform but lets not confuse things) need to be all sorted out into Victoria fast and slow or London Bridge fast and slow. We have the constraint of lack of platforms at East Croydon and a lack of flexibility in the junction north of the station. The situation is made worse by the lack of space. As this author can personally attest, there are times when a traveller can be standing on an unoccupied platform at East Croydon and see one’s train waiting outside the station, because the overlap is fouled by another train’s route having been set over the junction to the north of the platform.

This all begs the question – what is the solution?

Sadly there is no simple on, although two possibilities are covered in the recent RUS in quite some detail.

One idea is the so-called Brighton Main Line 2. Some details for this can be found at http://www.bml2.co.uk, although many pertinent ones seem to have been removed at some point recently.

BML2 is basically an extension and variation of the campaign to re-open the Uckfield to Lewes line, as proposed by a member of the public. Whereas in the past these ideas were usually just ignored, the campaign has obviously got to the stage where the RUS feels it has to rebut the whole thing. The idea is essentially to build a new tunnel under the South Downs so that trains can get from Brighton to Uckfield, hurry up the Uckfield line to Sanderstead, onto a re-opened line from Sanderstead to Elmers End and from there head onto the Hayes line. Services would thus reach London from Brighton without encountering the bottleneck at East Croydon.

The London and South East RUS, however, gives the scheme short shrift. Once the line gets beyond Ladywell, it returns to the situation where the there is no spare capacity. Crucially, part of the “disused” line is now also part of the Croydon Tramlink, and it is likely not as easy as the scheme’s backers think to displace this and run both tram and train services on adjacent single tracks. However, the other critical factor that the RUS latches onto is that East Croydon, Haywards Heath and Gatwick Airport are major destinations that people want to travel to – so there is not much point in going to a lot of trouble to avoid them.

The other idea that receives a mention in the RUS is to accept the inevitable and build a tunnel from south of Purley to Central London. This probably recognises that just surfacing north of Croydon simply moves the problem along the line. The need to go south of Purley (Stoats Nest Junction in fact) is recognition of the fact that the railway is largely on a high embankment from Purley to South Croydon and in a very steep deep cutting from South Croydon to East Croydon. This make it really difficult to find a suitable place for a tunnel portal north of Purley and in any case it would be better if all conflicts at Purley could be avoided.

The one thing the tunnel has going for it is that tunnels are not that expensive. As Crossrail has shown – it is the underground stations that really gobble up the money. By limiting intermediate stations to East Croydon and possibly Clapham Junction, the tunnels could be built relatively cheaply.

It is clear that this is just an opening shot and one suspects that if a tunnel were to be built, it would not happen in the next fifty years. The RUS offers no other solutions, however, and thus regards the relatively minor overcrowding as something we will just have to live with. As it states:


No appraisal undertaken, however given the relatively small size of the gap in relation to other routes it is likely that this scheme would provide poor value for money.

In a starker statement still it concludes:


Whilst no appraisal has been carried out it is unlikely this option would be affordable or represent good value for money in the time period concerned. However this conclusion should be kept under review, since it might become necessary in a high growth scenario.

So it appears that travellers of the Brighton Main Line should make the most of the Thameslink improvements, because for the foreseeable future there is little good on the horizon after that – just more and more crowded trains.

 

[KNC]

So it was closed so they could build a road over it? Mmmmm
The Shoreham/ Horsham. The Ardingly branch. The Polegate branch. A waste.