A statement from the Department for Transport on May 9 2013:
Secretary of State Patrick McLoughlin
has asked Network Rail to examine if re-opening the Lewes - Uckfield
railway line will meet the demand for the future growth in rail travel.
The Government’s Rail Investment
Strategy already requires additional rail capacity to be delivered
between Uckfield and London Bridge by 2019. This is likely to be
achieved by adding more carriages to trains running on the route.
Now a new study commissioned by the Secretary of State is looking at rail provision between London and the south coast further into the future and as part of its terms of reference will re-examine the case for a new line linking the Sussex towns.
Patrick McLoughlin said:
“I am alive to local interest in re-opening this line and wider concerns about rail capacity between London and the south coast and this is why I have commissioned this study.
“It will help us to understand exactly what the issues are and build upon previous work that has looked at these questions.”
The Secretary of State will visit Lewes station on Thursday, May 9, where he will meet local MP and Transport Minister Norman Baker to discuss rail provision in the constituency.
The study will feed into decisions on the future funding of the railways. The current Rail Investment Strategy outlines funding priorities until 2019 and this work would inform any business case for changes to rail provision in the area beyond that date.
The line linking the two towns was closed in 1969 but there is local appetite to see it brought back into use.
Recent moves to devolve decision making for local transport schemes will also give greater freedom to local councils and enterprise partnerships to determine priorities and allocate funding accordingly.
Richard Eccles, Network Rail director of network strategy and planning, said:
“The railway between London and Brighton is one of the busiest routes in the country and there is very little space available to run additional trains. As the number of passengers continues to grow, it is right that we look at a wide variety of options which may help provide extra capacity in future, ensuring that the rail network can continue to support and drive economic growth in the region.
“We are already reviewing the options for capacity enhancements to Brighton and the south coast corridor and this work will feed into a Sussex route study due for development in 2014. Within this we will include a review of the value that a re-opened Lewes - Uckfield line could play in meeting future needs.”
Now a new study commissioned by the Secretary of State is looking at rail provision between London and the south coast further into the future and as part of its terms of reference will re-examine the case for a new line linking the Sussex towns.
Patrick McLoughlin said:
“I am alive to local interest in re-opening this line and wider concerns about rail capacity between London and the south coast and this is why I have commissioned this study.
“It will help us to understand exactly what the issues are and build upon previous work that has looked at these questions.”
The Secretary of State will visit Lewes station on Thursday, May 9, where he will meet local MP and Transport Minister Norman Baker to discuss rail provision in the constituency.
The study will feed into decisions on the future funding of the railways. The current Rail Investment Strategy outlines funding priorities until 2019 and this work would inform any business case for changes to rail provision in the area beyond that date.
The line linking the two towns was closed in 1969 but there is local appetite to see it brought back into use.
Recent moves to devolve decision making for local transport schemes will also give greater freedom to local councils and enterprise partnerships to determine priorities and allocate funding accordingly.
Richard Eccles, Network Rail director of network strategy and planning, said:
“The railway between London and Brighton is one of the busiest routes in the country and there is very little space available to run additional trains. As the number of passengers continues to grow, it is right that we look at a wide variety of options which may help provide extra capacity in future, ensuring that the rail network can continue to support and drive economic growth in the region.
“We are already reviewing the options for capacity enhancements to Brighton and the south coast corridor and this work will feed into a Sussex route study due for development in 2014. Within this we will include a review of the value that a re-opened Lewes - Uckfield line could play in meeting future needs.”
As recently as 2008, a study into reopening the line between Lewes and Uckfield showed a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 0.79. The usual rule for projects in England is that they must have a BCR of 2.0 or above to stand a chance of any funding. The idea disappeared rapidly on to the back burner. However, this study's remit was merely into reopening the line, not the wider benefits.
SO WHAT ARE THE WIDER BENEFITS? AND THE CHALLENGES AROUND THESE?
Funny you asked that. Here's a map which shows what we are talking about:
(courtesy Network Rail, from the PDF above)
This is about considerably more than reopening eight miles of track. There are a lot of facts which need to be taken into consideration:
- If you are going south from Uckfield, you are more likely to want to go towards Brighton than Eastbourne. Indeed, this changed the alignment north of Lewes in 1864 from one similar to the one shown above, to one approaching Lewes from the north to the east of the station. However, that route is overbuilt and within a conservation area, so is considered to be impractical.
- Three peak trains per hour to London Bridge start from Tunbridge Wells. These could start from Lewes and beyond, and go via the 'Spa Valley Railway'.
- East Croydon is a huge bottleneck, and more trains cannot go through there without major investment.
- The Brighton Main Line is at capacity, with a two track section from south of Balcombe Tunnel Junction (south of Three Bridges station in Crawley) to Brighton. There is a need to create one or more diversionary routes, not only to expand capacity but to create contingency: the infrastructure is a little fragile. Quadrification of the dual track section is considered to be too expensive due to the number of tunnels and viaducts.
- South of Hurst Green, the railway to Uckfield is not electrified. This leads the debate into a question of AC/DC . Or even AC/DC . In essence, the Southern Railway's model of an electrified third rail is susceptible to cold weather, and more expensive to run. Which model of electrification would you adopt, if any?
- 'The Lavender Line', a piece of preserved railway, runs along a mile and a half of the proposed route.
- The Wealden Line campaign group were instrumental in pushing the case for the Lewes-Uckfield reopening. Now they are opposed to pushing for that reopening, believing that it would be rejected for the same reasons as the original study in 2008; they promote a much bigger BML2 scheme, with the objective of creating a second Brighton to London main line.
- A significant proportion of the traffic from Eastbourne and Lewes is heading for Haywards Heath and Gatwick Airport. It's therefore not practical to divert this traffic via Uckfield.
- Leading on from the point above, traffic arriving and departing from Lewes is over and above the current traffic. The station is sufficiently busy that trains for Uckfield would have to depart from Brighton, Seaford, Newhaven or Eastbourne, or a purpose built siding close to Lewes.
- Various parts of Hurst Green to Uckfield are single track.
- Hurst Green to Uckfield is limited to 70mph.
If you are going south from Uckfield, you are more likely to want to go towards Brighton than Eastbourne. Indeed, this changed the alignment north of Lewes in 1864 from one similar to the one shown above, to one approaching Lewes from the north to the east of the station. However, that route is overbuilt and within a conservation area, so is considered to be impractical.
BML2 have the idea of a tunnel to bypass Lewes. While this creates faster services from Brighton to Uckfield and beyond, there's one issue. It bypasses Lewes. Norman Baker, Lewes MP, Transport Minister and supporter of reopening Uckfield to Lewes doesn't like the idea of bypassing the major town in his constituency.
Mark Townend has a much simpler idea - the Lewes Loop. This takes the line to the south of Lewes, then arrives at Lewes station from the east.
(copyright Mark Townend, used with permission)
Operational reliability may be improved by dualling the loop - whether it would be required, especially in the first place, depends entirely upon the service pattern adopted.
Three peak trains per hour to London Bridge start from Tunbridge Wells.
These could start from Lewes and beyond, and go via the 'Spa Valley
Railway'.
Once you start diverting via Tunbridge Wells, Lewes to London times become quite long, and it's probably wouldn't be the route of choice for most commuters. However, it has to be remembered that the A26 from Lewes to Tunbridge Wells is very busy at peak hours, and reinstating a rail link is likely to be beneficial.
The Spa Valley Railway is a preserved railway between the Uckfield to London Bridge line at Eridge, and a newly-built Tunbridge Wells West station. There is nothing - except a Sainsbury's toilet block, which Sainsbury's will move if the railway returns - preventing the running of through trains to Tunbridge Wells Central and London. The original Tunbridge Wells West station - a listed building - has now become a restaurant, but it is debatable as to whether a station is needed there with Tunbridge Wells Central just over half a mile away.
The line from Tunbridge Wells to Eridge was always single track, but to run six peak trains per hour (three each way to and from Lewes and beyond) would need passing loops.
And what of the Spa Valley Railway? Well done folks - you should be congratulated for returning a service. You should be compensated handsomely - and told to go and play choo-choos somewhere else. This is a regional asset which should never been closed, not an opportunity to flirt with nostalgia. If we want to deliver this programme in any way, shape or form, we cannot afford to be sentimental.
East Croydon is a huge bottleneck, and more trains cannot go through there without major investment.
This is undoubtedly true, but I'm not sure how relevant it is. Even if you could - somehow - route another four trains in each direction through East Croydon, they would need to terminate somewhere. It's hard to see how that 'somewhere' could be London Bridge or Victoria. BML2 propose a route avoiding East Croydon, but this is controversial for a number of reasons: Croydon is a major destination in itself, taking over the old line from Selsdon to Elmers End - a mile of which is used by Tramlink - may not be practical, and it is necessary to build Crossrail-style tunnels to find somewhere to terminate the trains. For now, we should go with extending the existing trains southwards and creating the new Uckfield to Lewes and Eridge to Tunbridge Wells routes. It would need a Crossrail project to sort East Croydon out.
The Brighton Main Line is at capacity, with a two track section from
south of Balcombe Tunnel Junction (south of Three Bridges station in
Crawley) to Brighton. There is a need to create one or more diversionary
routes, not only to expand capacity but to create contingency: the
infrastructure is a little fragile. Quadrification of the dual track section is considered to be too expensive due to the number of tunnels and viaducts.
If the Arundel Chord were to be built as well, trains from Bognor and Littlehampton would have a sensible diversionary route when the Brighton Main Line is closed. It doesn't mean you can run more trains - I refer the honourable lady/gentleman to the point I made regarding East Croydon in the previous paragraph.
South of Hurst Green, the railway to Uckfield is not electrified. This leads the debate into a question of AC/DC . Or even AC/DC . In essence, the Southern Railway's model of an electrified third rail is susceptible to cold weather, and more expensive to run. Which model of electrification would you adopt, if any?
This one isn't hard, although it caused a lot of debate on a forum recently. When you electrify, it has to be AC. I'm indebted to Mark Townend for the map below, showing what this means.
(copyright Mark Townend, used with permission)
To those who say that such a model enforces the use of dual-voltage trains - you are correct. Without this model, the whole of Southern Region switches to overhead line equipment overnight. That is not sensible.
'The Lavender Line', a piece of preserved railway, runs along a mile and a half of the proposed route.
Compensate them, and move them on. Next.
The Wealden Line campaign group were instrumental in pushing the case for the Lewes-Uckfield reopening. Now they are opposed to pushing for that reopening, believing that it would be rejected for the same reasons as the original study in 2008; they promote a much bigger BML2 scheme, with the objective of creating a second Brighton to London main line.
Their lack of support for Uckfield-Lewes seems to me to be incredibly naive. The programme requires a phased delivery. Delivering Uckfield to Lewes does not preclude bypassing Lewes in the future. Indeed it may make delivery easier - could Brighton cope with an extra five trains each way in the peak? If not, is the answer to start some from Tunbridge Wells or Eridge? Of course not.
A significant proportion of the traffic from Eastbourne and Lewes is heading for Haywards Heath and Gatwick Airport. It's therefore not practical to divert this traffic via Uckfield.A significant proportion of the traffic from Eastbourne and Lewes is heading for Haywards Heath and Gatwick Airport. It's therefore not practical to divert this traffic via Uckfield.
I wouldn't propose doing so. It doesn't help in allowing more trains to run on the Brighton Main Line in any case, because of East Croydon, as already stated.
Leading on from the point above, traffic arriving and departing from Lewes is over and above the current traffic. The station is sufficiently busy that trains for Uckfield would have to depart from Brighton, Seaford, Newhaven or Eastbourne, or a purpose built siding close to Lewes.
Let's look at morning peak movements to and from Lewes - say 0700 - 0830 given the distance to London. An hour is insufficient to show service patterns once through trains via Uckfield are added.
| Time | From | To |
| 0710 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0712 | Eastbourne | Brighton |
| 0717 | Brighton | Lewes |
| 0722 | Seaford & Hastings | Victoria |
| 0723 | Lewes | Brighton |
| 0726 | Brighton | Lewes |
| 0731 | Haywards Heath | Eastbourne |
| 0734 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0734 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0738 | Brighton | Lewes |
| 0742 | Eastbourne | London Bridge |
| 0744 | Brighton | Ashford |
| 0745 | Lewes | Brighton |
| 0751 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0753 | Victoria | Ore |
| 0755 | Hastings | Victoria |
| 0758 | Newhaven | Brighton |
| 0758 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0807 | Ashford | Brighton |
| 0809 | Brighton | Ore |
| 0819 | Brighton | Eastbourne |
| 0819 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0823 | Hastings | Victoria |
| 0826 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0830 | Eastbourne | Brighton |
Now let's add in the relevant Uckfield services.
| Time | From | To |
| 0738 dep. | Uckfield | London Bridge |
| 0804 dep. | Uckfield | London Bridge |
| 0834 dep. | Uckfield | London Bridge |
| 0725 arr. | London Bridge | Uckfield |
| 0753 arr. | London Bridge | Uckfield |
The 2008 study shows the Uckfield to Lewes journey time as 10 minutes by train. The obvious approach is to make the Lewes to Brighton trains London Bridge to Brighton via Uckfield, which creates this service pattern (starting the first Brighton train of the day at Uckfield):
| Time | From | To |
| 0707 | Uckfield | Brighton |
| 0710 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0712 | Eastbourne | Brighton |
| 0717 | Brighton | Lewes |
| 0722 | Seaford & Hastings | Victoria |
| 0726 | Brighton | London Bridge via Uckfield |
| 0731 | Haywards Heath | Eastbourne |
| 0734 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0734 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0742 | Eastbourne | London Bridge |
| 0744 | Brighton | Ashford |
| 0737 | London Bridge via Uckfield |
Brighton |
| 0751 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0752 | Brighton | London Bridge via Uckfield |
| 0753 | Victoria | Ore |
| 0755 | Hastings | Victoria |
| 0758 | Newhaven | Brighton |
| 0758 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0803 | London Bridge via Uckfield |
Lewes |
| 0807 | Ashford | Brighton |
| 0809 | Brighton | Ore |
| 0819 | Brighton | Eastbourne |
| 0819 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0822 | Lewes | London Bridge via Uckfield |
| 0823 | Hastings | Victoria |
| 0826 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0830 | Eastbourne | Brighton |
Two more trains, reversing in a siding on the Newhaven branch, so no need for extra platform space. That's a result, but let's add in the relevant Tunbridge Wells services. And let's say that Uckfield to Tunbridge Wells is 30 minutes: Eridge is 16 minutes from Uckfield, so it's about right.
| Time | From | To |
| 0800 dep. | Tunbridge Wells | Charing Cross |
| 0825 dep. | Tunbridge Wells | Charing Cross |
| 0851 dep. | Tunbridge Wells | Charing Cross |
| 0921 dep. | Tunbridge Wells | Charing Cross |
| 0708 arr. | Charing Cross | Tunbridge Wells |
This does result in five extra trains either arriving or departing from Lewes from 0700-0830. I'd really like to run them all to and from Brighton, but I'm not convinced there is the capacity to do so. Extending to Seaford would also be good, but this would mean platform lengthening. It's an illustration, but it dos look possible.
| 0717 | Brighton | Charing Cross via Tunbridge Wells |
| 0722 | Seaford & Hastings | Victoria |
| 0726 | Brighton | London Bridge via Uckfield |
| 0731 | Haywards Heath | Eastbourne |
| 0734 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0734 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0737 | Lewes | Charing Cross via Tunbridge Wells |
| 0742 | Eastbourne | London Bridge |
| 0744 | Brighton | Ashford |
| 0737 | London Bridge via Uckfield |
Brighton |
| 0750 | Charing Cross via Tunbridge Wells |
Lewes |
| 0751 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0752 | Brighton | London Bridge via Uckfield |
| 0753 | Victoria | Ore |
| 0755 | Hastings | Victoria |
| 0758 | Newhaven | Brighton |
| 0758 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0803 | London Bridge via Uckfield |
Lewes |
| 0807 | Ashford | Brighton |
| 0809 | Lewes | Charing Cross via Tunbridge Wells |
| 0809 | Brighton | Ore |
| 0810 | Tunbridge Wells | Lewes |
| 0819 | Brighton | Eastbourne |
| 0819 | Seaford | Brighton |
| 0822 | Lewes | London Bridge via Uckfield |
| 0823 | Hastings | Victoria |
| 0826 | Brighton | Seaford |
| 0830 | Eastbourne | Brighton |
| 0830 | Tunbridge Wells | Lewes |
Various parts of Hurst Green to Uckfield are single track.
Running the timetable above would need remedial work on that situation. According to the 2008 study, the current timetable could be run with a 1000m passing loop at Uckfield and at Hamsey, where the new line would leave the Lewes to Haywards Heath line. I suspect that the timetable above would need double track from Hamsey to Eridge to be reliable.
Hurst Green to Uckfield is limited to 70mph.
According to the 2008 study, analysis took place in 2000 as to whether speeds on this section could be increased - in essence it concluded that since this is an area of sharp curves and steep gradients with frequent station stops, it is not worth increasing line speeds.
SO HOW WOULD YOU PHASE AN IMPLEMENTATION?
Phase 1: Existing service extended to Lewes, terminate in sidings south of Lewes on the Newhaven branch.
Phase 2: Lewes Loop, run the existing trains through to and from Brighton, at least at peak hours.
Phase 3: AC electrification
Phase 4: double the line to Eridge, add three peak trans per hour to and from Tunbridge Wells.
CONCLUSION
Slightly more complicated than building eight miles of track. But - at the end of the day - achievable.
