Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

More calls for Uckfield Line

3
 
On 9 Mar 2012 at 3:53pm Castle Gate wrote:
A further article mentioning support for the Lewes-Uckfield line has been printed today.

Check it out here »
3
2
On 9 Mar 2012 at 5:28pm Peasant wrote:
Yawn.
No more public money on "studies" please.
Can those who want it plese fork out the necessary.
5
16
On 9 Mar 2012 at 8:38pm Deelite wrote:
I do not want the line and am glad that the likelihood of it ever happening are vanishingly small.
3
5
On 9 Mar 2012 at 9:24pm grafter wrote:
Could we get the guys who run the railway at Bentley Wildfowl to build one to that gauge along the line. It would be fantastic puffing along at 15mph.Stop off for cream teas along the way. A bit more realistic too.
6
6
On 10 Mar 2012 at 9:06am Matt Kent wrote:
Firstly, the article is a little misleading, as the Lewes-Uckfield Line was closed by East Sussex County Council and not by Beeching.
Secondly, the opening of this line is essential as the south east rail network, that heavily relies on the Brighton Main Line (which will be at capacity at the end of the decade), is creaking.
Thirdly, for those that don't get the train at Uckfield in the peak may not realise that people are getting on at Buxted first, travelling south to Uckfield and then travelling north to London. Electrification and redoubling the track bed is urgently required.
Fourthly, after the Balcombe tunnel closure, the Croydon Landslide and fairly frequent 'improvement works', there is no flexibility in and around Sussex. Finally, many Councils are getting behind BML2 and the momentum is building from many MP's and Lord's. We should be scrapping HS2 and spending the money on enhancing the current network instead of carving up swathes of countryside (imho). Cheers - Matt
1
1
On 10 Mar 2012 at 10:28am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Goodie, another thing to blame the county council for! How the hell did they get the powers to do that, Matt? Private act of parliament or something?
1
1
On 10 Mar 2012 at 11:29am Matt Kent wrote:
@ACT. Lots of history of the closure via the Weladen Line Campaign Website.

Check it out here »
 
2
On 10 Mar 2012 at 11:55am Matt Kent wrote:
Hopefully you'll be interested in the BML2 rail link that includes the reinstatement of the Lewes - Uckfield section. See link for proposed BML2 network map.

Check it out here »
2
2
On 10 Mar 2012 at 3:24pm Realist wrote:
Face facts! There is a five-mile gap between Barcombe Mills and Lewes, with no defined track-bed. There is no protected route for the three miles between Hamsey Lock and Lewes. Where is this fantasy railway to go? Some say, directly south from Isfield to Ringmer, joining the coast line east of Lewes. The trouble with this option is that it will trigger the development of "Ringmer New Town" on the Broyle - poor bloody Ringmer!
3
2
On 10 Mar 2012 at 4:19pm Matt Kent wrote:
@Realist, there was the 1966 Act to ensure that an alignment was re-introduced. Check out the link. Cheers - Matt

Check it out here »
4
2
On 10 Mar 2012 at 4:39pm realist wrote:
Thanks for the link, Matt. Unfortunately for the Steam Dreamers, this permission lapsed many, many, years ago - certainly well before the 1970s. In the late 1990s, Lewes District Council lifted the protection against development on the old 1888-1898 alignment, leaving the 1960s route only a limited protection northwards from Hamsey Lock. There is currently no preferred or protected route south of this point, and any attempt to establish one may well upset the National Park authorities. The more ambitious of your fellow railistas favour the Ringmer option - a new route driven rough-shod across Bentley and the Broyle. This matter will continue to entertain us for many years yet, but it is important, and more fun, to know the facts!
2
2
On 10 Mar 2012 at 6:46pm cyclist wrote:
Does not seem much point. Nobody will be able to afford to use it if the Condems have their way.
2
1
On 11 Mar 2012 at 10:16am bonzodog wrote:
Deelite, it really is not enough to say you do not want the line. Please say why you don't. That way you m,ight get more support. Or not.
3
1
On 11 Mar 2012 at 1:36pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Hmmm, from what I can see ESCC didn't actually get the line closed but played a contributory role. Given that the alternative was to have all through-town traffic crossing the Ouse via Cliffe Bridge for ever, I'm not sure I'd disagree with that.
I'm not convinced about reopening it. I think unless rail travel gets cheaper any new rail line is likely to be a white elephant, and I'm not sure that commuters will want to travel via Uckfield to London as it is bound to be a significantly longer journey than on the current line.
I quite like the idea of being able to get to Tunbridge Wells etc more easily though, and if they could come up with a route that avoided using the route of the old line aroudn Barcombe/Isfield, it wouldn't be too bad.
I really don't think the economics stacks up though. I'm sure it would be cheaper to upgrade/extend/expand the current line to London.
3
2
On 11 Mar 2012 at 5:19pm Matt Kent wrote:
@ACT, it has been costed at approximated £1billion to double the capacity of the existing Brighton Mainline. New tunnels and new Viaducts don't come cheap and the engineering would take significantly longer than opening the Lewes Uckfield link at a fifth of the cost. Reopening the line is cost efficient compared to larger engineering solutions, plus the intangible flexibility is never costed when things go wrong on the network when days or weeks of work or schooling are lost through delays (imho) Cheers - Matt
2
2
On 11 Mar 2012 at 6:12pm Matt Kent wrote:
By the way, there will be an exhibition and consultation at Uckfield Civic Centre regarding the proposed Uckfield traffic reduction system (aka gyratory), that some critics say will jeopardise any reinstatement of the Lewes Uckfield rail link. The consultation starts Thursday 15th until Saturday 17th. See link for more details. Cheers - Matt

Check it out here »
1
1
On 11 Mar 2012 at 7:56pm Jane S wrote:
The Uckfield link supporters' website is on www.bml2.co.uk if people would like to look. Two main reasons for supporting the idea: linking Uckfield etc to Lewes/ Brighton/ Eastbourne, and providing increasingly-needed backup for the at-capacity Brighton main line whenever someone sneezes between Haywards Heath and East Croydon. Annette C-T is right that the route to London via Uckfield would in theory be slower, but in practice there could, more and more often, be trainloads of very grateful commuters glad to be getting to work/ home at all via that route.
 
 
On 11 Mar 2012 at 8:47pm grafter wrote:
Assuming the line was reinstated where would it join the line into Lewes? I'm assuming that it will have to join up between Cooksbridge and Lewes somewhere?
3
1
On 11 Mar 2012 at 10:12pm mickyboy wrote:
the route as originaly existed is due to development of lewes impossible, however the track could join the existing london line simply around hamsey, as current projections are that the existing brighton - london line can no longer cope with expansion the concept of lewes-uckfeild-london is a runner the reopened line would contribute to a badly needed boost of public transport facilities and usability. the cost of uckfield to london season ticket is significantly lower than say burgess hill to london, in part because the journey is longer in time. it is time to stop prevaricating and get it built
 
2
On 11 Mar 2012 at 10:32pm bonzodog wrote:
Grafter: the original junction was just the Lewes side of Cooksbridge, the original trackbed has been preserved, and that is where the replacement junction would be, if a straightforwarded re-instatement were to be done. IMHO that is the most expedient and should come before any BML2 scheme. Mickyboy, this info applies to your question too.
2
 
On 12 Mar 2012 at 10:33am Taff wrote:
Considering the amount of procrastination after the 2000 floods to improve defences which are still incomplete I think there is more chance of seeing ALL cyclists conforming to the highway code than seeing a line between Lews and Uckfield.
1
4
On 12 Mar 2012 at 5:40pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I'm still not convinced. It may cost 5 times more to increase capacity on the Brighton line, but we know people already use that one. There's a fair certainty that it would generate a lot of revenue.
They could spend the 20% on reopening the Lewes-Uckfield line and find that the revenue didn't cover the running costs. If people didn't use it because it took longer and fares were higher than going the other way, (which they might well be because it's a longer journey), it wouldn't be economically viable in the wonderful world of unsubsidised railways.
I'm not sure that I'd support the loss of countryside it would involve either.
 
 
On 12 Mar 2012 at 10:03pm Spotter wrote:
Only a raving fool thinks that we live in a world of train services without public subsidy!!
1
 
On 13 Mar 2012 at 7:07pm Duncan wrote:
When will people understand the logic....
Try this!
Jim & Fred are neighbours.
Jim takes his car and drives 25 minutes to a station for a fast train.
Fred walks/drives 5 minutes to a local station and takes a train journey which takes ten minutes longer.
Fred has a door to door journey which is ten minutes shorter.
When The fast train is cancelled for some reason, Jim is happy to take the slower train to get home and is converted to a slower journey but quicker door to door time without the hassle!
Does that help?


1
3
On 13 Mar 2012 at 9:37pm Black Top Bob wrote:
The answer is to dual the A26 and drive a northern by-pass around Lewes to Kingston roundabout. People will always want to drive rather than sit next to god knows who on a stupid train.
2
1
On 14 Mar 2012 at 9:32pm Jane S wrote:
Hello Annette C-T - train companies often send us on different routes to London etc (you find yourself going through strange new stations sometimes) - it doesn't affect the ticket price, really. Re speed of the total journey, the reinstated Uckfield line would have dual functions - local travel Lewes etc to Uckfield (Uckfield passengers to London would presumably continue to go direct rather than down to Lewes and back up), and back-up for the Brighton main line. Someone told me today that there's a plan for a fast train from Btn/ Lewes to London on the new route - it'll be a less busy line, so there'd be slots for a non-stopping train, ie fast. But to me the key thing is that it provides back-up when there's a hitch on the H Heath - E Croydon bottleneck, ie increasing reliability of arrival rather than speed. Anyhow, just some notes.
 
1
On 16 Mar 2012 at 1:05am Timetable Tim wrote:
Incorrect Jane S, train companies do not send you on different routes to london. That would be the signal men of Network Rail. They do this because there usually is a delay on the normal track such as a broken down train, something on the line etc. What would you rather they do??? Stop the train and make you wait until it is clear?? Then you really would moan, wouldn't you!!!
 
1
On 17 Mar 2012 at 2:27pm realist wrote:
Bonzodog, please listen very carefully, for I will say this only once...There is NO preferred or protected route south of Hamsey Lock, approx three miles from Lewes, and there is a FIVE MILE gap between Barcombe Mills and Lewes, with NO defined or preserved track-bed. See my posts of 10th March. Get real, Bonzodog, or remain stuck in your theoretical doodah!
 
 
On 17 Mar 2012 at 4:54pm Neil K wrote:
Re-opening the line would be a disaster for all of us in this lovely part of East Sussex - it would bring about the development of THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of new houses. The official investigation into a possible re-opening itself said "... to make the case for the reopening of the line... will require a significant increase in population along the corridor as a whole..." and as an example "the provision of a reopened railway line between Oxford/Aylesbury and Milton Keynes [c30miles] is expected to be funded through the provision of approximately 200,000 dwellings along the route." The message is clear and consistent throughout the report... on any basis of measurement, the only way to justify the re-opening is by MANY MANY more people living in the area to use it. Uckfield residents are very upset by the idea of up to 1000 noew houses in the area, let alone the extra 50,000 houses between Uckfield and Lewes that the above example would imply. And the Wealden Line Campaign think that this would be "progess" or "economic regeneration"?
 
1
On 17 Mar 2012 at 4:55pm Neil K wrote:
Re-opening the line would be a disaster for all of us in this lovely part of East Sussex - it would bring about the development of THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of new houses. The official investigation into a possible re-opening itself said "... to make the case for the reopening of the line... will require a significant increase in population along the corridor as a whole..." and as an example "the provision of a reopened railway line between Oxford/Aylesbury and Milton Keynes [c30miles] is expected to be funded through the provision of approximately 200,000 dwellings along the route." The message is clear and consistent throughout the report... on any basis of measurement, the only way to justify the re-opening is by MANY MANY more people living in the area to use it. Uckfield residents are very upset by the idea of up to 1000 noew houses in the area, let alone the extra 50,000 houses between Uckfield and Lewes that the above example would imply. And the Wealden Line Campaign think that this would be "progess" or "economic regeneration"?
1
 
On 17 Mar 2012 at 5:57pm Jane S wrote:
Hello Timetable Tim - I'm a bit taken aback that you tell me I'm moaning - ??? I was writing in APPROBATION of trains being sent on different routes, not complaining. And I was actually talking about timetabled route options, on e.g. the Portsmouth-London line where some trains go via Woking and some via sunny Effingham Junction; the point that I was making, replying to Annette, was that the train companies don't in these circs charge you according to your route to/ from London. I'm sorry that I didn't write my thoughts clearly enough and that I incurred your wrath - unjustified, I do promise you.
 
2
On 28 Mar 2012 at 11:18pm Shakey Jake wrote:
The 2008 Lewes-Uckfield study was a shambles looking solely at just building the new line between the two towns and not the bigger picture. To make the scheme work, the existing Uckfield branch needs redoubling and electrifying inconjunction with the extension into Lewes. With this in place, the extensions into Brighton and Tunbridge Wells should follow, together with the new main line into central London (Sanderstead-Elmers End-Lewisham-Tunnel to Stratford for interchange with Crossrail).
In saying that, i`m also toying with the idea that BML2 could be routed through East Grinstead via blitzing the Bluebell Line. A no-brainer for sure but could give a faster London-Brighton journey time than via Uckfield but without a Brighton-Tunbridge Wells link.


5 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Harveys 42:132
Harveys

A journalist who asks a politician a question is doing their job in helping to hold politicians to account for how they are... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
The Lewes Forum is one of the many great things about Lewes
Nina