Extra carriages for Southern rail travellers

The Argus: Extra carriages for Southern rail travellers Extra carriages for Southern rail travellers

Rail passengers in Sussex have been told they can expect more than 250 newtrain carriages and more frequent services from 2014.

Southern Rail has announced multimillion pound plans to purchase up to 40 new Electrostar train carriages – pending approval from the Department for Transport.

The new£60 million carriages will come from British train manufacturer Bombardier and will add to the 130 new carriages Southern bought at the end of last year.

It is also developing separate proposals with the Government to purchase a further 116 carriages, with the option of buying a further 100 after that.

The company, which is the main operator in Sussex, says it will receive the new carriages in 2014 but it does not know exactly where they will be deployed.

Chris Hudson, spokesman for Southern Rail, said: “The new carriages will be in full operation by December 2014, but it has not yet been decided where.

“They will mean an increased number of services for our passengers and more seating capacity across the network.”

Investment welcomed

Bruce Williamson, spokesman for rail passenger campaigners Railfuture, said there was a desperate need for new rolling stock and they welcomed any investment in rail services.

He added: “This is obviously good news. But one word of caution would be that the Government is often accused of double counting.

“We would like to see how these plans fit in with previous announcements of new rolling stock.

“Bombardier is the last remaining British manufacturer of trains in the UKso we applaud that Southern Rail are buying internally.”

It is hoped the new carriages will be deployed in Sussex to help ease congestion on the busy Brighton to London route.

Campaigners are currently calling for a second Brighton to London mainline to be built and say it is the only solution to overcrowded trains.

The service is currently used by around 8,000 commuters from Brighton each day.

Chris Burchell, Southern Rail managing director, said: “I am pleased that Southern is able to assist the Department in introducing additional capacity.

“The potential new order for 116 carriages will be exciting news for train manufacturers and for passengers.”

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:12pm Sat 17 Nov 12

rubberflipper says...

More trains is the only answer to congestion and I'm surprised it took this long for them to realise it.
More trains is the only answer to congestion and I'm surprised it took this long for them to realise it. rubberflipper

3:15pm Sat 17 Nov 12

lindzimak says...

I suggest they add some carriages to the disgrace of a service between Brighton and Ashford International!
I suggest they add some carriages to the disgrace of a service between Brighton and Ashford International! lindzimak

3:29pm Sat 17 Nov 12

The Heretic says...

Any increase in capacity has to be welcome news for the poor old commuter. Not sure where to deploy the new stock? Without the extra infrastructure capacity of BML2, my guess is they'll get deployed at red signals all the way up the Brighton Mainline with monotonous regularity !!

I'd also agree with lindzimak, with the obvious proviso that the line between Ore and Ashford gets electrified. With that, plus BML2, Southern could dispense with non-standard diesel trains.
Any increase in capacity has to be welcome news for the poor old commuter. Not sure where to deploy the new stock? Without the extra infrastructure capacity of BML2, my guess is they'll get deployed at red signals all the way up the Brighton Mainline with monotonous regularity !! I'd also agree with lindzimak, with the obvious proviso that the line between Ore and Ashford gets electrified. With that, plus BML2, Southern could dispense with non-standard diesel trains. The Heretic

4:00pm Sat 17 Nov 12

menton says...

Just one little point, Bombardier is NOT British. It is Canadian. Black marks to the Argus and to Railfuture.
Just one little point, Bombardier is NOT British. It is Canadian. Black marks to the Argus and to Railfuture. menton

4:51pm Sat 17 Nov 12

moonster says...

But there franchise is due soon and at the moment as reported Southern rail are in financial trouble and getting a monthly rebate from the government so no idea who is paying for these trains.

First capital connect new train contract is still yet to be signed and them and southern rail are due to merge in next few years in to a new franchise and could be under a new operator. So all change ahead. .
But there franchise is due soon and at the moment as reported Southern rail are in financial trouble and getting a monthly rebate from the government so no idea who is paying for these trains. First capital connect new train contract is still yet to be signed and them and southern rail are due to merge in next few years in to a new franchise and could be under a new operator. So all change ahead. . moonster

5:07pm Sat 17 Nov 12

ghost bus driver says...

The Heretic wrote:
Any increase in capacity has to be welcome news for the poor old commuter. Not sure where to deploy the new stock? Without the extra infrastructure capacity of BML2, my guess is they'll get deployed at red signals all the way up the Brighton Mainline with monotonous regularity !!

I'd also agree with lindzimak, with the obvious proviso that the line between Ore and Ashford gets electrified. With that, plus BML2, Southern could dispense with non-standard diesel trains.
Yes absolutely. The other week after that poor person got hit at Gatwick, I ended up having to get an East Grinstead train from Victoria, then a FCC one to brighton from there. Both were standing room only and very very late. If BML2 had been there I could have stayed on the East Grinstead one and changed at Oxted, then got another train via Uckfield to either Lewes and changed, or straight to Brighton had the line been open. And I caught a cold off one of the commuters. So yes I absolutely and unequivocally support BML2.
[quote][p][bold]The Heretic[/bold] wrote: Any increase in capacity has to be welcome news for the poor old commuter. Not sure where to deploy the new stock? Without the extra infrastructure capacity of BML2, my guess is they'll get deployed at red signals all the way up the Brighton Mainline with monotonous regularity !! I'd also agree with lindzimak, with the obvious proviso that the line between Ore and Ashford gets electrified. With that, plus BML2, Southern could dispense with non-standard diesel trains.[/p][/quote]Yes absolutely. The other week after that poor person got hit at Gatwick, I ended up having to get an East Grinstead train from Victoria, then a FCC one to brighton from there. Both were standing room only and very very late. If BML2 had been there I could have stayed on the East Grinstead one and changed at Oxted, then got another train via Uckfield to either Lewes and changed, or straight to Brighton had the line been open. And I caught a cold off one of the commuters. So yes I absolutely and unequivocally support BML2. ghost bus driver

5:36pm Sat 17 Nov 12

sbiscorrupt says...

Would these be the extra carriages that were promised years ago in return for 'year on year' above inflation ticket price rises?
Would these be the extra carriages that were promised years ago in return for 'year on year' above inflation ticket price rises? sbiscorrupt

6:56pm Sat 17 Nov 12

bill porter says...

BML2 is not the answer as the capacity issue is at the London end and that won't change with a link from Lewes to Uckfield.

All it gives you (apart from a white elephant as studies have repeatedly shown it is not viable) is an alternative route when there are engineering works.
BML2 is not the answer as the capacity issue is at the London end and that won't change with a link from Lewes to Uckfield. All it gives you (apart from a white elephant as studies have repeatedly shown it is not viable) is an alternative route when there are engineering works. bill porter

7:43pm Sat 17 Nov 12

The Heretic says...

bill porter wrote:
BML2 is not the answer as the capacity issue is at the London end and that won't change with a link from Lewes to Uckfield.

All it gives you (apart from a white elephant as studies have repeatedly shown it is not viable) is an alternative route when there are engineering works.
BML2 does address the London end, and then some. See

http://www.bml2.co.u
k/

for full details of the scheme. No current DfT plans are looking to predicted future network requirements (although they admit serious shortfalls in future capacity identified by Network Rail), and still look at London as having the same focii as pre-docklands and pre-mass air travel. Passenger flows right now will tell you it just isn't so any more, and infrastructure investment has to reflect the reality of today's - and tomorrow's - transport needs.

BML2 improves cross-London connections from Kent and East Anglia as well as Sussex, allows vastly better use of airport capacity in the south-east, and would remove the need for mllions of journeys changing on/off the overcrowded London tube and bus network. Costed solely against Sussex and viewed as just a relief line, the costs (of the entire project) would be unrealistic (although the Sussex phase is a fraction of the total cost, and do-able, especially in light of improvements now underway at London Bridge), but the scheme benefits the whole south-east, a catchment of over 7 million ( taking only E & SE London boroughs into account rather than the whole GLA) in the most congested part of the UK.

The studies referred to (Network Rail 2008) are now questioned, in an Argus article, by none other than Junior Transport Minister, Norman Baker MP, and by others. The data on which conclusions were based in 2008 was at best incomplete. Mr Baker now identifies that study as flawed, and is of the opinion that a sound case exits now for re-instating the Uckfield-Lewes line as a local service. Maybe he's right, although it would do precious little to solve Brighton's problems and be a wasted opportunity, maybe even a white elephant, but as part of BML2 it would be infinitely more useful to the region as a whole.
[quote][p][bold]bill porter[/bold] wrote: BML2 is not the answer as the capacity issue is at the London end and that won't change with a link from Lewes to Uckfield. All it gives you (apart from a white elephant as studies have repeatedly shown it is not viable) is an alternative route when there are engineering works.[/p][/quote]BML2 does address the London end, and then some. See http://www.bml2.co.u k/ for full details of the scheme. No current DfT plans are looking to predicted future network requirements (although they admit serious shortfalls in future capacity identified by Network Rail), and still look at London as having the same focii as pre-docklands and pre-mass air travel. Passenger flows right now will tell you it just isn't so any more, and infrastructure investment has to reflect the reality of today's - and tomorrow's - transport needs. BML2 improves cross-London connections from Kent and East Anglia as well as Sussex, allows vastly better use of airport capacity in the south-east, and would remove the need for mllions of journeys changing on/off the overcrowded London tube and bus network. Costed solely against Sussex and viewed as just a relief line, the costs (of the entire project) would be unrealistic (although the Sussex phase is a fraction of the total cost, and do-able, especially in light of improvements now underway at London Bridge), but the scheme benefits the whole south-east, a catchment of over 7 million ( taking only E & SE London boroughs into account rather than the whole GLA) in the most congested part of the UK. The studies referred to (Network Rail 2008) are now questioned, in an Argus article, by none other than Junior Transport Minister, Norman Baker MP, and by others. The data on which conclusions were based in 2008 was at best incomplete. Mr Baker now identifies that study as flawed, and is of the opinion that a sound case exits now for re-instating the Uckfield-Lewes line as a local service. Maybe he's right, although it would do precious little to solve Brighton's problems and be a wasted opportunity, maybe even a white elephant, but as part of BML2 it would be infinitely more useful to the region as a whole. The Heretic

8:12pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Papa Lazarou 1 says...

There is a move by Railfuture to revisit the case for putting back a single diesel line just between Lewes & Uckfield. As The Heretic says, this would do little, if nothing, to give the kind of relief that a direct BML2 link to Brighton via Uckfield would offer. The problem starts with the fact that southbound trains arriving at Lewes would be facing the wrong way for the coast's biggest draw, Brighton. There is also no added benefit of being able to provide an alternative route for services in an otherwise fully electrified network. Put quite simply, whilst we may not like it, the 2008 ESCC led study was correct in assessing that such a reinstatement offered little benefit. BML2 on the other hand, provides relief to both the Brighton and Tonbridge Main Lines, re-connects Lewes, puts the rail link back between West Kent & East Sussex, avoids East Croydon bottlenecks, Allows dedicated Gatwick Express services to be restarted, gives a direct service to Canary Wharf, Stratford & beyond, plus many other benefits. All this for so comparatively little money and work. They should start building it today!
There is a move by Railfuture to revisit the case for putting back a single diesel line just between Lewes & Uckfield. As The Heretic says, this would do little, if nothing, to give the kind of relief that a direct BML2 link to Brighton via Uckfield would offer. The problem starts with the fact that southbound trains arriving at Lewes would be facing the wrong way for the coast's biggest draw, Brighton. There is also no added benefit of being able to provide an alternative route for services in an otherwise fully electrified network. Put quite simply, whilst we may not like it, the 2008 ESCC led study was correct in assessing that such a reinstatement offered little benefit. BML2 on the other hand, provides relief to both the Brighton and Tonbridge Main Lines, re-connects Lewes, puts the rail link back between West Kent & East Sussex, avoids East Croydon bottlenecks, Allows dedicated Gatwick Express services to be restarted, gives a direct service to Canary Wharf, Stratford & beyond, plus many other benefits. All this for so comparatively little money and work. They should start building it today! Papa Lazarou 1

9:05pm Sat 17 Nov 12

HJarrs says...

Good luck with BML2, I think it shows promise and is certainly cheaper than building an equivalent road.

We should lobby, Southern, councils and MPs to press for some of the additional carriages to be used on the coast lines.

Locally, this could go hand in hand with the changes on the Lewes Rd corridor and provide many, if perhaps not all, with an alternative to the private car.
Good luck with BML2, I think it shows promise and is certainly cheaper than building an equivalent road. We should lobby, Southern, councils and MPs to press for some of the additional carriages to be used on the coast lines. Locally, this could go hand in hand with the changes on the Lewes Rd corridor and provide many, if perhaps not all, with an alternative to the private car. HJarrs

10:33pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Broken Robot says...

Finally, maybe there'll be more than 4 carriages from Brighton to Worthing when there's a football match on :)
Finally, maybe there'll be more than 4 carriages from Brighton to Worthing when there's a football match on :) Broken Robot

12:35am Sun 18 Nov 12

farang says...

If only it were possible to run double deckers - before anyone jumps down my throat I know tunnels are the problem!
Other than that a separate high speed service - and reduce the ridiculously overpriced fares!
The overall problem is the lack of foresight in capacity building.
If only it were possible to run double deckers - before anyone jumps down my throat I know tunnels are the problem! Other than that a separate high speed service - and reduce the ridiculously overpriced fares! The overall problem is the lack of foresight in capacity building. farang

1:11am Sun 18 Nov 12

puddings3112 says...

Great, more hideously uncomfortable Electrostars. South West Trains are running the far superior Siemens Desiro fleet with comfortable seats (even in the 3/2 configuration so loved by southern) and don't seem to be filled with the stench of the toilets. Since the same company is providing the new Thameslink trains, it would make more sense for the new superfranchise (if and when it comes) to have one make of train. Offload the current Electrostars on to South Eastern/London Southern services replacing their old networker trains and have a single fleet for Brighton

As well as BML2, the current BML needs its signal system upgraded to allow more trains to be run (one of the biggest issues currently is the unreliability of signalling between Haywards Heath and Gatwick), better use of the quad lines north of Balcombe tunnel so that non stop trains can pass stopping trains and a review of the speed limit to shorten the journey time although the introduction of overhead lines rather than the obsolete third rail would be preferable - high train speeds and a reduction in the issues caused by running a contact plate
Great, more hideously uncomfortable Electrostars. South West Trains are running the far superior Siemens Desiro fleet with comfortable seats (even in the 3/2 configuration so loved by southern) and don't seem to be filled with the stench of the toilets. Since the same company is providing the new Thameslink trains, it would make more sense for the new superfranchise (if and when it comes) to have one make of train. Offload the current Electrostars on to South Eastern/London Southern services replacing their old networker trains and have a single fleet for Brighton As well as BML2, the current BML needs its signal system upgraded to allow more trains to be run (one of the biggest issues currently is the unreliability of signalling between Haywards Heath and Gatwick), better use of the quad lines north of Balcombe tunnel so that non stop trains can pass stopping trains and a review of the speed limit to shorten the journey time although the introduction of overhead lines rather than the obsolete third rail would be preferable - high train speeds and a reduction in the issues caused by running a contact plate puddings3112

7:26am Sun 18 Nov 12

whereisthe...? says...

...and in 2014 we'll also all be flying about with jetpacks, and pigs might fly, ..etc.
...and in 2014 we'll also all be flying about with jetpacks, and pigs might fly, ..etc. whereisthe...?

9:04am Sun 18 Nov 12

ruberducker says...

or you could all just move back to london.
or you could all just move back to london. ruberducker

9:23am Sun 18 Nov 12

farang says...

xenophobe alert!
xenophobe alert! farang

9:57am Sun 18 Nov 12

The Heretic says...

puddings3112 makes some good points, unfortunately, the line especially between Preston Park and, well everywhere north of there, is SO busy that Network Rail concluded even 'in cab' signalling could only produce marginal improvements to capacity. The four track section north of Balcombe could work better, but you're looking at some serious investment at Three Bridges and on to the Quarry Line to make it happen. Overhead electrification? Yes please, but can you imagine the chaos changing over if we've still just go the one line from London?

Double deck trains have their own drawbacks. They take much longer to load/unload at stations in peak times as Mr Bulleid discovered (yes - they were tried) and they reduce headroom to what you might find on the top deck of a bus (that's the modern kit you find across Europe). You'll still have some standing passengers in rush hour.

The Brighton Line always comes down to insufficient infrastructure. The short sighted decisions to shut the Steyning (Beeching/MoT '66) and Uckfield - Lewes (BR/ESCC '69) lines were contoversial at the time, and we've been living with the consequences ever since. The longer the situation is allowed to go on, the costlier it will be to solve.

Sooner or later (Network Rail estimate 2029), the Brighton line will be at bursting point. Everything that can be done to increase capacity will have been done, and it still won't be enough. Many think it will be much sooner than that and no large infrastructure project happpens overnight.
puddings3112 makes some good points, unfortunately, the line especially between Preston Park and, well everywhere north of there, is SO busy that Network Rail concluded even 'in cab' signalling could only produce marginal improvements to capacity. The four track section north of Balcombe could work better, but you're looking at some serious investment at Three Bridges and on to the Quarry Line to make it happen. Overhead electrification? Yes please, but can you imagine the chaos changing over if we've still just go the one line from London? Double deck trains have their own drawbacks. They take much longer to load/unload at stations in peak times as Mr Bulleid discovered (yes - they were tried) and they reduce headroom to what you might find on the top deck of a bus (that's the modern kit you find across Europe). You'll still have some standing passengers in rush hour. The Brighton Line always comes down to insufficient infrastructure. The short sighted decisions to shut the Steyning (Beeching/MoT '66) and Uckfield - Lewes (BR/ESCC '69) lines were contoversial at the time, and we've been living with the consequences ever since. The longer the situation is allowed to go on, the costlier it will be to solve. Sooner or later (Network Rail estimate 2029), the Brighton line will be at bursting point. Everything that can be done to increase capacity will have been done, and it still won't be enough. Many think it will be much sooner than that and no large infrastructure project happpens overnight. The Heretic

10:25am Sun 18 Nov 12

ruberducker says...

farang wrote:
xenophobe alert!
xenophobia is the correct spelling.
as a brightonian"thats born and bred to you"we accept anybody here regardless of colour,race,religion
,or sexual habbit's.even mp's that come here to ruin our"town".it was a ritorical reply since the majority of our population are from london.
[quote][p][bold]farang[/bold] wrote: xenophobe alert![/p][/quote]xenophobia is the correct spelling. as a brightonian"thats born and bred to you"we accept anybody here regardless of colour,race,religion ,or sexual habbit's.even mp's that come here to ruin our"town".it was a ritorical reply since the majority of our population are from london. ruberducker

11:17am Sun 18 Nov 12

Wiggsy says...

The Heretic wrote:
puddings3112 makes some good points, unfortunately, the line especially between Preston Park and, well everywhere north of there, is SO busy that Network Rail concluded even 'in cab' signalling could only produce marginal improvements to capacity. The four track section north of Balcombe could work better, but you're looking at some serious investment at Three Bridges and on to the Quarry Line to make it happen. Overhead electrification? Yes please, but can you imagine the chaos changing over if we've still just go the one line from London?

Double deck trains have their own drawbacks. They take much longer to load/unload at stations in peak times as Mr Bulleid discovered (yes - they were tried) and they reduce headroom to what you might find on the top deck of a bus (that's the modern kit you find across Europe). You'll still have some standing passengers in rush hour.

The Brighton Line always comes down to insufficient infrastructure. The short sighted decisions to shut the Steyning (Beeching/MoT '66) and Uckfield - Lewes (BR/ESCC '69) lines were contoversial at the time, and we've been living with the consequences ever since. The longer the situation is allowed to go on, the costlier it will be to solve.

Sooner or later (Network Rail estimate 2029), the Brighton line will be at bursting point. Everything that can be done to increase capacity will have been done, and it still won't be enough. Many think it will be much sooner than that and no large infrastructure project happpens overnight.
"Sooner or later (Network Rail estimate 2029), the Brighton line will be at bursting point. Everything that can be done to increase capacity will have been done, and it still won't be enough. Many think it will be much sooner than that and no large infrastructure project happpens overnight"

Whilst requiring significant cost and development, double decker trains are surely the only way such increases to commuter traffic can accomodated.
[quote][p][bold]The Heretic[/bold] wrote: puddings3112 makes some good points, unfortunately, the line especially between Preston Park and, well everywhere north of there, is SO busy that Network Rail concluded even 'in cab' signalling could only produce marginal improvements to capacity. The four track section north of Balcombe could work better, but you're looking at some serious investment at Three Bridges and on to the Quarry Line to make it happen. Overhead electrification? Yes please, but can you imagine the chaos changing over if we've still just go the one line from London? Double deck trains have their own drawbacks. They take much longer to load/unload at stations in peak times as Mr Bulleid discovered (yes - they were tried) and they reduce headroom to what you might find on the top deck of a bus (that's the modern kit you find across Europe). You'll still have some standing passengers in rush hour. The Brighton Line always comes down to insufficient infrastructure. The short sighted decisions to shut the Steyning (Beeching/MoT '66) and Uckfield - Lewes (BR/ESCC '69) lines were contoversial at the time, and we've been living with the consequences ever since. The longer the situation is allowed to go on, the costlier it will be to solve. Sooner or later (Network Rail estimate 2029), the Brighton line will be at bursting point. Everything that can be done to increase capacity will have been done, and it still won't be enough. Many think it will be much sooner than that and no large infrastructure project happpens overnight.[/p][/quote]"Sooner or later (Network Rail estimate 2029), the Brighton line will be at bursting point. Everything that can be done to increase capacity will have been done, and it still won't be enough. Many think it will be much sooner than that and no large infrastructure project happpens overnight" Whilst requiring significant cost and development, double decker trains are surely the only way such increases to commuter traffic can accomodated. Wiggsy

12:22pm Sun 18 Nov 12

The Heretic says...

There's likely to be a useful role for double deck trains, once the loading gauge issues are sorted out (wow, that sounded really simple - It isn't of course!), but they're no panacea for all the woes of the rail network for the reasons I've stated, amongst others.

Regarding the Brighton line, the lack of a second route is the key element in the vulnerability of our services to London (which dwarfs passenger numbers on both Coastway routes combined). Issues likely to close a two track line are just as likely to close a four track line. The spend needed to quadruple the line south of Three Bridges would be huge, never mind the controversy of compulsory purchases needed in urban areas, and yet still leave us just as vulnerable to disruption. Additionally, it would do nothing to address capacity problems at East Croydon, or provide additional train paths north of Three Bridges. Both key points identified by Network Rail.

The plain facts are that the current attenuated network is insufficient to requirements now, never mind in 15 years time. BML2, as others have pointed out, solves capacity issues on the Tunbridge Wells to London route also, which can never be the case as long as the Brighton Line is viewed in isolation. The London phase will alleviate capacity problems on lines from Kent and drastically improve matters for passengers from East Surrey and South London by providing more and better paths for services. Even Thameslink which, as things stand, relies on a two-track tunnel at Blackfriars - a single route which always causes chaos when unavailable - is vulnerable without the redundancy BML2 would add into the wider network. Effectively the same issue as the Brighton Line alone, except with three critical pinch points instead of none with BML2.

The problems on the rail network in the south-east are larger than just the Brighton Line, but while a solution is being sought for problems here, it makes sense to address not only the wider area, but to look at readily identifieable future requirements.
There's likely to be a useful role for double deck trains, once the loading gauge issues are sorted out (wow, that sounded really simple - It isn't of course!), but they're no panacea for all the woes of the rail network for the reasons I've stated, amongst others. Regarding the Brighton line, the lack of a second route is the key element in the vulnerability of our services to London (which dwarfs passenger numbers on both Coastway routes combined). Issues likely to close a two track line are just as likely to close a four track line. The spend needed to quadruple the line south of Three Bridges would be huge, never mind the controversy of compulsory purchases needed in urban areas, and yet still leave us just as vulnerable to disruption. Additionally, it would do nothing to address capacity problems at East Croydon, or provide additional train paths north of Three Bridges. Both key points identified by Network Rail. The plain facts are that the current attenuated network is insufficient to requirements now, never mind in 15 years time. BML2, as others have pointed out, solves capacity issues on the Tunbridge Wells to London route also, which can never be the case as long as the Brighton Line is viewed in isolation. The London phase will alleviate capacity problems on lines from Kent and drastically improve matters for passengers from East Surrey and South London by providing more and better paths for services. Even Thameslink which, as things stand, relies on a two-track tunnel at Blackfriars - a single route which always causes chaos when unavailable - is vulnerable without the redundancy BML2 would add into the wider network. Effectively the same issue as the Brighton Line alone, except with three critical pinch points instead of none with BML2. The problems on the rail network in the south-east are larger than just the Brighton Line, but while a solution is being sought for problems here, it makes sense to address not only the wider area, but to look at readily identifieable future requirements. The Heretic

12:31pm Sun 18 Nov 12

HJarrs says...

To make major change to BML would result in a lot of disruption for a long time. BML2 could be built without causing disruption to BML while freeing up capacity currenlty taken up by trains from the Lewes direction. A similar reasoning is the big sell for HS2 I notice.
To make major change to BML would result in a lot of disruption for a long time. BML2 could be built without causing disruption to BML while freeing up capacity currenlty taken up by trains from the Lewes direction. A similar reasoning is the big sell for HS2 I notice. HJarrs

12:48pm Sun 18 Nov 12

The Heretic says...

HJarrs wrote:
To make major change to BML would result in a lot of disruption for a long time. BML2 could be built without causing disruption to BML while freeing up capacity currenlty taken up by trains from the Lewes direction. A similar reasoning is the big sell for HS2 I notice.
Except there are already two or more routes to major destinations along HS2. We don't have that luxury here, but you're spot on about the disruption.

The same consideration will apply if a decision gets made to switch from dc third rail to ac overhead. Without a second route to London, it would be hell on wheels on rail (and the roads) for months on end.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: To make major change to BML would result in a lot of disruption for a long time. BML2 could be built without causing disruption to BML while freeing up capacity currenlty taken up by trains from the Lewes direction. A similar reasoning is the big sell for HS2 I notice.[/p][/quote]Except there are already two or more routes to major destinations along HS2. We don't have that luxury here, but you're spot on about the disruption. The same consideration will apply if a decision gets made to switch from dc third rail to ac overhead. Without a second route to London, it would be hell on wheels on rail (and the roads) for months on end. The Heretic

1:34pm Sun 18 Nov 12

ghost bus driver says...

bill porter wrote:
BML2 is not the answer as the capacity issue is at the London end and that won't change with a link from Lewes to Uckfield.

All it gives you (apart from a white elephant as studies have repeatedly shown it is not viable) is an alternative route when there are engineering works.
It IS viable. They just don;t want to admit it, that's why they threw the studies.
[quote][p][bold]bill porter[/bold] wrote: BML2 is not the answer as the capacity issue is at the London end and that won't change with a link from Lewes to Uckfield. All it gives you (apart from a white elephant as studies have repeatedly shown it is not viable) is an alternative route when there are engineering works.[/p][/quote]It IS viable. They just don;t want to admit it, that's why they threw the studies. ghost bus driver

2:30pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Mark the cab says...

Why don't they put a spur in between Angmering & Arundel at least it could take traffic from Worthing & if engineering problems would save reversing out of Littlehampton .
This would cut 20 min off diverted trains when Btn mainline blocked.
Why don't they put a spur in between Angmering & Arundel at least it could take traffic from Worthing & if engineering problems would save reversing out of Littlehampton . This would cut 20 min off diverted trains when Btn mainline blocked. Mark the cab

4:27pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Ted-Kelly1 says...

Extra trains good? How about the pedestrians who are forced to wait in the wind/rain/snow for up to 15 minutes at the Shoreham-by-Sea Eastern Road level-crossing? With the 'elf and safety' regulations prohibiting the barriers to be raised if there is a train on the east-bound line standing at Shoreham station; just one extra train an hour would mean that the barriers would, at best, remain closed for 40 minutes in each hour of the 'Rush'. But the congestion there is nothing, compared with the Portslade crossing!
Extra trains good? How about the pedestrians who are forced to wait in the wind/rain/snow for up to 15 minutes at the Shoreham-by-Sea Eastern Road level-crossing? With the 'elf and safety' regulations prohibiting the barriers to be raised if there is a train on the east-bound line standing at Shoreham station; just one extra train an hour would mean that the barriers would, at best, remain closed for 40 minutes in each hour of the 'Rush'. But the congestion there is nothing, compared with the Portslade crossing! Ted-Kelly1

4:32pm Sun 18 Nov 12

The Heretic says...

Mark the cab wrote:
Why don't they put a spur in between Angmering & Arundel at least it could take traffic from Worthing & if engineering problems would save reversing out of Littlehampton .
This would cut 20 min off diverted trains when Btn mainline blocked.
There's more to be said for this idea than for some others, but 20mins shaved off reversal at Nohampton still leaves a pretty unattractive jouney time, I've had to do this trip a few times after the dreaded rail replacement buses come off for the night. Lovely in daylight if you're not in a hurry, tedious when you are or after dark. Plus it still gives train operators headaches with staff and stock in the wrong place. Add to this that the Arun Valley line isn't the fastest, and other than Sundays, paths on the Coastway would be an insurmountable issue, so in reality, you're looking at something fairly unworkable. It also doesn't address identified traffic growth which simply cannot be ignored forever, as much as the DfT would like to pretend it can.
[quote][p][bold]Mark the cab[/bold] wrote: Why don't they put a spur in between Angmering & Arundel at least it could take traffic from Worthing & if engineering problems would save reversing out of Littlehampton . This would cut 20 min off diverted trains when Btn mainline blocked.[/p][/quote]There's more to be said for this idea than for some others, but 20mins shaved off reversal at Nohampton still leaves a pretty unattractive jouney time, I've had to do this trip a few times after the dreaded rail replacement buses come off for the night. Lovely in daylight if you're not in a hurry, tedious when you are or after dark. Plus it still gives train operators headaches with staff and stock in the wrong place. Add to this that the Arun Valley line isn't the fastest, and other than Sundays, paths on the Coastway would be an insurmountable issue, so in reality, you're looking at something fairly unworkable. It also doesn't address identified traffic growth which simply cannot be ignored forever, as much as the DfT would like to pretend it can. The Heretic

4:47pm Sun 18 Nov 12

martyt says...

i would love to know who is going to use these train over the next few years as more and more people are priced out of travelling either by rail or road to work ,is it not time to invest in local jobs and stop paying thousands of pounds to get to work every year and taking even more money away from the city we all choose live in ?
i would love to know who is going to use these train over the next few years as more and more people are priced out of travelling either by rail or road to work ,is it not time to invest in local jobs and stop paying thousands of pounds to get to work every year and taking even more money away from the city we all choose live in ? martyt

5:17pm Sun 18 Nov 12

farang says...

How do you invest in local jobs? The truth of that option is the almost impossible task of identifying a cost/benefit ratio (analysis)
Infrastructure itself provides long-ish term employment and ongoing opportunities because of the gateway effect, and then at the end of the project you have a better infrastructure.
How do you invest in local jobs? The truth of that option is the almost impossible task of identifying a cost/benefit ratio (analysis) Infrastructure itself provides long-ish term employment and ongoing opportunities because of the gateway effect, and then at the end of the project you have a better infrastructure. farang

6:57pm Sun 18 Nov 12

martyt says...

farang wrote:
How do you invest in local jobs? The truth of that option is the almost impossible task of identifying a cost/benefit ratio (analysis)
Infrastructure itself provides long-ish term employment and ongoing opportunities because of the gateway effect, and then at the end of the project you have a better infrastructure.
see i have one person thinking about it already ,my point is re travel is why spend 4/5 k a years getting to work and 2 too 3 hours a day going to work when if you invest in local jobs people would need 6/7k a year less just to stand still that s not counting the hours saved in travelling too and from work
[quote][p][bold]farang[/bold] wrote: How do you invest in local jobs? The truth of that option is the almost impossible task of identifying a cost/benefit ratio (analysis) Infrastructure itself provides long-ish term employment and ongoing opportunities because of the gateway effect, and then at the end of the project you have a better infrastructure.[/p][/quote]see i have one person thinking about it already ,my point is re travel is why spend 4/5 k a years getting to work and 2 too 3 hours a day going to work when if you invest in local jobs people would need 6/7k a year less just to stand still that s not counting the hours saved in travelling too and from work martyt

8:01pm Sun 18 Nov 12

ghost bus driver says...

Maybe if local jobs payed properly. The council would have to attract companies paying proper wages in large numbers to make any sort of difference. I don;t think people would commute to London if it didn't pay better.
Maybe if local jobs payed properly. The council would have to attract companies paying proper wages in large numbers to make any sort of difference. I don;t think people would commute to London if it didn't pay better. ghost bus driver

7:31am Mon 19 Nov 12

bluemonday says...

menton wrote:
Just one little point, Bombardier is NOT British. It is Canadian. Black marks to the Argus and to Railfuture.
bombardier build trains in derby,so it is a british manufacturer,just not british owned.
[quote][p][bold]menton[/bold] wrote: Just one little point, Bombardier is NOT British. It is Canadian. Black marks to the Argus and to Railfuture.[/p][/quote]bombardier build trains in derby,so it is a british manufacturer,just not british owned. bluemonday

9:10am Mon 19 Nov 12

martyt says...

bluemonday wrote:
menton wrote:
Just one little point, Bombardier is NOT British. It is Canadian. Black marks to the Argus and to Railfuture.
bombardier build trains in derby,so it is a british manufacturer,just not british owned.
but bluemonday were do they pay there taxes ?
[quote][p][bold]bluemonday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]menton[/bold] wrote: Just one little point, Bombardier is NOT British. It is Canadian. Black marks to the Argus and to Railfuture.[/p][/quote]bombardier build trains in derby,so it is a british manufacturer,just not british owned.[/p][/quote]but bluemonday were do they pay there taxes ? martyt

10:37am Mon 19 Nov 12

The Heretic says...

ANY jobs are dependant on sufficiently developed and reliable infrastructure. Without it, who is going to invest in an area? The current lack of an adequate rail network is one of the greatest economic obstacles faced by our city and the local region.

As to fares, one of the reasons they are so high is the DfT's policy of selective pricing to deter travel on crowded services. Remember the annual round of price rises for tickets? Remember earlier in the year a proposal to hike fares even higher to 'solve' overcrowding?

Get the second route open, and that excuse is gone, plus there will be an incentive for more economic investment and competetive off-peak pricing. Reliable rail services aren't a luxury, they're a necessity.
ANY jobs are dependant on sufficiently developed and reliable infrastructure. Without it, who is going to invest in an area? The current lack of an adequate rail network is one of the greatest economic obstacles faced by our city and the local region. As to fares, one of the reasons they are so high is the DfT's policy of selective pricing to deter travel on crowded services. Remember the annual round of price rises for tickets? Remember earlier in the year a proposal to hike fares even higher to 'solve' overcrowding? Get the second route open, and that excuse is gone, plus there will be an incentive for more economic investment and competetive off-peak pricing. Reliable rail services aren't a luxury, they're a necessity. The Heretic

1:36pm Mon 19 Nov 12

farang says...

I know that towns like Heathfield, which is only 8 miles from Uckfield and Buxted would very much welcome the BML2. Stonegate is also close but the main development is to the west of the town
Ironically, in the early to mid '60s there was a huge advert in Charing Cross extolling the joys of living in Heathfield, because of the good rail connection! The line was axed in the late '60s!
Mind you the '50s tory gov't thought we'd all be flying around in helicopters by now so who knows what Cameron's dreaming of!
I know that towns like Heathfield, which is only 8 miles from Uckfield and Buxted would very much welcome the BML2. Stonegate is also close but the main development is to the west of the town Ironically, in the early to mid '60s there was a huge advert in Charing Cross extolling the joys of living in Heathfield, because of the good rail connection! The line was axed in the late '60s! Mind you the '50s tory gov't thought we'd all be flying around in helicopters by now so who knows what Cameron's dreaming of! farang

8:24pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Papa Lazarou 1 says...

martyt wrote:
i would love to know who is going to use these train over the next few years as more and more people are priced out of travelling either by rail or road to work ,is it not time to invest in local jobs and stop paying thousands of pounds to get to work every year and taking even more money away from the city we all choose live in ?
I think that the idea of BML2 whisking thousands of workers out of the city of Brighton & Hove is just part of the situation. Let's not forget the many thousands of people from the East Sussex hinterland of Wealden who choose to do their business and are employed in Brighton & Hove. These people add terrifically to the economic vibrancy of the city. They also add terrifically to the levels of congestion through the road routes via Lewes, as well as clogging up the many city centre car parks, which could be better utilised by retail customers & trippers! (if they don't come by train, that is!)
[quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: i would love to know who is going to use these train over the next few years as more and more people are priced out of travelling either by rail or road to work ,is it not time to invest in local jobs and stop paying thousands of pounds to get to work every year and taking even more money away from the city we all choose live in ?[/p][/quote]I think that the idea of BML2 whisking thousands of workers out of the city of Brighton & Hove is just part of the situation. Let's not forget the many thousands of people from the East Sussex hinterland of Wealden who choose to do their business and are employed in Brighton & Hove. These people add terrifically to the economic vibrancy of the city. They also add terrifically to the levels of congestion through the road routes via Lewes, as well as clogging up the many city centre car parks, which could be better utilised by retail customers & trippers! (if they don't come by train, that is!) Papa Lazarou 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree