posing new questions

BML2: “a good idea” says industry voice

• 
• 

Published on Tuesday, 04 December 2012 06:27

 

In 1985 the Thatcher Government acceded to British Rail’s application to close the main rail link between Sussex and Kent – which it had been steadily running down. BR said they could avoid spending £1.2m over 3 years on maintenance and would save another £140k by not renewing Grove Junction at Tunbridge Wells (shown here) where lines from Brighton and Hastings once diverged.

 

This critical land (in foreground) though described as ‘safeguarded’ is now being offered on the open market to the highest bidder.

 

 

The debate over the fate of strategic rail land at Tunbridge Wells continues. Kent on Sunday featured the issue, whilst BBC Radio Kent recently interviewed the Government’s Transport Minister Norman Baker; BML2’s Project Manager, and Sim Harris the Managing Editor of Railnews – ‘The voice of the industry’.

Its editor began by saying electrification was probably the biggest challenge facing BML2, pointing out that industry policy and Government are now moving away from DC third rail to AC overhead power supply whereby this raises significant incompatibility problems for the Southern Region’s extensive third rail system. “If you want to do the BML2 Project, electrification would appear to be essential” he said, commenting: “It would be a shame if this scheme has to hang on because electrification is changing, but that might be what happens.”

He is absolutely right of course and we intend addressing this subject in the New Year.
  
For the moment, though, the BBC interviewer wanted to focus on the immediate business of safeguarding the land so that Tunbridge Wells and its many commuters would not lose out on all the benefits of another London main line with BML2.

Sim Harris told her: “I think I can come down quite firmly here. Electrification apart, it’s a good idea and there’s a lot to be said for it and land that would be essential to the scheme I don’t think it should be sold off. I think that is wrong. It is short term. Yes, somebody can build some new houses on it, well there are other places in Tunbridge Wells where you’ll be able to build some new houses, I’m quite sure.”

He then aptly raised the difficulties confronting reopening lines where subsequent industrial and residential redevelopments have severely compromised rights of way. In the case of Tunbridge Wells he was most insistent: “We can see this coming a mile off. It should stay in a position where you could put the railway back. Let’s not make it much worse.”

He went further by saying: “Rail capacity is a big issue in Kent and Sussex – certainly we’re going to need more trains in the future if present trends are anything to go by, so let’s not stop a significant improvement by just allowing somebody now to step in and get in the way.”

Earlier that morning, Norman Baker told the BBC interviewer about his support for reopening the Uckfield-Lewes link as part of a new main line between London and Newhaven. He said: “It would certainly strengthen the case if we could open the line properly between Eridge and Tunbridge Wells and I was very sorry when that closed. That was actually quite a late closure and I was disappointed British Rail went ahead with that.”

 

The Minister was then asked: “Are you aware that lines from Tonbridge and Brighton into London are so overcrowded?” to which he responded: “Well, indeed, absolutely so – the railway is a victim of its own success.”
 
Later in the programme, Railnews’s editor commented: “Well it’s interesting to hear that Mr Baker is wholly in favour of it, I’m glad to hear it, but I’m wondering whether he’s speaking in his capacity as MP for Lewes or is he speaking as a Transport Minister? Because if he is, then that means that DfT transport policy is inclined to warm to this scheme and if they are then they should be intervening and making sure that this piece of derelict land is preserved.”

We earnestly wish such was the case. But the DfT seems to have misunderstood Lord Berkeley’s question tabled in the House of Lords on 12 November: “To ask HMG whether it will request the new owners of British Rail Property land to purchase the former track bed of the line between Tunbridge Wells central and West stations in order to safeguard a corridor for future expansion of the rail network between Kent and Sussex.”

However, a few days ago Earl Attlee, on behalf of HMG responded: “BRB Residuary does not own the former trackbed of the line in question”. Well, we know that.

London & Continental Railways (LCR) – a company owned by the Transport Secretary – will take over remaining assets once belonging to BRB. Lord Berkeley’s request was for this former BR land, now being sold on by Railway Paths for potential housing development, to be taken back into public ownership through the Secretary of State, perhaps with LCR.

Earl Attlee continued: “The National Planning Policy Framework states that: ‘Local Planning Authorities should identify and protect, where there is robust evidence, sites and routes which could be critical to developing transport infrastructure to widen transport choice’.”

This just excuses Government from any responsibility for safeguarding rail corridors in the nation’s interest and reveals an absence of strategy for specific routes with widely- acknowledged potential to strengthen and improve the network. And with one of the Government’s own transport ministers, Norman Baker, making the case himself – how clear does it have to be?

Local authorities aren’t qualified to plan future rail capacity – that’s not their job and they really shouldn’t be put in this position. Even where they have aspirational policies to protect routes within their boundaries, almost none has the power, let alone the will, to stand up to aggressive developers with well-paid QCs at their side – as we have seen in the past.

For its part, Railway Paths Ltd, which bought the half-mile rail corridor for £1 in 2001, claims it needs to raise money to meet its ‘significant maintenance liabilities’ and, as a charity, is required to obtain ‘best value’ for asset disposal.

Its chairman Ian White told us: ‘Most of the land in question in Tunbridge Wells did not carry a former railway line and the potential sale does not jeopardise the future of the railway line that runs through it. The route of the line itself is doubly protected, not only by the planning authority but also this absolute requirement for the Secretary of State to give authorisation for the land to be used in a way that would prevent the railway from being reopened.’

We disagree that the land is ‘doubly protected’ as Ian White suggests. We have no objection to the bulk of non-railway land being sold separately, but the trackbed – and that means its entire double-track formation – should not be included in this sale.

The preferable solution is for Network Rail to take ownership and we await a response to our request that they take custody of it – particularly as they’ve said they are not opposed to reopening the line subject to a robust business case.

Given the increasingly critical situation facing the South East’s overburdened network, there can be no further erosion of this important rail corridor.

It's becoming increasingly clear that BML2 is becoming a hot political issue in the Kent/Sussex area. Clearly the Uckfield-Lewes line should be reopened immediately as its closure was lunacy and its continuing position is untenable. Including Eridge-Tunbridge Wells Central in the scheme is broadening the travel opportunities and will free up some capacity on the existing Brighton Main Line. Reopening these lines will also open up many new travel opportunities that don't get near London or Brighton. When these lines are reopened the Cuckoo Line from Polegate to Eridge and the Eridge to Three Bridges routes will need to be carefully looked at.

One interesting development will be the replacement of TWO heritage routes, the Lavender Line and the Spa Valley Railway, a development that is likely to happen elsewhere in the UK but probably only on former through routes. Heritage groups operating branch lines and narrow gauge lines - PROVIDING THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT OFFERING REAL FREIGHT AND PASSENGER SERVICES - should simply become mini-TOCs.

fortunately ministers change regularly!

Transport Minister condemns new railway through his constituency

• 
• 

Published on Monday, 15 October 2012 07:28

 

 

 

The South Down’s Clayton tunnel is just one constraint to increasing capacity on the BML south of Three Bridges.

But Transport Minister Baker insists there’ll be no new tunnelling in his constituency.

The major feature on Brighton Main Line 2 in RAIL magazine by BBC award-winning transport journalist Paul Clifton reflects increasing and widespread interest in the project.  His thought-provoking analysis included comment from Network Rail, Passenger Focus, East Sussex County Council and the Campaign for Better Transport. However, Transport Minister Norman Baker’s comments have proved most contentious.

 

The Lewes Lib Dem MP told Paul Clifton: “I don’t think Brian Hart’s grandiose scheme has a hope of happening.” He also said “I think it [BML2] undermines the case for Lewes – Uckfield being reinstated because it is not realistic.”

 

The 2008 Reinstatement Study, managed by East Sussex County Council’s ‘Rail Project Board’ in association with consultants Mott MacDonald, produced a very weak business case for reopening. But the Minister told RAIL “If you put that study in computer terms, it was a case of putting rubbish in and getting rubbish out.” Well, he should know.

 

Norman Baker was given a principal role on the Rail Board, with full voting rights assigned to him throughout the process. However, when the highly-supportive pro-rail councils of Lewes, Crowborough and Uckfield asked for similar authority, he supported ESCC’s decision to exclude them – conceding merely ‘observer’ status. And this was despite all three towns having jointly contributed £50,000 – representing 40% of the Study’s cost – and double the amount from ESCC (which it afterwards attempted to claw back).

 

Although the Study’s conclusions are still disputed, the argument from the DfT and the rail industry against reopening Uckfield to Lewes remains ‘trains would face the wrong way’ – towards Eastbourne instead of Brighton.

 

Network Rail says it cannot back schemes which don’t have a business case, such as reopening Uckfield to Lewes, although its Lead Strategic Route Planner for Sussex, Chris Rowley told RAIL: “We recognise that there could well be need for it in the future” – suggesting the mid-2030s.

 

Even so, there was cold comfort for those anticipating Network Rail’s urgent attention to problems in Surrey, Sussex and Kent because they are concentrating resources on South West lines out of Waterloo. Rowley said: “So the Brighton Main Line might not be the highest priority for new relief routes south of the River Thames even when we get to 2030.”

  

Meanwhile, the Brighton Line’s predicament just worsens. Back in 2007, Network Rail investigated converting the route for double-deck trains, calculating £2 billion for the rolling stock and infrastructure involving seven new tunnels, including one through the South Downs at Clayton near Brighton. An alternative scheme for operating extremely long (16 car) trains had a similar price tag, due to extending platforms, relocating points, signalling etc.

 

Worse still, either scheme would be hugely disruptive, requiring a complete six-month shutdown of the Brighton Line during conversion. This alone would cost £183m in penalty payments to train operators, whilst Network Rail’s conclusion? – even slower services with still no additional or alternative route.

 

BML2’s £315m Sussex Phase is reasonably affordable and would take pressure off neighbouring routes. It also needs just one tunnel – not at Clayton, but six miles east at Ashcombe – enabling the under-utilized Uckfield line to be extended directly into Brighton, providing the shortest alternative route and serving a developing corridor with useful connections elsewhere. BML2 radically improves the business case, whilst Lewes and Eastbourne also gain an alternative route on the back of the bigger project.

 

Despite this, Norman Baker remains as hostile as ever towards BML2, telling Paul Clifton: “He [Brian Hart] likes drawing lines on maps, which causes a huge amount of money to be deployed and causes huge amounts of controversy.”

 

He said: “I’m getting complaints from Lewes about tunnelling under people’s houses. That’s not going to happen in a million years.” But he knows the proposed Ashcombe tunnel, to facilitate increased services between London and Brighton, goes nowhere near housing and passes entirely beneath chalk downland.

 

His position is not only regrettable but increasingly difficult to comprehend. We don’t know why he is so strongly against Brighton having a direct secondary/alternative main line to London.

 

At a fringe event at the recent Lib-Dems’ Conference in Brighton, the Birmingham Mail reported: ‘High speed rail will be good for the environment and the economy, Transport Minister Norman Baker has insisted.’

 

And only last month he told BBC Sussex Radio: “The high speed line is not about saving journey time, it’s about the capacity issues north of London and the high speed line is actually the best answer to capacity issue.”
 
The merits or otherwise of the £34 billion High Speed 2 project isn’t the question, but Norman Baker also told BBC Sussex listeners that BML2’s proposed 2½ mile link towards Brighton (£84m) would be “very, very expensive” and would also be “very controversial – and the last thing we want is a controversial line”.

 

So why is it controversial to tunnel under the South Downs for a moderately-priced ordinary railway, but not through the Chilterns or Cotswolds for a multi-billion high speed line? A case of not in my constituency?

 

As Transport Minister he is doing his utmost to deny everyone living in the centre of East Sussex, west Kent and eastern Surrey the benefits of direct, fast services into Brighton. Students could reach the universities by train and residents quick access into the city for shopping, entertainment and leisure. Sports fans (even from as far away as London) would have direct trains to Falmer’s hugely-successful Amex Stadium. But maybe it’s no surprise because Norman Baker also notoriously opposed Brighton’s stadium being built there.

 

Clearly, he would rather people drove through Lewes and is intent on denying others the wonderful convenience of a direct, super-efficient railway into Brighton. He told his conference delegates “Actually, growth of the economy comes largely from green investment.” But in his world that evidently applies only to high-speed lines elsewhere and not conventional railways in his patch.

 

He insists Uckfield line passengers should have to go into Lewes and then change onto another train to reach Brighton and vice versa. How incensed he would be if Brighton’s MPs demanded all trains should go into Brighton with none bypassing the city by running directly between Haywards Heath and Lewes.

 

BML2 is extremely important for the south east for all manner of reasons: relieving the Tonbridge and the Brighton main lines; opening up new routes into London’s business heartland; improving Gatwick’s links and connecting with Stansted as one dedicated shuttle; for growth and prosperity through London’s eastern sector; building upon Crossrail’s success; opening the way for ‘Thameslink 2’ and relieving the Blackfriars core.

 

 

But for that we need leaders with political vision – and a modicum of business acumen.

Of course it'll happen, because it has to!

BML2 – will it ever happen? RAIL investigates!

• 
• 

Published on Tuesday, 02 October 2012 07:09

 

 

 

 “There is simply no room on the tracks to squeeze in more services.” – Paul Clifton

 

This week, the UK’s highly-successful journal RAIL features a major investigation into the Brighton Main Line 2 Project.

Paul Clifton, BBC South’s Transport Correspondent, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and for many years a leading contributor to Rail Professional has now joined Britain’s biggest-selling modern railways magazine.

His extensive six-page well-illustrated, in-depth feature is published on Wednesday 3 October. As Clifton says on RAIL’s website:

“The Brighton Main Line is pretty full. That much is obvious to any passenger who travels in the peak.

To train drivers, the evidence is even more glaring. Take a cab ride from Brighton at 0730, and you are unlikely to see even one green signal all the way to London. And for much of the journey, the train in front will be clearly visible. This is what a train jam looks like… and it is just as serious as the traffic jam on the parallel M23.

There is simply no room on the tracks to squeeze in more services. Once Thameslink’s delayed Siemens trains arrive, almost all services will have 12 carriages - the maximum length possible.

Modifying several junctions and fitting in-cab signalling could help slightly. But Network Rail believes it will merely delay the day when one of Britain’s most congested railway corridors reaches bursting point.

For 25 years Brian Hart has campaigned for the more-or-less parallel route through Uckfield to be reinstated as an alternative link between London and the South Coast. Now a branch line, it used to connect to Lewes. But the idea was squashed by a 2008 Network Rail report that said there was no viable business case.

Hart was deflated, but not defeated. With the route through East Sussex constrained by a lack of capacity closer to London, it was reinvented as a new scheme, with major changes north of East Croydon.

What Hart now proposes is far more grandiose - and far more costly… Brighton Main Line 2.”

Paul Clifton has interviewed Network Rail; Passenger Focus; the Campaign for Better Transport; and East Sussex County Council who speak about BML2 as well as the enormous problems confronting the south’s overburdened and overcrowded rail network.

However, whereas Lord Bassam of Brighton is backing the project for the enormous benefits it would bring – not only to the ever-popular City by the Sea, but to the whole South East – the Lewes MP and Transport Minister Norman Baker is scathingly critical about BML2.

Project Manager Brian Hart said: “Many people will be disappointed when they read about Norman Baker’s deep-seated opposition to people who live in the centre of East Sussex, Western Kent and Eastern Surrey enjoying the enormous benefits of having direct trains into Brighton. Similarly, he rules out a direct alternative line to London for the City of Brighton.”

We will comment further on the Lewes MP’s stance and people’s reaction once they have read Paul Clifton’s excellent analysis.

about time!!

Network Rail takes first step towards BML2

• 
• 

Published on Monday, 24 September 2012 07:50

 

 

 

Uckfield station shortly before closure in 1991 and looking towards Lewes (the current single-line terminus is behind camera). All buildings were demolished in 2001 and today the site is wholly overgrown. Had the 2008 Reopening Study proved positive then a new station with dual-track and two 12-car platforms would have been built here by Network Rail.

‘It is our view that for operational reasons and to safeguard future rail capacity needs, a number of properties proposed for transfer to London & Continental Railways should be transferred to Network Rail’

Land essential for Brighton Main Line 2 will once again be an integral part of national rail infrastructure.  Cross-party political representation is urging the Government to obligingly grant ownership of the strategic Sussex site to Network Rail following its formal application to the DfT.

Uckfield is among just five key locations in England and Scotland which Network Rail has specifically asked the DfT to transfer into their custody from the former British Rail Property Board, which is one of the ‘quangos’  being abolished by David Cameron’s  administration.  A submission from NR’s London headquarters says Uckfield, in their view, is required “for operational reasons and to safeguard future rail capacity needs”.

This is tremendously welcome news, not least because it finally removes the threat of non-rail redevelopment which has been hanging over this land for almost thirty years. This began back in 1985 when the station was still open and a planning application for a massive 20,000 sq ft superstore was lodged, whereupon East Sussex County Council prepared to rescind the trackbed protection policy. However, the Wealden Line Campaign urged councillors to continue safeguarding the route and, by a narrow majority, the application was refused. Once the station was moved across the road and the site became derelict, subsequent attempts to build houses and flats have all been fought, whilst the most recent threat has come from ESCC’s own road scheme.

In May, ESCC held a consultation on local traffic solutions for Uckfield, one of which controversially involved building a new road right across the station site, but the public’s overwhelming message was reopening the railway must take priority. In June, we had an informal meeting with a senior ESCC director to find common ground where alternative proposals were suggested, aimed at providing a proper transport hub around the reopened railway.

This initiative resulted in a wider meeting in mid-July between various councils at which ESCC conceded that severing the trackbed would be tantamount to “political suicide”. Network Rail then revealed its intention regarding the station site. Suddenly the concept of creating a transport hub for integrating trains, buses, taxis, etc, as well as accommodating ESCC’s aspirations for improving local traffic, was universally welcomed and deemed the way forward.

Wealden District Council has since written to Transport Minister and Lewes MP Norman Baker seeking his support and influence, pointing out the “unique opportunity” to facilitate Uckfield’s growth, provide a local traffic solution, as well as “the potential to ease what is becoming a significant issue for all users of the London – Brighton line and other Southern rail services due to overcrowding.”

The letter also mentions the District and County Council’s support for reinstating the railway and not permitting “any development which would thwart that objective”. Whilst accepting there appears to be no business case at the moment, it recognizes “the evidence is clearly mounting” to find alternative solutions to congestion on the rail network.

We commend Wealden District Council for adopting this strong position and speaking warmly of Network Rail’s application, saying this could “really begin to lay the foundations” for reopening and “providing a deliverable alternative to the resolution of problems on existing critical rail links between the City and the South Coast.”

In the House of Lords, Labour Lord Tony Berkeley has given support by tabling the following question: “To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following its consultation on the proposed transfer of properties from BRBR to London and Continental Railways, whether it will accede to Network Rail’s request to receive the Uckfield station lands in order to safeguard future rail capacity needs there.”

 

Upon Network Rail taking possession of the land, the first step would be the provision of badly-needed temporary commuter car parking within the former goods yard. Network Rail says it already has the finance in place for this to proceed and would be best-placed to safeguard the railway route through the site, ensuring no encroachment.

In order to stress the importance of this transfer happening as soon as possible, Wealden District Council’s Head of Planning Policy and Environment has written to Uckfield MP Charles Hendry, asking him to facilitate a meeting between the new Rail Minister Simon Burns and a small delegation. Meanwhile, in a communication from Network Rail, Charles Hendry was told “Network Rail is indeed keen to re-acquire the old Uckfield railway station site.”

We trust there will now be a swift and positive response from the Minister, bringing to a close over twenty-seven years of uncertainty, as well as anxiety for all those who want rail services restored.

BML2’s project manager said: “Ownership of Uckfield had to be the first major step, whilst it’s blatantly clear that only BML2 can deliver substantial new rail capacity into London. Once this premise is accepted, we can start building towards a greatly enhanced and more robust Southern network.”

a hundredth the cost of HS2!

£315m to start Brighton Main Line 2

Monday, 17 September 2012 19:21

“There are many rail schemes crying out for far smaller sums than High Speed 2 which could offer a bigger impact pound for pound. An excellent example is BML2.” - Christian Wolmar, Transport Broadcaster and Writer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No more trains can run on the Brighton Line says the DfT and Thameslink through London is full.   As congestion rises, demand outstrips capacity, Gatwick insists on improved links, commuters stand, the case for BML2 strengthens.   With calls for Network Rail to reappraise reopening the Uckfield line, its 2008 Study needs to incorporate BML2’s Brighton connection with its £53m tunnel through the South Downs for fast, direct services into the City.   Using Network Rail’s own figures, £315m would give Sussex a new electrified main line, although Network Rail and DfT increments would raise this to £650m.   Reading station upgrade £895m; Birmingham Gateway station redevelopment £600m – BML2 still represents excellent value.   Brighton Main Line 2 is one recession-busting major infrastructure project that the Government cannot ignore any longer and could so easily begin.   For expanded detail on this major story please visit our website at www.bml2.co.uk/the-news