BML2 on NewsNow

BML2 on Twitter

You can now follow @BML2INFORMATION on

Follow @BML2INFORMATION on Twitter

BML2 RSS Feeds

Related Articles

Who's Online

We have 64 guests and no members online

Private Login

Latest 2017 BML2 Project Publication

BML2 response to Gibb Report BML2 response to 2017 Gibb report

Our 10pp response to the Gibb Report is now available to download for viewing or printing.

Click on image to start the download.

It is approx 2.5mb in landscape pdf format.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Important BML2 Information, Facts, Figures and News Reports

Uncategorised

BML2 Sussex Phase 2017

Is BML2 just a fancy name for reopening the Uckfield to Lewes link?
No, it is a much better project which will achieve the goal of reopening this link. Before this section of line was closed, the route was worked with direct through services running between Brighton and London, as well as between Brighton and Tonbridge via Tunbridge Wells. The link was NOT closed as a result of the Beeching Report and British Railways had no intention of relinquishing this important secondary route between London and the Sussex Coast.

 

It was closed as a result of East Sussex County Council’s ‘Lewes Inner Relief Road Scheme’ the first stage of which required the closure and removal of the Uckfield line through Lewes town centre in 1969. Every reopening scheme since that time has only ever envisaged using a version of the early Victorian alignment (1858-1868) which ran via Hamsey between 1858 and 1868 (when the ‘improved’ direct line to Brighton through Lewes was opened 1868-1969). However, the big drawback with this old Victorian spur is that it would bring trains into Lewes ‘the wrong way’ – that is they would face towards Eastbourne rather than Brighton.

 

So why can’t we just reverse the trains at Lewes?
They can during emergencies, as occasionally happens when the BML is blocked between Wivelsfield and Brighton. However, to have timetabled trains constantly reversing would cause perpetual conflicts between train movements because Lewes isn’t a terminus. It would also be time-wasting and unattractive to rail users. Consultants Mott MacDonald attempted to devise a turnback siding in 1997, but it simply wasn’t practical. Lewes is also hindered by very severe speed restrictions, so London – Brighton journeys via Lewes would be frustratingly slow.

 

Couldn’t people just change trains at Lewes?
In theory yes, but that is a very unattractive option as people want direct journeys whenever possible. This is why all the previous studies into reopening have foundered, because the direct route to Brighton was lost. We have to accept that the City of Brighton and Hove is the principal driver of demand and growth.

 

Is it true BML2 would bypass Lewes?
Most certainly not – despite what some keep trying to suggest. The Wealden Line Campaign would never abandon Lewes, Eastbourne, Newhaven and Seaford in favour of Brighton. Following the disastrous conclusions of the 2008 Lewes-Uckfield Reinstatement Study by East Sussex County Council and Network Rail, this great project faced oblivion. Going to Lewes is equally justisfied, but we have to restore those all-important direct services between the Uckfield line and Brighton. Lewes would be overwhelmed if all rail traffic was sent through here.

 

Would the old Hamsey spur be relaid?
No. This connection was considered by Network Rail in 2008 but rejected in favour of a new alignment avoiding nearby dwellings and running slightly further west. BML2 proposes a slightly different connection into Lewes and a bit further away from Hamsey although it is of the same curvature as the Network Rail plan, so it would support modern day operation.

Is there any guarantee that Lewes wouldn’t be bypassed?
No one, including Network Rail (as they have told us) would build BML2 through to Brighton without an equal connection into Lewes. It’s important that Eastbourne and Seaford services can access the Uckfield line.

 

So why is BML2 so important?
It’s all about volume and additional capacity. It’s simply impossible to provide the necessary vast increase in the volume of trains and passengers between the Sussex Coast and London without BML2. Network Rail calculated that a reopened, double-track line south of Uckfield could support eight trains per hour each way (about one every 7-8 minutes in both directions). If you share these between Brighton and Lewes/Eastbourne etc, you can see how the volume is more than they actually require.

 

Doesn’t BML2 make it all too costly?
Absolutely not. For decades we have accepted the incremental approach – start small and build up gradually – beginning with the cheapest option, a basic single-line with diesel trains to avoid electrification costs. But this has failed every time without exception – as witnessed by the many studies and resulting weak business cases. BML2 is business-based and focuses on demand and solving the rail industry’s problems on the adjacent BML and elsewhere. It has been accepted that the 2008 Network Rail study showed beyond doubt that there was no economic case for a low-cost local railway. Only a main line project can provide the capacity and volume which a commuter-based economy needs. Its business case would be infinitely stronger. Unlike those who still argue for a ‘cheap’ scheme, we believe railways are extremely important and worth high capital investment.

 

How would the train service work?
People at Uckfield, Crowborough, Oxted, and all stations north thereof, as well as Tunbridge Wells, would have direct services to Falmer and Brighton. People wanting Lewes would board the direct services going to Eastbourne, or possibly Seaford. Heading north, Brighton people who want Lewes will board any of the many trains which currently go there, but if they want Uckfield line destinations and beyond then why would they want to go into Lewes? The new Ashcombe tunnel under the South Downs west of Lewes allows this to happen.

 

Isn’t a tunnel difficult and expensive to construct?
Not at all. New tunnelling methods have revolutionized construction – look at the huge machines building 42km / 26 miles of Crossrail tunnels under London. The 1½ mile (2.4km) Ashcombe tunnel would go through chalk – ideal tunnelling material (in geological terms this comprises the Seaford beds) It has been estimated that the entire tunnel and associated connections could be done for less than the cost of 2 miles of East Sussex County Council’s Hastings–Bexhill link road (£120m).

 

Wouldn’t it be controversial?
There’s no sound reason why. The tunnel would run only under downland and farmland. Both the railway and the trains it will carry would be entirely concealed beneath the undulating South Downs, whilst BML2 would only be visible at the northern end of the National Park for a very short distance.

 

At the tunnel’s southern portal it crosses almost immediately over the busy A27 dual carriageway and trains would not be heard above the constant roar of road traffic. Environmentally the railway is infinitely preferable as it would not carve through Sussex downland creating a vast cutting – as happened with the nearby A27 Lewes bypass.

 

 

 

 

BML2 London Phase 2017

Is BML2 going to avoid East Croydon?


East Croydon has been described as a ‘bottleneck’ and a ‘major barrier to growth’ by Network Rail. That is why the project originally proposed routing some services to London via a reopened railway between Selsdon and Elmers End.

 

Instead, the international investors backing BML2 are prepared to invest millions in building a far better railway for London and the South East. This will be a completely new tunnelled line between Croydon and Stratford for direct fast services.

 

The tunnel is proposed to commence south of Croydon with a new subsurface station serving East Croydon. From here the next stop will be Lewisham. Here, BML2 will be able to link up with North Kent services, the forthcoming extension of the Bakerloo tube, as well as links to the Tonbridge main line. The next stop will be Canary Wharf for Crossrail services east and west, as well as the Jubilee line. After this comes Stratford, for Crossrail services and access to HS1. Further enhancements and proposals are currently being developed.

 

Will there still be trains into central London?
Of course, we do not propose taking any services away, but increasing the number of trains into London through making new travel opportunities available.

 

Why Canary Wharf?
Once Thameslink has been completed there will be no more train paths available into London Bridge. Network Rail will attempt operating 24 trains per hour through Blackfriars and Farringdon, that’s one every 150 seconds, but this depends on precision timing with no delays having a knock-on effect. Serious doubts as to whether this can be achieved, even with new digital signalling systems, have been expressed.

 

Some truly immense benefits come with a new railway across the eastern Thames connecting Croydon and Lewisham with Canary Wharf and Stratford. Terminating services in London take up space and capacity so it’s better to go through the capital – which was the basis for developing Thameslink over thirty years ago.

 

Canary Wharf is already a key destination for commuters and with Crossrail will become even more significant. Many thousands of people could be spared the wasted time, frustration, cost and so on of needlessly travelling right into London and back out again to Canary Wharf. The cost/benefit ratio would be impressive.

 

What is ‘Stanwick’?
A key benefit of BML2’s London Phase is physically joining London’s Stansted and Gatwick airports with one continuous railway which could operate a dedicated shuttle service.

 

This could operate as Gatwick – Canary Wharf – Stratford – Stansted. There would still be airport services into central London as now, but BML2’s additional services would boost the capital’s international connections in a huge way.

 

 

BML2 Kent Phase 2017

Why would Tunbridge Wells commuters use BML2?


Network Rail has long said that the Tonbridge Main Line (TML) is a ‘major barrier to growth’ whilst the 2017 Kent Route Study concludes no more services can be operated into London during peak times. The Tonbridge – Sevenoaks – Orpington section is only double track, but at peak times has to carry 12 – 15 trains per hour. The route cannot be quadrupled but a solution is necessary.

 

Current proposals are to introduce higher-density rolling stock which means more standing room in the aisles and vestibules. These new trains are unpopular because people resent being forced to stand for long distances and travel to work in cramped and uncomfortable conditions every day. We believe commuters and all rail users should be treated better than this. That is why we have always fought for a proper long term solution for increasing rail travel into London.

 

Tunbridge Wells is the principal generator of commuter traffic which is why its former main line from Tunbridge Wells West (TWW) to London via Oxted needs to be reopened. As an integral part of BML2, Tunbridge Wells would gain direct services to Canary Wharf which is where many of its commuters work. This would also avoid worsening congestion at London Bridge.

 

What about Sainsbury’s?
The store currently occupies part of the trackbed, but the company gave a written undertaking to remove any buildings (and at their expense) should the line ever reopen. However, we’ve always believed there exists a wonderful opportunity for Sainsbury’s to improve and even enlarge their retail operations and be partners in this great development.

 

At the moment the site’s value is mostly wasted on open-air car parking, but multi-storey parking, along with an enlarged store, as well as mooted new housing development would take full advantage of the new main line with all the business and benefits that would generate.

 

What about the Spa Valley railway?
These main line rail connections to Brighton (via Lewes) and London (via Oxted) should never have been closed. It was a dreadful decision for which we continue to pay dearly. These routes are badly needed to support intensive services on the national operating network. We’re not against preserved railways or people having fun at weekends, but the route currently performs no transport function and is far too important to remain out of use.

 

Do the local authorities support reopening?
Both Wealden District and Tunbridge Wells Borough councils continue to protect the trackbed for future reinstatement with services to Brighton via Eridge. However, there is no active promotion for reopening, whilst neither council appears to comprehend the value of the Ashurst link so trains can run direct to London from Tunbridge Wells West.

 

What is Network Rail’s position?
Although NR maintains a lukewarm interest and says protecting the routes should continue, it currently has no plans for reinstatement. It has also said it is not against reopening the Tunbridge Wells line.

 

Isn’t the tunnel at Tunbridge Wells a problem?
Not at all. Grove tunnel would doubtless be opened out and rebuilt for double track anyway, whilst the formation connecting the West and Central stations was engineered throughout to take double track.

 

Would the large station building at TWW be taken back?
It is certainly a magnificent structure and far more impressive than the cramped and somewhat dingy ‘Central’ station which struggles to serve the Royal Borough. The regeneration of the Pantiles area, close to the West station, is thankfully beginning to happen as Tunbridge Wells seeks to grow and prosper.

 

From a railway operational aspect the important asset is the space TWW offers. Its generously-long 12-car platforms could be rebuilt and there is space for at least three platform faces – giving the railways all the capacity and flexibility we need for future network expansion. Developed alongside a new Sainsburys, it would be a new transport hub for Tunbridge Wells and benefit everyone. Sadly here in England we appear to have lost the ability to do joined-up thinking.

 

Couldn’t we just reopen the old spur between the Tonbridge – Redhill and East Grinstead lines?
Although there is spare capacity on the Redhill route, that would be a longer, roundabout journey to London. However, the capacity constraints at Tonbridge would remain, but even worse we couldn’t solve the insuperable blockade which is Tunbridge Wells (Central).

 

Tunbridge Wells (Central) is the big problem, not just its short platforms necessitating ‘Selective Door Opening’, but conflicting train movements using its reversible lines, as well as the turnback itself which even Network Rail identifies as a ‘constraint to growth’. It all comes down to the undeniable fact that we need to operate more trains into London – that’s the important thing – and only BML2 can do that.

 

Aside from commuters, what other benefits might there be?
We would gain regional services to Lewes, Brighton, other Sussex Coast towns and of course the University of Sussex at Falmer and the AMEX stadium at Falmer. All would become within easy reach by train. Such traffic would also flow into Tunbridge Wells, not only from Sussex but also Surrey and Kent.

 

 

Grayling invites funders for Brighton Main Line 2

London and South Coast Rail Corridor Study

 

The Transport Secretary has met with promoters of the BML2

concept and encouraged them to continue to develop

their proposals for it to be delivered and funded privately.


Publication of the Government’s ‘London and South Coast Rail Corridor Study’ has been long delayed, whilst publications such as The Times declared: ‘Plans for a new railway line between London and the south coast have been scrapped because it would be too expensive’.

 

In fact, events of the past twelve months have surpassed the report’s objective – to examine a case for Government funding a new main line between London and the Sussex Coast.

 

During 2016 the London & Southern Counties Railway Consortium (LSCR) was established to arrange delivering BML2 for the nation.

 

In response to the latest study a spokesman said:
“We are delighted that the Government has signalled its support for a private sector solution to solve capacity issues on the Brighton mainline.”

 

LSCR intends developing a new route introducing greater capacity for the millions of daily commuters and has been working with international investors to supply 100% of the capital.

 

The Consortium sees increasing Government appetite for private investment in UK infrastructure as the ideal opportunity to reposition the dedicated work of the Wealden Line Campaign’s Brighton Main Line 2 project, elevating it onto a fully professional, project footing.  LSCR has engaged with leading companies who have global expertise in infrastructure, economics, property and financing – transforming the scheme from a good idea to a thoroughly realistic proposition.

 

An LSCR spokesman said: “In BML2 we perceived a project of real value which could, if taken forward by professional companies, deliver tangible and substantial rewards for London and the South East, the rail industry and the people who live here. It was for this reason that we wanted to be involved. We sincerely hope that with the Government’s blessing and helpful co-operation we can bring this to fruition as soon as possible.”

 

For more detail CLICK HERE to read the full article