|
The recent publication by Network Rail of its 2010 Route Utilisation Strategies for both Sussex and Kent contain little that is different from either of the consultation drafts which went out last year. These two documents can be viewed online by going to www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4449.aspx and then clicking on the relevant RUS. The RUSs are a lengthy read, perhaps only for the most diligent, but they nevertheless usefully detail the reality of moving many thousands of people on a daily basis on the commuter lines into London. Among other things they provide helpful information about the amount of passenger traffic being carried on each route, station usage, line capacity (the maximum number of services which can be run) and what stretches of the network face the greatest pressure. The final documents, just published, also address points raised from the feedback during the draft process which were received from local authorities, pressure groups and individuals. As we mentioned a few months ago, the Wealden Line Campaign did not forward a submission for reasons which will become clear later this year; nevertheless, it is appropriate to make some general observations at this stage. Because neither the Sussex nor Kent RUSs seriously considers the Uckfield Line, we feel this badly warps and misinterprets the true situation. Consequently, we think this throws doubt on some of the assumptions and conclusions made. Any proper and accurate assessment is therefore impossible without acknowledgement of the strategic purpose of this line which runs deep into Sussex and almost to the coastal network, but instead is classed outer-suburban and put into the South London RUS. Not surprisingly, its value from the London perspective is greatly overlooked as simply another feeder alongside the branches from East Grinstead, Caterham, Tattenham Corner etc. Such would not be the case if the short gap south of Uckfield was open and the line was fulfilling its proper purpose. This exposes the falsehood of Lewes-Uckfield not being of any worthwhile significance when it comes to expanding the network. The literally uncomfortable fact that to the west of the Uckfield line the parallel Brighton Main Line is overloaded, whilst to the east the parallel Tonbridge Main Line is in a similarly perilous position, speaks volumes. Virtually no acknowledgement is made of the Uckfield line’s potential of being able to alleviate the problems on either the BML or TML by redoubling, electrification and upgrading for higher speeds and more capacity. The Kent RUS says ‘the two-track section in the Orpington – Tonbridge area is a major barrier to growth’ and says that ‘a solution will need to be found for Tonbridge Main Line capacity’ although it is clear the upper limit of 14 trains per hour cannot be exceeded. Another problem, for which they have no answer, is the ‘10-car usable platform lengths at Tunbridge Wells station itself, which can only be served by 12-car trains fitted with Selective Door Opening’. Apart from trying to coerce people into not travelling to or from work in the peak hours, the planners are pinning their hopes that commuters from the Tonbridge area could somehow be persuaded to drive in the opposite direction to Ashford in order to get to London: ‘Extension of Ebbsfleet shuttle to start back from Ashford International or beyond: Since this is the only option in this RUS having the potential to provide meaningful crowding relief to the Tonbridge Main Line by 2020, it is recommended for implementation in a future Control Period.’ Is this really the best they can come up with? The situation in Sussex on the Brighton Main Line is even worse as this notoriously over-loaded route gets busier and more crowded. The limit to the number of trains which can be run has already been reached. There can be no speeding-up of services on the BML because it’s already full up with trains. The alternatives looked at have been lengthening trains ever further to 14 or even 16 cars, but this would entail huge infrastructure renewal wherever platforms were similarly lengthened. The alternative would be Selective Door Opening, but this requires people to be in the right part of the train to alight and we know what chaos and delay that would cause on packed-out trains. Therefore the RUS commented: ‘During 2007, Network Rail completed an initial assessment of the infrastructure costs of providing 16-car trains on main line services to/from Victoria and London Bridge. The study found that such an initiative would be likely to cost in the region of £1 billion and these costs did not include rolling stock procurement and operational costs, or for example works north of London Bridge that would be required if Thameslink services were ever to be included in a 16-car railway.’ So how about larger trains? The RUS (rightly) says ‘the introduction of double deck trains would be extremely expensive due to the number of tunnels and over-line structures that would need rebuilding. The impact on station dwell time and in turn the timetable would partially negate the capacity gains offered.’ The cost of the infrastructure alone is estimated at a £1 billion, but this doesn’t include the cost of building the new trains. It is also a fact that attracting too many people to one core route inevitably slows down the service by the number of people crowding into stations and its facilities, such as car parkings. Thus the conclusion is drawn ‘In the longer term, this RUS has clearly identified that particularly on the BML south of Three Bridges there is now only a very small number of affordable train service capacity increasing measures that can be taken in the peak’. The Sussex RUS concludes that either option would mean slower and fewer services on the BML, which would largely negate any possible benefits. Short term measures will soon be exhausted and unless a radical plan is brought forward, the future looks distinctly bleak as it says in no uncertain terms: ‘Alongside the South London RUS recommendations this leaves a picture by 2020 of all Sussex Route area to Central London services, both suburban and main line, operating at 100 per cent of available capacity. Incremental interventions to add small amounts of capacity tactically will be expended.’ The situation today for many commuters is already intolerable on the most notorious parts of the network, let alone in ten years time. The RUS says ‘By 2020, decisions will need to be made between further major interventions on the existing network (most probably 14-car or 16-car operation) or a new lines solution.’ However, to wait until 2020 before deciding upon a solution which will then take several years to achieve seems unwise to say the least. We understand there is a South Eastern RUS in the pipeline which will look at the greater region. It is to be hoped that this will be focused more appropriately and thereby encompass the opportunities which already exist to radically improve the rail network. Unfortunately, in regard to Lewes-Uckfield, the Sussex RUS persists in repeating the grave mistake of lumping it together with other closed lines in Sussex which have no useful role whatsoever in alleviating the capacity crisis. Voicing its support for trackbed protection, small comfort is at least forthcoming with the conclusion: ‘if solutions can be found to capacity bottlenecks from East Croydon inwards, some of these alignments will take on a clear strategic value.’ |
