Talk:Wealden Line

Accuracy

It is not an accurate reflection of the facts with regards to the closure of the Lewes to Uckfield section of the line. In some instances it is POV. Mention needs to be made of the Hamsey loop, for which an Act was put in place in preparation of the closure, of the line for the planned Lewes Relief road, Phases 1, 2 & 3. Whilst the line was mentioned in the Beeching 1 report as being recommended for closure. The incoming Labour government under Wilson, closed a number of lines, more so than under Beeching. It was in May 1967 that Barbara Castle issued the Network for development plans. Which needs to be mentioned in the text as this is relevant. This report defined a basic network for the railways. Now some of the remunerative main trunk lines and secondary lines would be developed. Others that were of a social need but unremunerative would be subsidised under the forthcoming 1968 Transport Act. Those that fell outside of this would be candidates for closure, as they were neither remunerative or socially needed, in the Governments view. It was up to BR management to decide which lines to close. The Hurst Green Junction to Lewes line was one of those lines affected. Mention should be also made of the fact that whilst the Minister consented to closure of the Lewes to Uckfield section this was one of a number of senarios studied, and was the cheaper option than reinstalling the Hamsey loop, as central government would have had to bear this cost. Additionally, the 1968 Transport Act, saved the Hurst Green Junction to Uckfield section when BR announced it was to close in late 1968. Given that the 1968 Transport Act had come statue, the Minister was able to give it a subsidy under section 38 for a three year period with Treasury approval. Had that statue not been in place then BR would have closed the line in its entirety. In the light of my comments above there is a need to update the text as it stands, as there are issues of accuracy and credibility with it. Aquizard 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

well then be bold and change it, but jsut remember anything contraversial should be cited. Pickle 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated, this article should be accurate and it was based on what sparse (and often contradictory) information that is available. I have recent obtained new primary source material re the closure, and the new info will be put in asap. However, having said that, I do take issue with the POV comment. The decision to close the line was taken by a government which in their election manifesto had outlined their opposition to Beeching, and the line had survived unscathed until then. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that the "saving" of the Hurst Green to Uckfield can be wholly attributed to the Transport Act 1968. Part of the motivation behind the saving, I believe, and as this site also agrees, was the pressure put on the Minister by local authorities and rail users. The 1962 Act also afforded the Minister an opportunity of preventing the closure before it became final. I also wonder to what extent the Uckfield to Hurst Green connection was "unremunerative". Nevertheless, the piece does need modification and I will see to that. Ravenseft 18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As a resident in Sussex, and in consideration of your comments I do agree that information is sparse, but one must assemble the jig-saw puzzle of pieces of information and facts in the right order. Unfortunately quoting from websites assumes that the detail of their statements is correct in the first place. I too would be interested in the new primary sorce of data that you possess. Correctly the incoming Labour government of October 1964 had an anti Beeching manifesto, to be included is that once elected they quickly backtracked on their opposition to the Beeching cuts, the new Minister of Transport Tom Fraser accelerated the closure programme, with 1,000 miles closed in 1965. In 1966 Barbara Castle closed 1,200 miles. Remember the Hurst Green Junction to Lewes line was sited in the Beeching 1 report as an unremunerative line. Also note that the BR deficit was some £160 million in the red. The Beeching 1 report was produced with the single intention of aiming to remove the railway operating deficit, which it did not. The rights and wrongs of this report have been discussed elsewhere. It was not until Barbara Castle became Minister of Transport in December 1965, did things change, with the May 1967 Network for Development Plans (NFDP) and the much awaited 1968 Transport Act. Care needs to be exercised in reading the NFDP as in reality no line was safe and a number of secondary lines that were assumed to be safe were closed by BR. The NFDP closed number of lines that Beeching 1 did not. (e.g. Swanage Line). With the government passing the responsibility to BR management for deciding which lines to close, and the Minister sanctioning the closure. Now the 1968 Transport Act became statute on 1 January 1969. It was reported in the Brighton Evening Argus on 7 January 1969 that the Minister (Rodney Marsh) had refused consent to close the Hurst Green Junction to Uckfield as it was of a social need and in the terms of the 1968 Transport Act whould have a subsidy with Treasury approval for three years. The detail of this comes from the article is in the Wealden Line website. It is for this reason that the truncated line still survives today. Also buried in the Wealden line website is the reason why the money was not forthcoming to finance the Hamsey loop. Having said that there is a further issue and one that until recently has emerged in certain railway socities here in Sussex was that some lines were closed as there were not enough DEMUs to go around and run existing services, following the cessation of steam operations on the main lines in 1967. A request in 1966, was made by BR to purchase more DEMUs but this was refused by government. One line to close in Sussex because of this reason was the Shoreham to Christ's Hospital Line. It too was mentioned in the Beeching 1 report as an unremunerative line, but the actual reasons for its closure were inreality different. Aquizard11:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Extensive modifications have been completed - I think it's pretty accurate and POV-free now. Ravenseft 22:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The article's accuracy has improved substantially. However, mention needs to be made of the fact that BRB were made aware of the Lewes Ring Road scheme in the early 1960s and applied for a statute to reconnect the Hamsey loop. Aquizard 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I only have very scant information about that. The Railway Magazine (Sept 1969) mentions that an application was made in 1965-66 to introduce a bill which sought authorisation for the reconstruction of the Hamsey Loop at a cost of £120k, but no mention is made of what happened to the bill nor who promoted it. Something must have happened as the Argus reports on 30 January 1969 [1] that BR have the "necessary statutory powers" to reconstruct the Loop. Do you have any more information about it? Ravenseft 18:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was BRB who made application in 1964-66 for the Bill. They were arare of the planned Lewes relief road scheme and had planned to use the old Hamsey Loop. As far as I can recall the Act may still be statue. This should be mention as a separate entry in the sequence of events. I will see if I can visit Lewes sometime and get some photographs of the old railway route. To my recollection the Council had a choice of either a road bridge or a level crossing, again this needs to be mentioned. If my memory serves me correctly, my recollection is that the embankment was in the way of the new Phoenix Causeway, with the Lewes Viaduct over the River Ouse, further on. It is adjacent to where Tesco's superstore is now. The foundations of the Viaduct are visible at low tide. This can be seen from the pictures in the Wealden Campaign website. The latter is really a pressure group. On that issue the 1987 Network South East, attempt at getting the two CCs involved in the reinstatement of the Lewes to Uckfield line should have a separate section as it was BR (Chris Green) who was responsible for trying to achieve this, inspite of BR having limited funds. BR are nothing to do with the Wealden campaign, this was a project being undertaken by BR themselves.Aquizard 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look through the local acts passed between 1964 and 1969 ([2] and [3]) and none seem promising. I will need to check Hansard, and yes, you're right, it does merit a separate section within the article. Photos of the former line would be great, even of the remains of the viaduct, this site gets close to the loop [4]. From the Wealden Campaign's website, it seems that Network SouthEast investigated reinstatement in 1987 on its instigation:[5]. Ravenseft 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been to Lewes twice this week and taken a number of colour shots of the remains of the line in Lewes itself and the Phoenix causeway road and bridge. Also what is left of the old Viaduct across the River Ouse, which is opposite the new Tescos store, as well as the sole abuttment not far from Cliffe High Street. Based on this, the Viaduct was not in the way of the Phase 1 Phoenix causeway road and bridge. What was in the way was an embankment that interposed between the bridge over Cliffe High Street and the Viaduct over the River Ouse. It is my understanding that if the line remained, then a level crossing or another bridge was considered at the planning stage. OK the line was still in the way of the new bypass, but what I am qualifying is what part of the line was in the way. As we now know it was the 1967 NFDP that changed all of this. Now had the Phase 1 of the Lewes bypass scheme not gone ahead, I content that the line would have closed anyway as per the 1967 NFDP. Also mention is made correctly that Phases 2 & 3 of the by-pass were scrapped, Why? The reason was that the expected improvements in the traffic flow following the opening of the by pass did not materialise and the congestion worsened. Although somewhere there is a reason, including opposition from the many Lewes residents. The visit to Hamsey was also interesting too, again I managed to take some photographs. The entry is improving all the time. Aquizard 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate to put some of the pictures into the article - the one of the viaduct can be placed next to the section about the viaduct etc. Re the reasons why Phases 2 and 3 of the Relief Road Project did not proceed, we really need some concrete references for this. The Act authorising the reinstatement of the loop was passed in 1966: [6], I'm hoping to get a copy soon and ask the railwayarchive.org.uk to host it on their site. Ravenseft 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In discussions with a friend concerning the Hamsey Loop reconnection, he states that BR possessed a general act that enabled them to undertake small works; without the need to go for a full act. This was acquired in the 1964-5 session of parliament. I hope that this is of some assistance, but I feel that a prudent search should be made to try and find it. Aquizard 23:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found the Act, its the British Railways Act 1966 which authorises (at Section 4) the restatement of the Hamsey Loop. The Act also authorises the re-routing of a public footpath in the area. I have a copy and have asked the railwayarchive.org.uk to host it. I'll update the article once I hear further from them. It would be useful to have some photos on this page, even if they appear in a gallery at the end of the text. Ravenseft 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Map

The maps shows junctions either side of Lewes station. The one to the east side exists, but I am not sure that there was every a junction to the west. One of the reasons why the line was re-alinged was to enable a direct connection towards Brighton. Anyone else able to confirm/refute this ?? Canterberry 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

{Yes, it has been mentioned by me (above) and an edit should be will be made in the main article to reflect the reason why the re-alignment took place. Principally to enable the steam locos to be in the correct position to go to Brighton, and no need to turn them. Aquizard 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC) }

You're right, there's only one junction to the east - the ECL shows the correct representation with the Lewes Tunnel and the 1868 alignment to the west. As I'm pretty hopeless with these maps, is there any chance you would kindly correct this? Ravenseft 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My fault - when i made it/re did it i couldn't show horizontally the lewes layout very well. the new interchange icons might work well. Pickle 23:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I intend to revise the map. My purpose is to align the map with the accepted practice of having the route in question as a straight line. Obviously, you can amend it once I have published it.Canterberry 20:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least I intend to put the Tunbridge Wells West branch on the correct side!! (Apologies to whoever drew up the map). Canterberry 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It could do with being turned 180 degrees and the interaction with the hastings line being sorted out. see the cuckoo line for how it should look (IM**H**O) ideally. Pickle 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm ... methinks this needs careful thought. I had in mind turning the map around to make it North-South. The interaction with the Uckfield Line is probably the other most important feature to take account of, as this is part of the lines history. I think the first step will be to transfer the map to a Template, and then we can start re-organising it. I am open to others views, so please post them here. Cheers. Canterberry 09:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the map is South to North rather than the reverse is exactly to put the emphasis on the Lewes-Uckfield connection. The line already shares the section from Eridge to Tunbridge West with other lines (Three Bridges and Cuckoo) so I thought putting what is unique to the line first would be more interesting. Also, historically the line developed from South to North. Finally, I was planning to put some emphasis on the Hamsey Loop which is an important aspect of the Wealden article and it would be clearer to the reader at the top of the page rather than at the end. Not being an expert on Tunbridge Wells West, I've relied on the Spa Valley map which shows the station immediately to the north of High Rocks. Ravenseft 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

With the demise of Canterberry, I propose that the map remains unchanged for the reasons given above. Is anyone aware of whether the West Station is or is not correctly shown on the map? Ravenseft 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Soooo... the route map is upside down in relation to how you'd normally expect to see it... because putting certain stations at the head of it puts greater emphasis on them? Without wanting to put it too harshly... are you on crack? That's not how maps work. The ECML route map doesn't put London at the top and Edinburgh at the bottom. My local line (N/S through Birmingham) isn't represented in two chunks with the central terminus at the top of each one and the provincial endpoint at the bottom. When a line is damn near straight North/South like this, the top of it really should be the northernmost station. I'm pretty certain if one particular station is more important than the others (...either factually so, or just in some editor's opinion), that will become apparent. But someone taking a quicker glance at it, maybe to confirm where two stops on the line in the absence of having a better resource, will naturally assume top = north. As I did just now when trying to make sense of the poorly marked out map in the history section and spent several minutes cross referencing with the route map assuming (as I am not massively familiar with the geography of Kent) that Tunbridge was the southernmost terminal, and wondering why, as I looked north of it, none of the towns featured on one were to be found on the other... Plus, as mentioned further above, this really makes a mess of the East/West connections. It's bad enough when E/W lines HAVE to be represented unrealistically because of the need to display them vertically - there's no need to make it even worse by wilfully inverting already-vertical routes. 91.125.59.216 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tunbridge Wells West Closure Notice.jpg

The image Image:Tunbridge Wells West Closure Notice.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kilbride Group

There is a reference to a similar project by The Kilbride Group between Bere Alston and Okehampton. I believe that, at least in the first place, this initiative is between Bere Alston and Tavistock. Either way a reference would be useful. Crooked cottage (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BRB Network for Development Plans

I have re-instated the paragraph on the NFDP, which was removed following the complete re-edit that was done to the article. The NFDP has a map at the back of the report which details the lines that were not part of the basic network as determined by Barbara Castle when she was the Transport Minister at that time. Aquizard 21:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That map in the "History" section...

OK, it looks quite attractive, and it does show some dotted paths that I assume are historic rail lines around Kent ... buuuut as a map to illustrate this article, it's pretty awful.

There's no highlighting of which of all the different lines it actually is (even more crucial in this case because although we can find Tunbridge with a little scrutiny of all the various town names, the diagrammatic route map suggests it's at the south rather than north end of the line), and the bottom edge cuts off so far north that no interstitial major towns are even shown, let alone the southern terminus at Lewes. And in fact, because of those two things together, I'm not 100% sure even now which of two different options it is - the one that goes off towards Hastings, or the one paralleling it further to the west?

If I had the larger map it was taken from (or the adjoining one to the south which I assume exists *somewhere* round here), an SVG editor and an account to upload the result with, I'd fix that myself, as it wouldn't take too long. But I lack all three... so can someone please do the five minutes of twiddling that's required to sort that out? :-/ 91.125.59.216 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing - I assume that red dotted thing is the political boundary, not the line?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wealden Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010205847/http://home.clara.net/wealdenline/gm_archive/exp_061268.html to http://home.clara.net/wealdenline/gm_archive/exp_061268.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wealden Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110911123320/http://www.buxtedparish.org.uk/june_09.htm to http://www.buxtedparish.org.uk/june_09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wealden Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029091653/http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/t/tunbridge_wells_west/index.shtml to http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/t/tunbridge_wells_west/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029091653/http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/t/tunbridge_wells_west/index.shtml to http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/t/tunbridge_wells_west/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)