It should be noted that
NR» did not propose using the "at-closure" route described by grahame to access Lewes, and therefore the ^141 million cost quoted for the Base Option is not based upon it.
NR did look at using the "at-closure" route, but rejected it as follows:
Option 2
Re-instating the 1868 route from Hamsey, along the east bank of the River Ouse and then through Lewes town centre would require major civil engineering works as well as changes to the road network and buildings in the town itself where the former route has been lost. A significant portion of route in this built up area is contained within a Conservation Area. The engineering challenges are considerable and the cost is likely to be significant. For this reason this route has not been investigated in detail and is not proposed for further consideration.
Option 2A
This route would initially follow the 1868 route from Hamsey, as in Option 2 above. At a point approximately 300 metres east of Old Malling Farm, near Monks Way, the route would diverge from the 1868 route, and proceed on a short embankment before crossing the River Ouse to rejoin the current Cooksbridge line just north of Lewes Tunnel.
This option requires the construction of three major bridges over the river Ouse and a fourth over a private lane to Old Malling Farm. The filled in cutting near Hamsey Church would also have to be re-excavated. The cutting appears to have been used as a landfill site and would therefore require assessment for possible contamination.
This route would bring the railway close to South Malling church and the residential properties on Monks Way. There would also be changes to the riverside environment close to Lewes town centre.
From a railway perspective, as well as being a slightly longer route than option 1A and more costly to construct, this option also increases the ongoing maintenance burden because of the number of significant structures that will have to be inspected and maintained. For this reason this route has not been investigated in detail and is not proposed for further consideration.
Instead, NR selected an option based upon the "at-opening" route:
Option 1
This route would follow the original track of 1858. This alignment crosses the path of two minor roads at grade, each of which will require a bridge with substantial civil engineering required for approach ramps. It may be possible to seek closure of one of the roads and thus provide only one bridge. In addition, at least three residential properties would require modification to remove extensions or additions which were made after the line was closed, thus providing sufficient land for a reinstated line.
The difficulties involved in addressing the minor road crossings and impact on residential property led to rejection of this option.
Option 1A
This route is aligned slightly to the north of the Option 1 and differs as follows:
^ The track can be constructed at a higher level which reduces the amount of civil engineering required for the road bridges;
^ This route avoids the need to modify the residential properties;
^ Curvature of the track will be less severe than option 1 which may permit marginally higher line speeds.
Two bridges would still be required to accommodate the public highways; again there is the potential to seek closure of one of the roads and thus provide only one bridge.
This option is the preferred solution being lowest in cost and easiest in terms of achieving the necessary consents. This option has been used for estimating purposes.
See
here for an overview of the proposed route, using aerial photographs with overlaid information.
How NR arrived at the ^141 million cost quoted for the Base Option is detailed below:
Cost Category Estimated Cost (^m)
Land Purchase and Consents - 16.8
GRIP3 Project Management & Design - 0.9
GRIP4-8 Project Management & Design plus TWA Costs - 12.6
Structures, Bridges/Embankments/Culverts/Fencing etc. - 43.1
Track including preparation of the formation - 21.4
Signalling and telecoms works - 11.8
Contractor^s costs and allowances - 1.9
Total 108.5
Plus Contingency (30%) - 32.5
Total Estimated Cost 141.0
This does not allow for the 60% "optimism bias" uplift as is required for Government funded projects at this stage of development.
There are incremental costs compared to the Base Option listed as well - 7.4 million for intermediate stations on a single track route, 25.5 million for double track with no intermediate stations, and 38.8 million for double track with intermediate stations.
NR's Estimate Assumptions were as follows:
^ The estimate is based on a price level of 2008 Q1
^ Estimates for incremental options assume that the work is completed concurrent with the base option
^ Information from the Project Development team was use to establish quantities and specification of estimated items as at GRIP▸ stage 2.
^ The project management is based on a percentage of working week hours against the assumed length of each GRIP Stage.
^ Percentages used in this estimate are those found in the Network Rail Principle of Estimating guidelines PM04.
^ No allowances have been made for TOC▸ or FOC▸ Compensation.
^ No allowance has been made for the Industry Risk Fund (IRF) or Network Rail Fee Fund (NRFF) applicable to projects funded by third parties.
^ No allowance has been made for inflation or other cost escalation.
See
here for NR's list of scope of works which they felt were required to reinstate the rail link for each option.
The whole shebang (report, appendices etc) can be found at
http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/roads/roadschemes/rail/default.htm - I'm sure the wording of the link will prompt the wags among you to speculate as to the priorities of the relevant local authority
There you go, having spent the weekend on
concessionary fares, that's the rest of your week sorted wading through this...
Click on the map to explore geographics
