Rail
Lewes to Uckfield railway line
Lewes-Uckfield rail link
In 2008, Network Rail carried out a study to try and establish a case for reinstating the Lewes to Uckfield rail link. It concluded that, although it is technically feasible, there was no economic case for rebuilding it.
East Sussex Rail Development Strategy
We will be updating our Rail Strategy once the Local Transport Plan 4 has been adopted.
The current East Sussex Rail Strategy and Action Plan [755.2 KB] [pdf] was approved by the Lead Member for Economy in November 2013. We will use this to influence future rail investment decisions in East Sussex.
The priorities which were identified from consultation and assessment of the schemes are:
- Priority 1: Hastings to Ashford line
Electrification and dual tracking of the Hastings to Ashford line, which is critical to economic growth in the county. - Priority 2: Uckfield line
Electrification and dual tracking of the line between Uckfield and Hurst Green. This will improve links from the centre of the county into London.
Rail Reform
The Government’s consultation on ‘rail reform: a railway fit for Britain’s future’ (which ended 14 April) – sets out plans to establish Great British Railways (GBR) as a new passenger focussed body.
This would bring together the responsibility for train services and rail infrastructure into one integrated organisation.
GBR would be responsible for trains, tracks, and stations.
The private sector will continue to play a vital role for freight ticket retailing, rolling stock and the wider supply chain.
The County Council responded to the Government’s rail reform consultation, and our response can be seen below.
DfT consultation - ‘A railway fit for Britain’s future’ (February 2025)
ESCC response
15 April 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DfT consultation ‘A railway fit for Britain’s future’. This is an officer response from East Sussex County Council.
Our response to the consultation questions
Question 1. Do you agree that Great British Railways (GBR) should be empowered to deliver through reformed incentives and a simplified and streamlined regulatory framework?
Yes. Bringing the rail network and services back into public ownership, putting the needs of the passengers as a central element of decision-making, and consolidating the functions from 14 competing operators into a single organisation is welcomed and strongly supported. It is anticipated that this will reduce competition and will contribute towards economic growth, encouraging more people to choose rail as a viable mode of travel over the private car due to increased reliability, increased service(s), a more simplified ticketing structure, and affordability.
2. Do you agree that the Secretary of State (SoS) should be responsible for issuing and modifying a simplified GBR licence enforced by the Office for Road and Rail (ORR), and that the ORR’s duties with respect to GBR should be streamlined to reflect the new sector model?
Yes. Simplification and transparency of the rail industry is required. This will give passengers the confidence that their interests are being considered. It is important that the ORR’s duties align with those of the emerging GBR. In respect of the SoS being responsible for issuing and simplifying the GBR license, it would be reassuring if an independent panel could input and advise into this process who represent passenger interests, i.e. Passenger Focus.
3. Do you agree that the Secretary of State should be responsible for setting a long-term strategy for GBR to align with government priorities?
A long-term strategy for GBR should reflect the governments priorities on transport, including the emerging ‘DfT Integrated Transport Strategy’ and other supporting national strategies and policy documents related to economic growth, the environment and health and wellbeing. This will be important if longer term future investment is to be achieved.
Ensuring that the needs of the passengers are a central element of decision-making means that it is important that the rail industry, sub-national transport bodies and emerging Mayoral County Combined Authorities (MCCA) input into this process to ensure the local and strategic aspirations are accurately reflected into any such strategy. The strategy will need a clear direction on how the future of rail will look, as this will be important for public and private investment.
For East Sussex we wish to see a number of rail infrastructure improvements in the county. These will be reflected in our emerging Rail Strategy (which is due to be publicly consulted on in April 2025), and includes:
-
the dual tracking and electrification of routes in the county (Uckfield-Hurst Green and Ashford-Hastings);
-
high speed rail to the county (from Ashford-Eastbourne); and reinstated rail services (from Lewes-Uckfield and Eridge-Tunbridge Wells).
Delivering these improvements, that have also been identified in our adopted Local Transport Plan 4 covering the period 2024 to 2050 as well as the Transport for the South East Strategic Investment Plan, will improve services for existing passengers and encourage new passengers onto the railway from the private car.
4. What are your views on the proposed functions of the new passenger watchdog?
A new watchdog building on (the existing) Passenger Focus, with increased powers, is supported. The proposed multi modal watchdog could in the future enable decisions to be made holistically for bus, coach, rail and tram modes. This will be in alignment with the DfT’s emerging Integrated Transport Strategy and the East Sussex Local Transport Plan 2024 – 2050, which highlights the need for integrated and accessible transport. This independent monitoring of passenger experience, and championing of improvements in service performance will serve to strengthen the passenger voice and improve passenger experience.
5. Which of the approaches would best enable the establishment of the new passenger watchdog?
[The options are (i) statutory adviser, or (ii) statutory adviser with regulatory functions.]
On balance, it appears that the approach is best suited to enable the establishment of the new passenger watchdog which would be as a statutory adviser with regulatory functions (option ii). With the passenger interests at the forefront of the new watchdog, the interests of the users of the rail network will be a greater priority than has previously been the case.
6. Which of the options to establish the Alternative Dispute Resolution function as part of the passenger watchdog would deliver the best outcome for passengers in your view?
For now, it is deemed that the most appropriate option would be to transfer the ORR’s sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsmen (RO) to the new watchdog, with the RO retaining its current accreditation and functions. This is because it is anticipated to be the simplest option with the least disruption to the RO or the passenger experience.
Once the new watchdog has been established, and the changes become familiar to those who are affected and responsible, then a reassessment of whether the transfer of the RO function into the new watchdog is appropriate should be undertaken.
This is because the process of transferring the RO function is not straightforward and would require the watchdog securing accreditation from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and then from the Ombudsman Association.
8. What – if any – key access rules and requirements for GBR should be updated and included in legislation?
No comments on this question.
9. Does the proposed role of the ORR, acting as an appeals body to ensure fairness and non-discrimination, provide sufficient reassurances to operators such as freight and open access wishing to access the GBR-managed network?
It is more appropriate to seek the views of the operators on this question. However, it is assumed that having the ORR as an objective and independent body would ensure fairness and non-discrimination.
10. Do you foresee any unintended consequences of the ORR retaining its existing powers with regard to other infrastructure managers which might affect the smooth passage of trains between the GBR and non-GBR network?
No comments on this question.
11. The government intends to include in primary legislation a power to enable amendments to the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 to ensure consistency between GBR’s processes and those used by other infrastructure managers. Do you agree with this approach?
Yes. Consistency is key to trust and transparency, and to ensure that there is an approach which is understandable and transferrable between processes used by GBR and other infrastructure providers. This will enable a more connected and integrated transport network, which will be to the benefit of the user(s) and meet with the government’s transport priorities and outcomes.
12. Do you agree with the proposed legislative approach regarding a 5-year funding settlement for Great British Railways?
[Note: The new process would take the intent of the periodic review as a funding process, without the legal connection to access charging – bringing it into line with a public ownership model. The Secretary of State would sign off the business plan at the end of the process, approving it for delivery and agreeing to provide the stated funds. In line with commitments to create a statutory duty in relation to devolved leaders, the proposed legislation will also contain a duty on the Secretary of State to involve Mayoral Strategic Authorities when determining the contents of the HLOS.]
Yes. A 5-year funding settlement already exists within Network Rail (Control Periods), and this is a tried, tested and successful means by which the rail industry manage, operate and renew railway infrastructure.
It is pleasing to note that the ORR will retain a role in assessing business plans and settlement viability. This will align with the government’s proposed changes to the allocation of local transport funding in the form of ‘transport settlements’, which will have the opportunities to support integration between modes and local and strategic infrastructure projects.
13. Do you agree with the legislative approach set out above to retain the Secretary of State’s role in securing the overall affordability of fares and continuing to safeguard certain railcard discount schemes?
[Great British Railways (GBR) will take over from train operators as the organisation responsible for setting fares on the services it operates and collecting revenue.]
Simplification of rail fares is long overdue. Efforts to simplify the process of purchasing tickets and enabling passengers to easily purchase the most affordable ticket for their journey, is strongly supported. This has been an aspiration of East Sussex County Council and its partners for a number of years which has been reflected in a number of historical representations to Government and the rail industry.
Safeguarding certain railcard discount schemes is also supported, and will give those affected by the discount schemes reassurance and trust in any new changes being made as part of GBR’s new role and associated responsibilities.
A vision to consolidate current train operator websites and apps into a single GBR retail offer over time (replacing the existing 14 train operator websites that currently exist) and enabling the purchase of tickets both online and in physical retail, such as ticket offices, ticket vending machines and on trains, is strongly supported. The County Council has advocated the retention of ticket offices to provide an accessible and inclusive service to all railway passengers. For many, purchasing tickets online or via a machine is not feasible, and whilst this may be the minority, all current and potential rail users need to be considered. Additionally, ticket offices provide a sense of security and safety at stations and provide part of the rail experience and community spirit.
14. What, if any, safeguards are needed to ensure a thriving and competitive rail retail market while also ensuring GBR can deliver a high-quality offer to its customers?
No comments on this question.
15. The government intends that GBR’s statutory duty in relation to devolved leaders should strike a balance between enhancing their role whilst also ensuring that GBR has the appropriate flexibility to direct the national network. Do you agree with this approach?
[GBR will plan services on a whole-system basis to better deliver for passengers, taxpayers, and freight customers and to unlock growth. This will include working closely with devolved leaders and local partners, drawing on their experiences and expertise. It is also vital that devolved governments and Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSA) can integrate local railways with other transport modes. GBR will also work with sub-national transport bodies on matters of wider regional interest.]
The proposal to create a statutory role for devolved governments and MSAs in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network is strongly supported. This will align with the integration between spatial and transport planning that MSA’s, such as the proposed Sussex and Brighton MSA, will manage in partnership with local unitary authorities, and support the transition towards ‘planning for people and places’.
This will also enable an element of the decision-making to be devolved and made by those that have a greater understanding of local communities needs and with easier access to consult with them. We agree with the notion in the consultation that the railway’s governance ‘must balance local, commuter, regional, national, international and high-speed services, as well as the role of freight’.
We strongly support that (national and) local strategies, such as existing Local Transport Plans and MSA/MCCA Transport Plans as they are developed, form an important part of the evidence bases which should help inform GBR decision-making.
16. Do you agree with the proposed approach in Scotland on enabling further collaboration between track and train while preserving the devolved settlements?
No comments on this question.
17. Do you agree with the proposed approach in Wales on enabling further collaboration between track and train while preserving the devolved settlements?
No comments on this question.
18. Do you agree with the government’s approach of making targeted amendments to existing legislation to clarify the role of devolved leaders in relation to GBR?
[In England, existing statutory provisions in place that enable devolution through secondary legislation will remain, so that further devolution can be achieved where requested and then agreed by the SoS. The government will establish a ‘right to request’ - a new and transparent process for the SoS to make decisions on further devolution where established MSAs believe they could more effectively run rail services and/or assets.
Guidance will be published, outlining the process for MSAs to make this request and the criteria that will be considered, such as national and regional network implications, considering that services rarely stay within local government boundaries and financial consequences. The government will engage with mayors and other interested stakeholders as guidance is developed.
Partnerships will include engagement on strategic priorities, as well as close collaboration on the delivery of rail elements of Local Transport Plans and opportunities for partners to invest in the railway. It is possible that MSAs could take on service specification responsibilities and revenue risk where financial devolution is in place. To support this government intends to make targeted amendments, which will require GBR to consult with and enable financial agreements with mayors, providing the legislative basis to agree the local commissioning partnerships envisaged.]
It is anticipated that GBR’s relationships with MSAs can (and should) sit outside legislation through bespoke agreements. This will change how the railway engages locally, enabling GBR to better meet the needs of (local) areas and wider communities. We are pleased to note the acknowledgement that these agreements will vary, and that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate.
For information, on 9 January 2025 the County Council’s (ESCC) Cabinet agreed that East Sussex should apply to be part of the Devolution Priority Programme following a debate at Full Council on the same. On 5 February 2025 the Government confirmed that Sussex was one of the six areas nationally that had been successful in their application. The Government has subsequently indicated that it is minded to establish a “Mayoral Combined County Authority for Sussex and Brighton” (MCCA). (Note: this is the same as MSAs which are referenced in this consultation).
There are still details that need clarification and which will be raised as discussions progress, should approval be given by the Government to establish the Authority, and prior to the Council giving its approval to the Statutory Order that will be required.
19. The government intends to create a new delegated power that would enable the Secretary of State to update, amend or revoke provisions in TDLCR and related assimilated law in Great Britain, subject to public consultation. Do you agree with this approach?
No comments on this question