A27 Lewes - Polegate

[Nathan_A_RF]

Pevensey to Breznett section remains woeful.

Tell me about it...

1 unbypassed village
4 unbypassed towns
3 level crossings
2 90 degree bends
1 hairpin bend
10 continuous miles at 30 mph
and numerous steep, narrow and twisty sections

[Truvelo]

Pevensey to Breznett section remains woeful.

Tell me about it...

1 unbypassed village
4 unbypassed towns
3 level crossings
2 90 degree bends
1 hairpin bend
10 continuous miles at 30 mph
and numerous steep, narrow and twisty sections

Pevensey to Brenzett, and to Ashford, would have been D2 throughout had the early 1990s plans been built. A nice grade separated bypass of Bexhill and Hastings was part of the proposals.

[Herned]

When they were looking at options for upgrading the A259 in the 1990's the only acceptable way they could find to get past Rye and Winchelsea was by a series of very expensive tunnels.
Hastings was also a big issue as the only viable route was across the Marline Valley Nature Reserve.

A series? Are you sure? The only tunnel I'm aware of was under the river south of Rye. Winchelsea definitely didn't need one, where else were they planned?

[KeithW]

When they were looking at options for upgrading the A259 in the 1990's the only acceptable way they could find to get past Rye and Winchelsea was by a series of very expensive tunnels.
Hastings was also a big issue as the only viable route was across the Marline Valley Nature Reserve.

A series? Are you sure? The only tunnel I'm aware of was under the river south of Rye. Winchelsea definitely didn't need one, where else were they planned?

No final scheme was ever selected but there was definitely discussion of a tunnel in the Winchelsea area. One of the major problems for the would be road builders was that the National Trust owns some of the land the road would pass over and short of the passing of an act of parliament NT land is inalienable. See below for map of land around Winchelsea acquired by the NT.between 1975 and 1993. You my recall that in the case of the Hindhead Bypass the NT also owned the land which is why we ended up with the Hindhead Tunnel

[Fluid Dynamics]

Pevensey to Breznett section remains woeful.

Tell me about it...

1 unbypassed village
4 unbypassed towns
3 level crossings
2 90 degree bends
1 hairpin bend
10 continuous miles at 30 mph
and numerous steep, narrow and twisty sections

Pevensey to Brenzett, and to Ashford, would have been D2 throughout had the early 1990s plans been built. A nice grade separated bypass of Bexhill and Hastings was part of the proposals.

I am sure there were several iterations, but is that correct, the Archaeological plans online indicate that whilst the western half of the A259 Bexhill and Hastings bypass would have been dual, the eastern section would have been single carriageway with flat roundabouts, but with provision for future widening? I seem to recall the plans from Breznett were also not to follow the A2070 to Ashford, but a rather series of bypasses across Romney Marsh closer to the existing A259 coastal communities with a tie in to the short section of dual carriageway that crosses HS1 south of M20 Junction 11?

[Fluid Dynamics]

Tell me about it...

1 unbypassed village
4 unbypassed towns
3 level crossings
2 90 degree bends
1 hairpin bend
10 continuous miles at 30 mph
and numerous steep, narrow and twisty sections

Pevensey to Brenzett, and to Ashford, would have been D2 throughout had the early 1990s plans been built. A nice grade separated bypass of Bexhill and Hastings was part of the proposals.

I am sure there were several iterations, but is that correct, the Archaeological plans online indicate that whilst the western half of the A259 Bexhill and Hastings bypass would have been dual, the eastern section would have been single carriageway with flat roundabouts, but with provision for future widening? I seem to recall the plans from Breznett were also not to follow the A2070 to Ashford, but a rather series of bypasses across Romney Marsh closer to the existing A259 coastal communities with a tie in to the short section of dual carriageway that crosses HS1 south of M20 Junction 11?

https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/a ... BYPASS.pdf

[Truvelo]

I am sure there were several iterations, but is that correct, the Archaeological plans online indicate that whilst the western half of the A259 Bexhill and Hastings bypass would have been dual, the eastern section would have been single carriageway with flat roundabouts, but with provision for future widening?

Yes, the section east of the A21 was to open as a single carriageway with all the earthworks and bridges built to take a dual carriageway at a later date, presumably when the section towards Rye was built. I've shown it as D2 on this map. I assume traffic on the A259 tails off east of Hastings.

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 14&layer=1

[Fluid Dynamics]

[quote="Fluid Dynamics" post_id=<a href="tel:1207903">1207903</a> time=<a href="tel:1633002909">1633002909</a> user_id=259]
I am sure there were several iterations, but is that correct, the Archaeological plans online indicate that whilst the western half of the A259 Bexhill and Hastings bypass would have been dual, the eastern section would have been single carriageway with flat roundabouts, but with provision for future widening?

Yes, the section east of the A21 was to open as a single carriageway with all the earthworks and bridges built to take a dual carriageway at a later date, presumably when the section towards Rye was built. I've shown it as D2 on this map. I assume traffic on the A259 tails off east of Hastings.

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 14&layer=1

It certainly tails off now, but the plan along the A27/A259 east of Portsmouth in the late 1980s was both to bypass communities and to provide a south coast link to the channel tunnel. If this had been built along with the other improvements it would have been an alternative for most of the Sussex coast to access the tunnel/ferry ports whilst avoiding the the M25 and so would be much busier.

[Phil]

[quote="Fluid Dynamics" post_id=<a href="tel:1207903">1207903</a> time=<a href="tel:1633002909">1633002909</a> user_id=259]
I am sure there were several iterations, but is that correct, the Archaeological plans online indicate that whilst the western half of the A259 Bexhill and Hastings bypass would have been dual, the eastern section would have been single carriageway with flat roundabouts, but with provision for future widening?

Yes, the section east of the A21 was to open as a single carriageway with all the earthworks and bridges built to take a dual carriageway at a later date, presumably when the section towards Rye was built. I've shown it as D2 on this map. I assume traffic on the A259 tails off east of Hastings.

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/ind ... 14&layer=1

It certainly tails off now, but the plan along the A27/A259 east of Portsmouth in the late 1980s was both to bypass communities and to provide a south coast link to the channel tunnel. If this had been built along with the other improvements it would have been an alternative for most of the Sussex coast to access the tunnel/ferry ports whilst avoiding the the M25 and so would be much busier.

Which is a key point!

The M25 has enough to do intercepting traffic flowing round London - it really doesn't need to be clogged up by vehicles which could be orbiting further out! Its ridiculous that when coming from Brighton the fastest way to Ashford or Bristol is via the M25 rather than orbiting along the coast!

The French by contrast have the A16 and A28 meaning no need to venture too far inland when heading to the West or SW of the country.

[Phil]

When they were looking at options for upgrading the A259 in the 1990's the only acceptable way they could find to get past Rye and Winchelsea was by a series of very expensive tunnels.
Hastings was also a big issue as the only viable route was across the Marline Valley Nature Reserve.

A series? Are you sure? The only tunnel I'm aware of was under the river south of Rye. Winchelsea definitely didn't need one, where else were they planned?

No final scheme was ever selected but there was definitely discussion of a tunnel in the Winchelsea area. One of the major problems for the would be road builders was that the National Trust owns some of the land the road would pass over and short of the passing of an act of parliament NT land is inalienable. See below for map of land around Winchelsea acquired by the NT.between 1975 and 1993. You my recall that in the case of the Hindhead Bypass the NT also owned the land which is why we ended up with the Hindhead Tunnel

That could be avoided by a longer route which devatas away from the high ground the current A259 occupies in the vicinity of Guesting Thorn and heads down to run alongside the railway.

In fact had the Hastings bypass been built it would have been easy to have this new route come off said by-pass at the point it crossed the railway and run alongside said railway until you get close to Rye

[Phil]

Pevensey to Breznett section remains woeful.

Tell me about it...

1 unbypassed village
4 unbypassed towns
3 level crossings
2 90 degree bends
1 hairpin bend
10 continuous miles at 30 mph
and numerous steep, narrow and twisty sections

2 of those level crossing could be dealt with by the simple expedient of building a shortish bit of road on the other side of the railway between the two crossings! Its the sort of small scale improvements which we have stopped doing in this country - mainly because councils are too cash strapped to fund road schemes which don't allow tons of houses to be built and National Highways are fixated flashy PR / trying to rid themselves of everything other than motorways!

That also might permit the closure of one of the crossings thus giving benefits to the railway too!

[Bryn666]

Pevensey to Breznett section remains woeful.

Tell me about it...

1 unbypassed village
4 unbypassed towns
3 level crossings
2 90 degree bends
1 hairpin bend
10 continuous miles at 30 mph
and numerous steep, narrow and twisty sections

2 of those level crossing could be dealt with by the simple expedient of building a shortish bit of road on the other side of the railway between the two crossings! Its the sort of small scale improvements which we have stopped doing in this country - mainly because councils are too cash strapped to fund road schemes which don't allow tons of houses to be built and National Highways are fixated flashy PR / trying to rid themselves of everything other than motorways!

That also might permit the closure of one of the crossings thus giving benefits to the railway too!

You'd think this would fall under 'improving safety' but nope, we have TECHNOLOGY!™ now to apparently do that, why bypass two level crossings when you can install a stopped vehicle detector and pretend it's the future.

[wrinkly]

A lot of references here to Breznett. If anyone else has been as puzzled as I was by not being able to find it on a map, try looking for Brenzett.

[Fluid Dynamics]

There never was a plan for a continuous motorway.

I'm not suggesting there *was* a plan for a south cost motorway - but that there *should be* a plan for one.

That it is quicker and easier to get from Dover to Southampton via the M20, M25, M3 is utterly absurd.

Is it ?

Via the A20/M20/M25/M3 its 150 miles
Via the M20/A27 its 151 miles
Via the A20/A259/A27 its 145 miles

Its a bit shorter if you take the unclassified roads across Romney Marsh but its a lot slower and I dont think anyone will try and build a motorway there.

When they were looking at options for upgrading the A259 in the 1990's the only acceptable way they could find to get past Rye and Winchelsea was by a series of very expensive tunnels.
Hastings was also a big issue as the only viable route was across the Marline Valley Nature Reserve.

That combination killed the project stone dead.

See
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/ind ... 3_Pevensey

There are some opportunities for upgrading A259 local hot spots but a south coast motorway is not going to happen , if nothing else much of it would have to encroach on the South Downs NP and there are very sensitive points such as Rye and Winchelsea. Solve all that and you still have the problems of Worthing and Chichester on the A27.

I seem to recall at some point over the past 20 years there was a National Highway (whatever they were called at that point) study that looked into those type of proposals but unsurprisingly nothing ever came from it. I suppose the point here is improving the road such as happened at Brookland, probably 30 years ago, is only going to place pressure on Rye. But there's no justification for expensive improvements at Rye such as the proposed estuarial tunnel without the route being improved as a whole and that was kicked into touch by the mid '90s cull of he road programme with the death nail being the cancellation of the Bexhill and Hastings Bypass earlier this century.

[Fluid Dynamics]

A lot of references here to Breznett. If anyone else has been as puzzled as I was by not being able to find it on a map, try looking for Brenzett.

Apologies, my error. It is one of the more random primary destinations.

[KeithW]

You'd think this would fall under 'improving safety' but nope, we have TECHNOLOGY!™ now to apparently do that, why bypass two level crossings when you can install a stopped vehicle detector and pretend it's the future.

Lets get real here, the level crossings are the least of the problems with the A259. This so called trunk road was cobbled together from bunch of country lanes and urban roads. Pretty much the only 'improvement' of the road since classification is the Winchester bypass up Tanyard Lane and that has to be one of the worst roads defined as trunk anywhere in the UK.

Yes folks this is the new 'improved' trunk road.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.92801 ... 8192?hl=en

Of course had the road actually been improved the Marshlink Line it crosses would almost certainly have been closed when Beeching's Axe fell.

[wrinkly]

A lot of references here to Breznett. If anyone else has been as puzzled as I was by not being able to find it on a map, try looking for Brenzett.

Apologies, my error. It is one of the more random primary destinations.

The search engine finds uses of "Breznett" on this site by several people, going back to 2005.

I have to admit I didn't recognise the name under either spelling. I wouldn't have guessed there are primay destinations I'd never heard of.

Perhaps some occurrences of the Brez- spelling are influenced by vague memories of Leonid Brezhnev.

[Bryn666]

You'd think this would fall under 'improving safety' but nope, we have TECHNOLOGY!™ now to apparently do that, why bypass two level crossings when you can install a stopped vehicle detector and pretend it's the future.

Lets get real here, the level crossings are the least of the problems with the A259. This so called trunk road was cobbled together from bunch of country lanes and urban roads. Pretty much the only 'improvement' of the road since classification is the Winchester bypass up Tanyard Lane and that has to be one of the worst roads defined as trunk anywhere in the UK.

Yes folks this is the new 'improved' trunk road.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.92801 ... 8192?hl=en

Of course had the road actually been improved the Marshlink Line it crosses would almost certainly have been closed when Beeching's Axe fell.

Correct, but Network Rail have more clout when it comes to operational safety than highway engineers do and removing two crossings would be in their best interest. It also as Phil noted cuts a corner and would allow a rare overtaking opportunity (maybe a short alternating WS 2+1) which would further improve safety.

[Phil]

You'd think this would fall under 'improving safety' but nope, we have TECHNOLOGY!™ now to apparently do that, why bypass two level crossings when you can install a stopped vehicle detector and pretend it's the future.

Lets get real here, the level crossings are the least of the problems with the A259. This so called trunk road was cobbled together from bunch of country lanes and urban roads. Pretty much the only 'improvement' of the road since classification is the Winchester bypass up Tanyard Lane and that has to be one of the worst roads defined as trunk anywhere in the UK.

Yes folks this is the new 'improved' trunk road.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.92801 ... 8192?hl=en

Of course had the road actually been improved the Marshlink Line it crosses would almost certainly have been closed when Beeching's Axe fell.

Correct, but Network Rail have more clout when it comes to operational safety than highway engineers do and removing two crossings would be in their best interest. It also as Phil noted cuts a corner and would allow a rare overtaking opportunity (maybe a short alternating WS 2+1) which would further improve safety.

Yes and no - although there is pressure to make level crossings safer (preferably by their removal) that has to be balanced by the costs involved in doing that. In areas where road vehicles are the problem and train service frequencies are low* most of the safety benefits can be obtained by other lower cost measures such as red light cameras.

Network Rail would also argue that any funds they spend on road improvements take money away from their core role and if the primary benefits fall to road users then most of the funding should come from highways budgets.

It might be a different story if a major rebuild was taking place (restoring double track, electrification and frequent services to London as advocated by MPs for the area).


* The Ashford - Hastings line was singled in the 1970s with a passing loop at Rye. All level crossings apart from those at Rye itself are (from a train drivers perspective) IIRC a 20mph with flashing white lights to tell the driver they can proceed jobs). Usual service is hourly though pre-Covid there were a few Ashford - Rye shuttles.

[Phil]

Tell me about it...

1 unbypassed village
4 unbypassed towns
3 level crossings
2 90 degree bends
1 hairpin bend
10 continuous miles at 30 mph
and numerous steep, narrow and twisty sections

2 of those level crossing could be dealt with by the simple expedient of building a shortish bit of road on the other side of the railway between the two crossings! Its the sort of small scale improvements which we have stopped doing in this country - mainly because councils are too cash strapped to fund road schemes which don't allow tons of houses to be built and National Highways are fixated flashy PR / trying to rid themselves of everything other than motorways!

That also might permit the closure of one of the crossings thus giving benefits to the railway too!

You'd think this would fall under 'improving safety' but nope, we have TECHNOLOGY!™ now to apparently do that, why bypass two level crossings when you can install a stopped vehicle detector and pretend it's the future.

Obstacle detectors are NOT deployed to automatic half barrier or open (without barriers) level crossing types.

Also they cannot be ‘retro fitted’ - the entire crossing equipment needs replacing so they are only introduced as part of resignalling schemes.

The reasons they were introduced for full barrier crossings (I.e. ones where the entire railway is fenced off when lowered and which are interlocked with railway signals) are:-

(1) To allow one signaller to supervise more crossings, the current limit where they are active control of lowering the barriers being being 4 /5

(2) To avoid the ‘looked but did not see’ syndrome which happens on a surprisingly frequent basis and has seen pedestrians trapped the wrong side of the barrier as trains pass through.

If there is a problem at a half barriered crossing then usual reaction will be to impose speed restrictions (road + rail) and install red light cameras. Obviously this does not prevent collisions (just makes them less serve if they do happen) so if issues persist then it’s likely that the crossing will be upgraded to the full barrier type that is interlocked with signals and prevents trains from approaching unless the road is fully barriered off and nothing is on the crossing thereby removing the collision risk.

This of course significantly increases delays to road traffic - and can put pressure on highways departments to install a bridge.

This was what happened on the A27 at Beddingham a good few years - the railway authorities that the speed limit reductions and red light cameras only bought a short amount of time and if they didn’t get a move on with the bridge a full barrier crossing would be put in.

Regrettably the same is not true of the AHB crossings on the A259….