Letter to the Sussex Express

After two public hearings at Lewes, the second of which took place in the latter part of January, the Traffic Commissioners held a further hearing at Eastbourne on 31 March 1969.

British Rail had originally planned to close the Uckfield - Lewes line on 6 January, but the absence of any decision on the replacement buses forced it to maintain the service. However, its deliberate neglect of maintenance on the viaduct into Lewes meant that single line working was introduced on safety grounds from that date, with trains ceasing altogether on 23 February -- still without the commissioners having reached any decision.

To fulfil their obligation to maintain some kind of service until the line could close 'officially', British Rail provided a farcical 'emergency' service, deploying a fleet of buses, minibuses and even taxis -- on which rail tickets were valid.

Although the line was therefore still formally 'open' -- it would not officially close until 4 May -- by the time he wrote this letter Glyn Morgan knew that the battle to save it was effectively lost.

We do not know whether it was in fact published, but in it he undoubtedly expressed feelings that most of those involved in the campaign to save the line must have shared. He also ably summed up the case for restoring the route, a case which is even stronger today than it was in 1969.

Clappers Cottage
Isfield, nr.Uckfield,
Sussex.
1st April, 1969,

The Editor,
Sussex Express & County Herald
Lewes,
Sussex.

Dear Sir,

On 31st March at Eastbourne a further chapter was completed in the history of the struggle to keep alive the Uckfield-Lewes segment of the artery linking Tunbridge Wells by rail to the south coast. It was abundantly clear at the Traffic Commissioners' public hearing on that date that the most eloquently argued and reasoned case against the granting of licences would not have succeeded.

At the heart of the procedurally-necessary but valueless inquiry, indeed, was the central issue of the Lewes Relief Road construction, the completion of which demands the severing of this valuable communications link at the rail viaduct approach to Lewes from Uckfield. Of no less importance at the hearing was the absence of statutory objectors. Without these no regional case, however worthy, could be adequately presented and proved.

I would wish, very warmly, to pay tribute to the many representatives of minor Councils, the resolute individuals from parishes in the Ouse valley environs concerned for the lives of their communities, who have continued to give precious time and enthusiastic thought to making sense of the charades presented to them by local transport authorities in recent months.

Beyond doubt, the regional case for the Hamsey loop remains. A forthright and imaginative decision now by local authorities throughout the administrative counties affected (Sussex, Kent, Surrey), and the county boroughs in the coastal regions, to re-establish the loop as an economically viable part of the vital communications network out of Greater London southwards to the Sussex coast could be of immense social benefit to the whole area.

The potential commercial and educational benefits in the rapid population growth areas in the region need to be realistically evaluated. In the last analysis, courageous planning for the financing of the Hamsey loop could serve as a rewarding final chapter in the history of rail closures in the south.

Yours faithfully,

Glyn Morgan