Possible electrification schemes in the pipeline?

[Zomboid]

Certainly if you're considering a 99, the rated power on electricity is much higher than on diesel, although the starting TE should be the same. AC it'll accelerate better through the whole speed range, and having it already pan up whilst waiting for the road should give it better all round performance.

If power changeovers are considered a performance risk (and they obviously are more of a risk than not changing over) then wiring the arrivals road far enough that the train can clear the main line on electric would make sense too, so any issues can be dealt with out of the way.

In the case of London Gateway, there are no real obvious complicating factors to getting the wires up, so there'd be a matter of once you start the project to wire the first 500m, you might as well carry on to the end, which is the kind of scope creep that'll result in nothing getting done...

 

[MarkyT]

Certainly if you're considering a 99, the rated power on electricity is much higher than on diesel, although the starting TE should be the same. AC it'll accelerate better through the whole speed range, and having it already pan up whilst waiting for the road should give it better all round performance.

If power changeovers are considered a performance risk (and they obviously are more of a risk than not changing over) then wiring the arrivals road far enough that the train can clear the main line on electric would make sense too, so any issues can be dealt with out of the way.

In the case of London Gateway, there are no real obvious complicating factors to getting the wires up, so there'd be a matter of once you start the project to wire the first 500m, you might as well carry on to the end, which is the kind of scope creep that'll result in nothing getting done...

If a train was approaching Gateway hauled by a bimode, I'd guess the driver would want to start up the engine fairly early so they had confidence they would have diesel power available as soon as they left the wires at the junction. An arriving train wouldn't be using much power though and could probably coast in if necessary. The problem with that is, if the train was held to allow an up passenger train across its bows, it may not have enough wiring to accelerate sufficiently before the wires ran out, or if the manouvre was misjudged and in either case came to a stand too early with the tail still fouling the mainline junction, without engine power. One way to mitigate that would be to always have a pilot loco in the terminal that could come out and rescue any stranded arrival, although that would still take time to organise while delays were building up for other traffic on the mainline. I think these boundary areas could help add to the case for a limited emergency/shunt/boost battery capability, as on the class 93s. If the last-few-miles engine doesn't start on cue, then the train should at least be able to move clear of the mainline on battery.

For departures, I'd go for a short length of OHLE on approach to the departure road starting signal only. Drivers could thus have confidence the panto is successfully raised and connected before starting away, and the engine wouldn't need to idle while awaiting the signal. Only head-end locos would be able to take advantage of this wiring, though I don't think rear and mid-consist helpers are very likely on UK intermodals!

 

[BerkshireRails]

If a train was approaching Gateway hauled by a bimode, I'd guess the driver would want to start up the engine fairly early so they had confidence they would have diesel power available as soon as they left the wires at the junction. An arriving train wouldn't be using much power though and could probably coast in if necessary. The problem with that is, if the train was held to allow an up passenger train across its bows, it may not have enough wiring to accelerate sufficiently before the wires ran out, or if the manouvre was misjudged and in either case came to a stand too early with the tail still fouling the mainline junction, without engine power. One way to mitigate that would be to always have a pilot loco in the terminal that could come out and rescue any stranded arrival, although that would still take time to organise while delays were building up for other traffic on the mainline. I think these boundary areas could help add to the case for a limited emergency/shunt/boost battery capability, as on the class 93s. If the last-few-miles engine doesn't start on cue, then the train should at least be able to move clear of the mainline on battery.

For departures, I'd go for a short length of OHLE on approach to the departure road starting signal only. Drivers could thus have confidence the panto is successfully raised and connected before starting away, and the engine wouldn't need to idle while awaiting the signal. Only head-end locos would be able to take advantage of this wiring, though I don't think rear and mid-consist helpers are very likely on UK intermodals!

I would just fully wire both Reception and departure roads, and install APCO's on the London, Tilbury & Southend Railway for Freight to switch over to Diesel for London Gateway. The reason for fully wiring it the Reception and Departure roads is so that if the loco fails to change, it can be brought to a stand at the Reception road and then manually do the switch and if it fails do both both Automatic and Manual then you bring in the shunter, take off the failed loco and use the shunter to move the loads.
There is some cases when Intermodals have locos at both end.

 

[WAO]

Battery electric multiple unit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The above article along with others gives the present accepted balance in the battery/OLE argument. A busy main line needs OLE but lightly used branches and last-mile don't. Thus DfT would be mad to stop MML wiring, only condemning itself to higher costs if did.

Equally, present Diesel operated branches like Windermere and Henley should work well with batteries, as would last-mile freight, if electricity costs were favourable

There are of course many lines in between, some of which depend on traffic increases to get above the bar; others where all-electric and bi-modes could co-exist, such as XC. That suggests that partial electrification for charging will also become creeping electrification if traffic grows.

A Henley BEMU/IPEMU charging at Twyford could also work into Reading, making a much more useful link. A pity the 230 is only an experiment.

WAO

 

[zwk500]

A Henley BEMU/IPEMU charging at Twyford could also work into Reading, making a much more useful link. A pity the 230 is only an experiment.

The 230 was always a demonstrator unit, now that the technology has been successfully trialled, it will be a somewhat simpler task to fit that design into the next unit GWR order. (Fitting it into a current GWR unit is another ball game entirely).

 

[BerkshireRails]

A Henley BEMU/IPEMU charging at Twyford could also work into Reading, making a much more useful link. A pity the 230 is only an experiment.

The GWR proposes to Charge the unit at Henley-on-Thames instead of Twyford.

 

[Sonik]

Wasn't the since-abandoned "electric spine" the first (or at least an earlier) major electrification project freight was interested in (or at least the coalition government thought freight was interested in)? It involved converting the SWML from Southampton-Basingstoke from third rail to OHLE, then electrifying all the way to Sheffield along a continuous route that included EWR.

The FOCs never really wanted Electric Spine, it was mostly IMO a political concept, to supplement the business cases for passenger schemes such as GWEP, EWR and MML electrification.

The freight industry is much more interested in getting F2N wired.

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felixstowe_to_Nuneaton_railway_upgrade

The managing director of GB Railfreight, John Smith, questioned the prioritisation of the Electric Spine particularly over F2N

Today Southampton liners most all go via Warwick, which is/was not on Electric Spine, somewhat defeating the concept. However EWR does now give an (arguably better) alternate route to the midlands terminals (avoiding Coventry/Birmingham) especially after HS2 releases capacity on Northampton/Trent Valley. Anything going further north still has the issue at Colwich, meaning that the route via Warwick, Coventry & Penkridge will likely still be preferred.

 

[Class15]

The FOCs never really wanted it as a priority. Electric spine was really a political idea to supplement the business cases for other schemes such as GWEP, EWR and MML electrification.

The freight industry is much more interested in getting F2N wired.

I have never understood this.

There is a fully 25kV equipped route from Felixstowe Ipswich to Nuneaton, including an electrified connection onto the ECML if needed at Canonbury.

There is no 25kV equipped route into Southampton, and even a class 92 cannot do it due to the South Western Main Line not being gauge cleared for containers.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Errr!? There's a lot to be gained by not competing with a very busy suburban service on the North London Line as well as the southern portions of GEML and WCML and also avoiding bottlenecks like Welwyn viaduct. The reason for electrifying F2N is to do with how much container traffic currently takes that route which it must be doing for a reason. Ideally the only intermodal routes going through North London should be those going to London Gateway because there's no other way to do that.

 

[The exile]

I have never understood this.

There is a fully 25kV equipped route from Felixstowe to Nuneaton, including an electrified connection onto the ECML if needed at Canonbury.

Well, from Ipswich at least. However, it is a long way round and threads through some of the most congested bits of the network it possibly could.

 

[Class15]

Errr!? There's a lot to be gained by not competing with a very busy suburban service on the North London Line as well as the southern portions of GEML and WCML and also avoiding bottlenecks like Welwyn viaduct. The reason for electrifying F2N is to do with how much container traffic currently takes that route which it must be doing for a reason. Ideally the only intermodal routes going through North London should be those going to London Gateway because there's no other way to do that.

I would have thought that providing a first electrified intermodal route into Southampton would be higher priority than providing a second to Ipswich/Felixstowe. North London line works absolutely fine as the Stratford to Camden Road section has much lower headways than the Gospel Oak to Willesden section. GEML I agree isn’t ideal but the punctuality is so good on both passenger and freight trains it’s rarely an issue. WCML slows only have 4tph passenger out of London and Colwich isn’t bypassed by F2N.

It’s always funny seeing the constant delays to services via ‘F2N’ (frequently severely delayed) versus the very punctual running via London. Single line sections are a problem on ‘F2N’ - electrification doesn’t solve everything.

If the only reason that freight goes via London is electrification, why does freight to Lawley Street (unelectrified) still go via London?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2025 ==

Well, from Ipswich at least. However, it is a long way round and threads through some of the most congested bits of the network it possibly could.

The most congested section of the NLL is Kensal Green Jn to Gospel Oak which freights from Felixstowe (minus 4L66 and 4M88 which I assume are route retention) bypass. Colwich and Castlefield (for Trafford Park trains) aren’t bypassed by F2N.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

I would have thought that providing a first electrified intermodal route into Southampton would be higher priority than providing a second to Ipswich/Felixstowe.

That would be much harder to do for one. And Felixstowe is still intermodal terminal #1 by traffic. I would of course be in favour of this as well.

North London line works absolutely fine as the Stratford to Camden Road section has much lower headways than the Gospel Oak to Willesden section. GEML I agree isn’t ideal but the punctuality is so good on both passenger and freight trains it’s rarely an issue.

yeah they can manage the freight surprisingly well for sure, but imagine how much potential LO and GA would have for more services if they didnt have to accommodate as much freight. F2N is an upgrade to the london suburban routes as much as freight.

It’s always funny seeing the constant delays to services via ‘F2N’ (frequently severely delayed) versus the very punctual running via London. Single line sections are a problem on ‘F2N’ - electrification doesn’t solve everything.

Electrification is obviously one part of an F2N suite of works. Resignalling, grade seperations, etc are also necessary.

If the only reason that freight goes via London is electrification, why does freight to Lawley Street (unelectrified) still go via London?

No I'm saying the opposite of this. You're the one who said there is an electrified F2N already going via London. The vast majority of freight through London is diesel anyway no matter how wired their whole route is.

Through London is an effective and quick route from the freight's perspective (and wembley is one of two significant marshalling yards) but reduces capacity for many passenger services. The point would be to increase the capacity of the F2N route with a range of works so that more can use it.

But even without any of that. There is already a lot of intermod freight passing through the F2N route at the moment. Take a look next time you change trains at Peterborough and note how few carry on down the ecml to london. It's a seriously well used route that has it's own case for electrification irrespective of how much can be removed from NLL.

There's also EWR to consider in the longer term. Which is accessed by a good chunk of F2N

 

[Sonik]

It’s always funny seeing the constant delays to services via ‘F2N’ (frequently severely delayed) versus the very punctual running via London. Single line sections are a problem on ‘F2N’ - electrification doesn’t solve everything.

The main issues are Ely and Syston-Wigston, both of which are subject to enhancement proposals (albeit both with a lot of delays and revisions)

Colwich and Castlefield (for Trafford Park trains) aren’t bypassed by F2N.

The problem with both is the cancellation of HS2

F2N is an upgrade to the london suburban routes as much as freight.

This^ (But it also avoids Coventry, Central Birmingham and long detours round Sutton Park)

I think it is also worth considering WRT wiring F2N, ES or other freight routes more generally, that gauge cleared routes have most of the expensive bridge lifts etc. already done. Which should have a quite significant impact on the cost of electrification (albeit there will be other enablers to be done like signalling immunisation). Also consider that since BCRs (and politics) push electrification schemes towards the busy passenger routes, this hugely drives up the cost of access and thus delivery. A quieter route should be much easier (and thus cheaper) to work on. The freight corridors could therefore turn out to be an easy win, in terms of reducing average cost per STK.

 

[BerkshireRails]

There is no 25kV equipped route into Southampton, and even a class 92 cannot do it due to the South Western Main Line not being gauge cleared for containers.

Would it be cost effective to 25kv Reading to Southampton via Salisbury and Winchester and make it able to take container traffic?

 

[zwk500]

Would it be cost effective to 25kv Reading to Southampton via Salisbury and Winchester and make it able to take container traffic?

Well going via Salisbury and Winchester is mutually exclusive for starters. Converting via Winchester to 25KV isn't worth it. The route via the Salisbury avoiding curve is already (AIUI) container cleared, and wiring this section with Southcote jn - Basingstoke would mean only requiring a mile or so from Basingstoke to Worting jn and a couple of hundred yards at Redbridge, which could even be within the capabilities of an 88. Of course, it'd need more wires north of Didcot to be of particular use.

You'd probably need a proper Bi-Mode (or last-mile Dual-Voltage) rather than just a last-mile loco to be able to run via Southampton airport to Romsey though.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Well going via Salisbury and Winchester is mutually exclusive for starters. Converting via Winchester to 25KV isn't worth it. The route via the Salisbury avoiding curve is already (AIUI) container cleared, and wiring this section with Southcote jn - Basingstoke would mean only requiring a mile or so from Basingstoke to Worting jn and a couple of hundred yards at Redbridge, which could even be within the capabilities of an 88. Of course, it'd need more wires north of Didcot to be of particular use.

You'd probably need a proper Bi-Mode (or last-mile Dual-Voltage) rather than just a last-mile loco to be able to run via Southampton airport to Romsey though.

The Poplar Lines in Acton are being wired so you will be able to come off the WCML, ECML, MML and GEML and head via GWML to get to Southampton. You really want to wire it between Basingstoke and Worting Junction due to the short distance. Wiring the route through Winchester would enable an future XC fleet to not need third rail gear which could allow them to just order more 805s & 807s. As they could possible run all of the way on the wires from Manchester Piccadilly to Bournemouth.

 

[zwk500]

The Poplar Lines in Acton are being wired so you will be able to come off the WCML, ECML, MML and GEML and head via GWML to get to Southampton.

Not without a reversal from the WCML or MML - the Dudding Hill lines, Junction Road Junction, and Willesden No 7/Acton Canal Wharf Chord aren't being wired.

You really want to wire it between Basingstoke and Worting Junction due to the short distance. Wiring the route through Winchester would enable an future XC fleet to not need third rail gear which could allow them to just order more 805s & 807s. As they could possible run all of the way on the wires from Manchester Piccadilly to Bournemouth.

To run 'all the way' from Manchester to Bournemouth on the wires requires Proof house Jn to Didcot (+ Coventry to Leamington) as well as Southcote Jn to Basingstoke and then conversion of Basingstoke to Bournemouth. However, conversion of the 3rd rail is simply never going to be justified while such vast amounts of the network remain unelectrified (West Yorks commuter, South Yorks commuter, Derby-Birmingham-Bristol, Chippenham-Bristol, Didcot-Oxford(-Birmingham), Birmingham Snow Hill lines, Chiltern Main line, EWR, etc, etc...).
XC will either simply run bi-modes in non-electric mode on the third rail or get Dual-voltage Bi-modes. Given dual-voltage and Bi-mode AT300s exist in the UK, combining the two isn't a massive stretch. Certainly cheaper than disrupting SWR, especially if it's decided to convert rather than dual-system it to avoid the issues of DC and AC mixing on the same track as SWR would then need DV units or BEMUs to bridge the AC sections.

 

[Class15]

Not without a reversal from the WCML or MML - the Dudding Hill lines, Junction Road Junction, and Willesden No 7/Acton Canal Wharf Chord aren't being wired.

WCML is technically possible - Camden Jn - Camden Road - High Meads Jn - South Tottenham - Gospel Oak - Willesden Junction High Level - Poplar lines - GWML

Very slow but possible without reversal and all container cleared.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think it is also worth considering WRT wiring F2N, ES or other freight routes more generally, that gauge cleared routes have most of the expensive bridge lifts etc. already done.

Sadly not. Gauge clearance for the larger containers is all about the top corners. The highest part of the loading gauge is essentially the same for W6, W8 and W10. For electrification, you need clearance above that for the wires.

This link has a useful diagram.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Network-Rail-freight-map-intermodal-sector-with-gauge-clearance.pdf

 

[swt_passenger]

There is no 25kV equipped route into Southampton, and even a class 92 cannot do it due to the South Western Main Line not being gauge cleared for containers.

The main container route from Southampton to the midlands is via Eastleigh, Basingstoke, Reading and Didcot, and was cleared to W10 some years ago. Clearly it’s not done east of Basingstoke, but traffic doesn’t ever go that way. The alternative route via Romsey, Laverstock chord and Andover was cleared to W12, but the vast majority of Southampton traffic is covered by W10.

I’ve no idea where ‘not cleared for containers’ is coming from, all the current trains that are running at W10 are pretty hard to miss…

 

[Class15]

The main container route from Southampton to the midlands is via Eastleigh, Basingstoke, Reading and Didcot, and was cleared to W10 some years ago. Clearly it’s not done east of Basingstoke, but traffic doesn’t ever go that way. The alternative route via Romsey, Laverstock chord and Andover was cleared to W12, but the vast majority of Southampton traffic is covered by W10.

I’ve no idea where ‘not cleared for containers’ is coming from, all the current trains that are running at W10 are pretty hard to miss…

I meant the electrified route to Southampton? Via Clapham Junction and the London-Southampton main line. A class 92 (which is the subject of discussion here) cannot use the container-gauged routes, hence my comment.

 

[zwk500]

WCML is technically possible - Camden Jn - Camden Road - High Meads Jn - South Tottenham - Gospel Oak - Willesden Junction High Level - Poplar lines - GWML

Very slow but possible without reversal and all container cleared.

If you're being stupid about it yes, but that route is not going to encourage anybody to use electric traction when the alternative of using the far more direct route by alternative traction exists. it's one of the reasons Acton Wells-Canal wharf- Willesden 7 being missed out of the Poplars project is very, very frustrating.

 

[swt_passenger]

I meant the electrified route to Southampton? Via Clapham Junction and the London-Southampton main line. A class 92 (which is the subject of discussion here) cannot use the container-gauged routes, hence my comment.

Well you didn’t get that point across too well, clearly the route that is actually used by many freight trains is gauge cleared, even if it isn’t AC wired. There’s almost no significant freight through Clapham Junction onto the Southampton line.

 

[Class15]

Well you didn’t get that point across too well, clearly the route that is actually used by many frieight trains is gauge cleared, even if it isn’t AC wired. There’s almost no significant freight through Clapham Junction onto the Southampton line.

Which is exactly what my comment is saying! It was saying that there is no way for any pure electric freight loco (including a 92) to haul a deep sea container train to Southampton!

 

[BerkshireRails]

Not without a reversal from the WCML or MML - the Dudding Hill lines, Junction Road Junction, and Willesden No 7/Acton Canal Wharf Chord aren't being wired.

Dudding Hill lines are planned for electrification with OLE as part of the West London Orbital project.

 

[zwk500]

Dudding Hill lines are planned for electrification with OLE as part of the West London Orbital project.

The latest plans I'd seen was for battery operation not wired.

 

[Sonik]

Sadly not. Gauge clearance for the larger containers is all about the top corners. The highest part of the loading gauge is essentially the same for W6, W8 and W10. For electrification, you need clearance above that for the wires.

For sure, there may be track-lowers etc. where only W gauging was feasible. My intended point was that bridges that *have* been lifted for gauging will most often be rebuilt with possible future electrification taken into account.

The latest plans I'd seen was for battery operation not wired.

I understood it that battery was proposed (just) to solve the third rail gap Acton-Kew, albeit plans may have moved on since.

 

[BerkshireRails]

The latest plans I'd seen was for battery operation not wired.

The batteries would be recharged under the wires from Brent Cross West to Acton Central, then switch to Battery power to run to Hounslow, with enough range to run back to Willesden Junction via Whitton and Clapham Junction, according to the PWI video.

I understood that battery was proposed to solve the third rail gap Acton-Kew

And the power supply issues on the Hounslow Loop as well as rest of Windsor Lines due to Wimbledon grid being at capacity. This means no more electric services than are currently being operated can be operated.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

There was a brief mention in that PWI video about how SWR wish to run more Hounslow Loop services but power supply is the most limiting factor. Wimbledon Grid is quite stretched powering everything from Clapham Jnc to Surbiton, Virginia Water and Windsor (and a few other bits) - maybe a new Grid supply in Twickenham (where there is a 132kV substation) would help? Well out of the scope of the LO project though it may have to happen eventually.

 

[Sonik]

The batteries would be recharged under the wires from Brent Cross West to Acton Central, then switch to Battery power to run to Hounslow, with enough range to run back to Willesden Junction via Whitton and Clapham Junction, according to the PWI video.

And the power supply issues on the Hounslow Loop as well as rest of Windsor Lines due to Wimbledon grid being at capacity. This means no more electric services than are currently being operated can be operated.

So it's essentially a 25Kv (only) system, with a fairly long battery extension? (i.e. no DC) That should improve the case, for putting wires all the way between Brent Cross and Acton Wells.

I suspect a static battery fast charging solution (like GWR's 230) would be pushing it, on a higher frequency LO service.

And a DC upgrade (while perhaps desirable for other services) doesn't solve the third rail gap.