Short (under 15 miles) lines that would be useful to electrify

[zwk500]

I think part of the justification against electrifying Ipswich to Felixstowe is that the yard at the port can't be electrified since the containers are top loaded. Hence the loco will need to be changed somewhere anyway and Ipswich yard is almost as good an option.

(This is basically just speculation and I would appreciate someone with any actual information weighing in!)

Correct, the containers are loaded by an overhead gantry at both terminals (some reach stackers may also be involved, not sure), so for electric trains to serve Felixstowe would require either Bi-mode/last-mile capability, moveable OLE, or independently powered (i.e. diesel/battery) shunting assistance.

For an operator, the optimum solution there is a full bi-mode like the Class 93 or 99 (rather than the Class 88's last-mile capability) as the loco can then be used more flexibly, but paradoxically that would reduce the case for electrifying the branch, as the bi-mode loco would be able to use it's non-OLE mode to haul the train as far as Ipswich.

Doesn't help unless the Leamington Nuneaton is bi-mode. Its a bit pointless otherwise.

Or you split the service, which also removes the crossing moves at Coventry but does tie up Platforms 1 and 4 while the unit is turning round.

The section of line that links the North London (Mildmay Line) to the Hounslow Loop.

Not useful to electrify this section until the passenger services are running on the Dudding Hill Line/WLO.

The most useful lines to electrify are ones where an existing DMU service can be replaced wholesale by EMUs.

 

[Meole]

Gateshead (junctions south of the Tyne) to Metro Centre

Its a through station not a branch.

 

[swt_passenger]

Gateshead (junctions south of the Tyne) to Metro Centre

You’d have to pair that up with a newly electrified destination north of Newcastle surely?

 

[ac6000cw]

I think part of the justification against electrifying Ipswich to Felixstowe is that the yard at the port can't be electrified since the containers are top loaded. Hence the loco will need to be changed somewhere anyway and Ipswich yard is almost as good an option.

(This is basically just speculation and I would appreciate someone with any actual information weighing in!)

Make that 'yards' at the port - there are three intermodal terminals (South, Central and North) accessed via two different branches off the main Felixstowe branch.

But cl. 88, 93 and 99 locos could use diesel or battery power within the terminal areas and a shunting loco could deal with trains hauled by OHLE-only locos.

 

[contrex]

Amen. Crazy that 2 cities of that importance aren't already served by electric services from London.

And Narroways round to Filton and also Severn Beach.

 

[zwk500]

The most useful lines to electrify are ones where an existing DMU service can be replaced wholesale by EMUs.

Didcot-Oxford, Reading-Basingstoke and Camp Hill are the only lines with more than 1tph in each direction that could be replaced by less than 15 miles by my rough eyeballing. And Didcot-Oxford would require transferring the Banbury extensions to the Bi-Mode IET worked Pad-Oxford fasts.
EDIT to add (because I forgot): Morecambe could make a case if it standardised on a 2tph Lancaster-Morecambe service, with Leeds trains either running as extra or terminating Lancaster, and the one-off Heysham services either removed from the timetable or run as an extra with an out-of-pattern diagram.

Blackpool south branch is also a candidate but at only hourly BEMUs would be more likely. Ipswich - Felixstowe is basically bang on 15 miles, but has an hourly service and freight would need bi-mode anyway as discussed above.
Filton Bank & Henbury line is a possibility but would require more than 15 miles of electrification to get full EMU service given the interworking with the Severn beach line and extension west of Bristol.
Bletchley-Bedford is basically bang on 15 miles, but again only hourly and has lots of Level Crossings. EWR do propose to wire this section though as part of their discontinuous electrification strategy.

EDIT to add (because I forgot): Windermere is a strong candidate with the self-contained + through services but also only hourly (1 in every 3 hours goes through, judging by today's timetable), so argument for fast-charge solution and BEMU.

Ashington, Crewe-Chester and Wigan Wallgate-Southport are longer than 15 miles, while you'd need to do Salford-Hindley and Wigan-Headbolt lane to convert that section to EMUs. Struggling to think of anything even close to 15 miles which would allow a service to convert to EMU diagrams without major changes to services.

(distances from a mix of ELR codes and RTT, roughly rounded).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'll go with Oxenholme Lake District to Windermere. 10 miles.

Totally agree. Through electric trains from Manchester Airport - Manchester- Bolton-Preston-Lancaster to the Lakes. Massive reduction of diesel under the wires running.

 

[blimmo]

Or you split the service, which also removes the crossing moves at Coventry but does tie up Platforms 1 and 4 while the unit is turning round.

I don't think this would be acceptable. P1 and 2 are often used simultaneously so that an Avanti following an LNWR can begin boarding without waiting for the LNWR to leave.

 

[tbtc]

The OP didn't specify that this be connected to other electrification so I'm going to suggest Meadowhall to Dore (I think going all the way to Chesterfield would be longer than fifteen miles, happy to be corrected)

Batteries are the future for currently unelectrified lines, but ranges affect how viable these are

Wiring the busy section of line through Sheffield, as I propose, would allow services terminating there from Leeds/ Doncaster/ London/ Manchester etc to sufficiently charge for their return journeys (given how many of Sheffield's departures each hour are for these cities, this would be a huge boost)

It would massively improve air quality in urban areas (just walk the path alongside the tram line parallel with the station, if you miss diesel fumes) - air quality in the Lake District etc isn't in need of such improvements

You'd massively improve the case for XC to get bimodes if you just focussed on certain short urban sections like this (and also Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth)

IMHO, this would have the positive impact on the network as a whole that the OP asked for (rather than worrying about various lines with just one train an hour)

 

[JCO1406]

Bristol Parkway to Bristol TM for sure needs to happen.

 

[geordieblue]

Didcot-Oxford, Reading-Basingstoke and Camp Hill are the only lines with more than 1tph in each direction that could be replaced by less than 15 miles by my rough eyeballing. And Didcot-Oxford would require transferring the Banbury extensions to the Bi-Mode IET worked Pad-Oxford fasts.
EDIT to add (because I forgot): Morecambe could make a case if it standardised on a 2tph Lancaster-Morecambe service, with Leeds trains either running as extra or terminating Lancaster, and the one-off Heysham services either removed from the timetable or run as an extra with an out-of-pattern diagram.

Blackpool south branch is also a candidate but at only hourly BEMUs would be more likely. Ipswich - Felixstowe is basically bang on 15 miles, but has an hourly service and freight would need bi-mode anyway as discussed above.
Filton Bank & Henbury line is a possibility but would require more than 15 miles of electrification to get full EMU service given the interworking with the Severn beach line and extension west of Bristol.
Bletchley-Bedford is basically bang on 15 miles, but again only hourly and has lots of Level Crossings. EWR do propose to wire this section though as part of their discontinuous electrification strategy.

EDIT to add (because I forgot): Windermere is a strong candidate with the self-contained + through services but also only hourly (1 in every 3 hours goes through, judging by today's timetable), so argument for fast-charge solution and BEMU.

Ashington, Crewe-Chester and Wigan Wallgate-Southport are longer than 15 miles, while you'd need to do Salford-Hindley and Wigan-Headbolt lane to convert that section to EMUs. Struggling to think of anything even close to 15 miles which would allow a service to convert to EMU diagrams without major changes to services.

(distances from a mix of ELR codes and RTT, roughly rounded).

Isn’t Ashington less than 15 miles if measured from Benton Jn (where the electrification runs out)?

 

[geoffk]

Amen. Crazy that 2 cities of that importance aren't already served by electric services from London.

I think Benton Jn to Ashington just qualifies under the OP's 15 mile criterion. Along with Metro Centre and the Morpeth turnback, already mentioned, that would give a worthwhile amount of work for electric units in the north-east.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Thames Haven Junction to London Gateway

 

[Zomboid]

Isn’t Ashington less than 15 miles if measured from Benton Jn (where the electrification runs out)?

I think so. Though 25kV running parallel to the 1500V will create some interesting engineering challenges...

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

Well, Wigston - Syston for a start. Perhaps a sprinkling of four tracking too. Yes, I know, I'm dreaming.

 

[anthony263]

Cardiff to Bridgend and perhaps Newport to Crosskeys to allow class 756s to be used on Maesteg to Ebbw Vale and Ebbw Vale to Newport services

 

[Zomboid]

It's closer to 20 miles, but Moorthorpe to Sheffield would be useful for future XC bimodes and local (B)EMU operations.

 

[stevieinselby]

I'll suggest Newark to Lincoln, which would displace a few bimode 80x to give other routes a better service as 801s would be able to operate there.

That would be so far down the list, it really wouldn't have any merit at the moment.
LNER have more than enough bi-modes to run the routes that need diesel traction (although the current diagramming means that those units also run journeys that don't need bi-mode capability), so where are you going to redeploy them to better effect? (Bear in mind that this doesn't increase the number of units available, so you can't have an overall increase in services).

If EMR were looking to acquire some battery bi-modes and having Lincoln to Newark electrified was necessary and sufficient to allow them to run all trains from Lincoln to Crewe or Matlock with those battery trains then it would be a different matter.

I'll go with Oxenholme Lake District to Windermere. 10 miles.

That would be a much better use! Although I think in most cases of sections of less than 15 miles, battery units will be more viable. Only a few shorter routes that currently use diesel bi-modes more intensively – such as Didcot to Oxford, or Swindon to Bristol – would be particularly worthwhile.
The value of electrification is more going to be on long routes where batteries are not suitable, or for freight. In terms of passenger services, that's looking like the XC intercity network, GW to Penzance and Chiltern – but I'm struggling to think of many short routes that would be worthwhile on that basis.

 

[zwk500]

Bristol Parkway to Bristol TM for sure needs to happen.

This would need to be part of either a wider programme or fleet replacement as Bristol Parkway-Bristol TM alone lets you convert the Bi-Mode services (ECS to/from Stoke Gifford, 1tph Cardiff-WC, and 2tph Bristol-Gloucester/Worcester) to electric mode for 5 miles only. Splitting the Filton service out of the interworking with the Severn Beach line realistically has to wait for Henbury and Portishead to open, and then you run into the issues with extending west of Bristol.

Isn’t Ashington less than 15 miles if measured from Benton Jn (where the electrification runs out)?

Ooh good point, in which case it's self-contained service would be a good candidate.

I think so. Though 25kV running parallel to the 1500V will create some interesting engineering challenges...

Many fewer challenges than if it was trying to have AC and DC on the same track! At least the two tracks can be kept electrically separated from each other.

Thames Haven Junction to London Gateway

Similar issue to Felixstowe with overhead loading. If you need a 'last-mile' capability for the terminal operations then you've got the capability for the last mile-and-a-half from the junction...

London gateway is the *classic* use case for a last-mile traction battery capability. It would be very very nice if the Up branch received an extra wire run to be able to pan up when waiting for the signal but it's really not necessary so long as they can pan up once beyond the junction without needing to keep speed too low. Similar thing with Tilbury, and tbh most terminals.

It's almost certainly going to be more cost-effective for FOCs to just procure Battery Locos that can charge from OLE, and then to fit charging bars/wires over loco holding points at the terminals. The alternative would be to have to use shunters or unimogs to move trains (whole or in portions) between sidings in the terminal for loading and unloading. At busy ports that's a lot of additional movements to plan for, at less busy ports that's more staff to price into the operations. Battery-electric locos will also be required for lines that will never justify electrification, and will mean that new terminals can be added to the network for electric traction from day 1 without needing any OLE at all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Gateshead (junctions south of the Tyne) to Metro Centre

No point. Monday to Saturday, almost everything that serves the MetroCentre is heading further up the Tyne Valley and so needs to be a DMU.

It's only in the late evening and on Sundays that there are trains terminating there.

 

[The exile]

Enhanced Cardiff to Bristol T.M. service (as proposed by TfW)?

Indeed - but the comment was in relation to the fact that it is “crazy” that Oxford and Bristol don’t have electric services to London. Unless the Badminton fasts are reintroduced, electrifying Filton Bank won’t change that.

 

[Mikey C]

Similar issue to Felixstowe with overhead loading. If you need a 'last-mile' capability for the terminal operations then you've got the capability for the last mile-and-a-half from the junction...

London gateway is the *classic* use case for a last-mile traction battery capability. It would be very very nice if the Up branch received an extra wire run to be able to pan up when waiting for the signal but it's really not necessary so long as they can pan up once beyond the junction without needing to keep speed too low. Similar thing with Tilbury, and tbh most terminals.

It's almost certainly going to be more cost-effective for FOCs to just procure Battery Locos that can charge from OLE, and then to fit charging bars/wires over loco holding points at the terminals. The alternative would be to have to use shunters or unimogs to move trains (whole or in portions) between sidings in the terminal for loading and unloading. At busy ports that's a lot of additional movements to plan for, at less busy ports that's more staff to price into the operations. Battery-electric locos will also be required for lines that will never justify electrification, and will mean that new terminals can be added to the network for electric traction from day 1 without needing any OLE at all.

How do other European countries get around this, as the lines to the ports will have been wired for decades, using OLE?

 

[The exile]

How do other European countries get around this, as the lines to the ports will have been wired for decades, using OLE?

Reception sidings then diesels.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Reception sidings then diesels.

Which in the UK could be - wire to reception sidings then battery electric shunters.

 

[Acathater]

I'll go with Oxenholme Lake District to Windermere. 10 miles.

That interworks with the Barrow and Morecambe lines. If you do one it makes sense to do all three

 

[zwk500]

Which in the UK could be - wire to reception sidings then battery electric shunters.

Which is lovely if you've got all the infrastructure and time to handle the movements.
Trafford Park currently does this - trains are placed on the 2 roads nearest the CLC lines, and then broken up and shunted across. AIUI The very top ends of the departure roads are wired to allow electric locos to back down onto the very head of the train. IIRC sometimes this is done with an 08 assisting (can't recall exactly how).
AIUI Something similar was planned for the Willesden Euroterminal as well, although of course it didn't ever actually fulfill that role (or not for very long). Mossend may also be set up in a comparable way.

Daventry has fully wired Import and Export yards, according to the quail, so it has the room to shunt trains about, and the volume to make it cost-effective for on-site shunters.
Felixstowe does (or did?) have an 08 or two based on site to help with shunting, but they also invested in a traverser to allow the locos to be released quicker, so there are pressures on minimising operating costs.

For comparison, a Class 93 reportedly cost £4m a loco. It is currently costing £3-4m/stkm for mainline electrification. Electrifying a yard will probably be cheaper on the individual tracks as low-speed, but has more sets of points to wire so once mobilisation costs are accounted for I think you'd be very, very lucky to get even just the A/D roads at London Gateway wired for less than £5m.

Now if you are a FOC, is it going to be more cost effective to spend £50m wiring 10 terminals which will then cost more to operate, or £50m buying 10 Battery Locos that will make terminals cheaper to operate?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I'll go with Oxenholme Lake District to Windermere. 10 miles.

That interworks with the Barrow and Morecambe lines. If you do one it makes sense to do all three

That's as may be, but thought we were constrained by these electrification infill proposals being less than 15 miles length. The Morecambe branch is only an additional couple of miles or so needing doing. But would it ever then be worthwhile doing the occasionally-used line on to Heysham. And Carnforth to Barrow-in-Furness is almost 30 miles and so is maybe out of scope for the purpose of this thread. Unless the OP maybe says otherwise.

 

[rmHawk765]

The most useful lines to electrify are ones where an existing DMU service can be replaced wholesale by EMUs.

So including the gaps in 3rd rail... but I won't start that all over again.

 

[zwk500]

But would it ever then be worthwhile doing the occasionally-used line on to Heysham.

Only if you opened a station for Heysham itself and extended the Morecambe service onto there. But that's getting a bit off-topic.

So including the gaps in 3rd rail... but I won't start that all over again.

Is there any single gap 15 miles or less in length that would allow a service to immediately be replaced by EMUs?

 

[Falcon1200]

How do other European countries get around this, as the lines to the ports will have been wired for decades, using OLE?

Reception sidings then diesels.

Or the system at Coatbridge Freightliner Terminal where arriving electrically-hauled trains run into a headshunt and then propel into the Terminal. Not feasible at all, or many, locations of course.