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

[61653 HTAFC]

The problem with a microfleet is micro capacity. Having just been to Alton (from Reading) and had the joy of 12 cars off-peak from Ash Vale after the stuffed 3 car ND Turbo to North Camp (cancellations galore), it's high time the BEMU nonsense for busy lines ceased.

WAO

You could have a small fleet of 12-car units and it'd still be a "micro-fleet". It isn't the size of the train that makes it a microfleet, it's the size of, well, the fleet!
Micro-fleets aren't ideal as a general rule, but there are sensible reasons to have one in certain situations. For example the 139s on the Stourbridge line are a microfleet but it makes sense to use something like that on that route. If the 139s had never existed, we'd still be running 153s on there and they'd be a microfleet by now too.

Looking at the Thames Valley branches, a fleet of 3-car Battery EMUs would be ideal, but you'd also need 2-3 2-car sets for Marlow. If those were mechanically identical to the 3-car sets then that removes many of the downsides of a microfleet.

 

[Western Sunset]

Chippenham to BTM via Bath isn't all that far...

 

[mmh]

I thought the topic was which short distances could you electrify, not where wouldn't you electrify because magic batteries are better.

 

[WAO]

You could have a small fleet of 12-car units and it'd still be a "micro-fleet". It isn't the size of the train that makes it a microfleet, it's the size of, well, the fleet!
Micro-fleets aren't ideal as a general rule, but there are sensible reasons to have one in certain situations. For example the 139s on the Stourbridge line are a microfleet but it makes sense to use something like that on that route. If the 139s had never existed, we'd still be running 153s on there and they'd be a microfleet by now too.

Looking at the Thames Valley branches, a fleet of 3-car Battery EMUs would be ideal, but you'd also need 2-3 2-car sets for Marlow. If those were mechanically identical to the 3-car sets then that removes many of the downsides of a microfleet.

You'd need a lot of batteries for 12 cars and a clever Depot to keep them apart and maintain enough in service, so you would need more electrification.

I agree about the TV branches though as long as they could tow a dead unit on Regatta week.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

But there will be a performance/ range/ battery lifespan compromise that will need to be made on routes like those in the Thames valley where a pretty small proportion will be on electrified sections. They might actually end up only matching the turbos.

Traction motors don’t know or care where the electrons come from. Acceleration Performance can be (and almost certainly will be) the same with batteries.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You'd need a lot of batteries for 12 cars and a clever Depot to keep them apart and maintain enough in service, so you would need more electrification.

I agree about the TV branches though as long as they could tow a dead unit on Regatta week.

WAO

Don't worry, I'd always favour electrification over batteries, outside of a few niche cases.

For the Thames Valley branches, it's possible those could be among those niche cases. Ideally regardless of whether AC or battery you'd want as much commonality as possible. Marlow is the complicating factor unless some expensive remodelling happens. Through running from Maidenhead to Marlow is limited to 2 cars or c.50m formations, so you'd need some (or all) units as 2 car sets. No manufacturers (AIUI) offer a 2-car EMU, and any adaptation of an existing design would require the redesign of a driving car to have a pantograph well. Would batteries be easier to accommodate in a 2-car/50m unit? Quite possibly. Would it be cheaper than putting wires up (or appear cheaper on a DfT balance sheet)? Again, quite possibly.

I'd be tempted to look at Flirts (or something akin to Flirts) as the longer term solution to the branches, assuming it's possible to fit all the gubbins in a 50m set. A mix of 50m and 75/100m sets, with AC capability to get to/from the depot at Reading. Ideally the easier branches (Windsor & Henley) would in time be wired using lightweight catenary (e.g. Paisley Canal) with batteries used to Marlow (eventually just Bourne End to Marlow would be left unwired with Greenford style fast charging at either Bourne End or Marlow depending on which is easier to implement (space, grid connection, etc.). The peak time split could still be implemented with a longer set on the Maidenhead leg, with the shorter set also able to charge on that leg when running the whole branch during the off-peak. If Greenford itself remains part of GWR, this could use the same 50m sets as Marlow.

 

[The Ham]

No manufacturers (AIUI) offer a 2-car EMU, and any adaptation of an existing design would require the redesign of a driving car to have a pantograph well. Would batteries be easier to accommodate in a 2-car/50m unit? Quite possibly. Would it be cheaper than putting wires up (or appear cheaper on a DfT balance sheet)? Again, quite possibly.

Although 2 car EMU have been created in the past, in the form of class 456's (19.5m coach lengths).

If we're running 24m coach lengths then it shouldn't be impossible to get some battery capacity in there as well.

Let's say for argument GWR were looking to replace their 387's. They could order 95 sets with 4 coaches and 24 sets with 2 coaches to replace the 387's, then replace the 166's with 2n sets (i think with spares this might need 11 units) with 2 coaches (so they run as 4 coach trains on most services).

If my maths is correct that would be a total fleet of;
95 x 4 coach sets
35 x 2 coach sets

With the 2 coach sets being used as 4 coach trains (or part of 6 or 8 coach trains) a lot of the time.

As the 2 coach units could be used to sub for a 4 coach unit (ideally 2 of them, however even 1 meaning a service was 6 coaches rather than 4 coaches, even if it's supposed to be 8 coaches would be better) they aren't a micro fleet.

It would also give the train manufacturer a useful modular train design which could allow 2, 3, 4 coach units which could be sold to other TOC's (regions, divisions, silos, profit centres or whatever name used instead of TOC when part of GBR) to give them the flexibility to run 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc long trains.

I've only assumed 24m coaches to maximum the capacity for the 50m limit, as 3 coaches of 16.6m wouldn't give the same capacity and wouldn't really work for the mainline services. Although, have no major objection to them being closer to 20m coaches if 192m (8×24m) trains cause issues where 163.2m (8×20.4m) trains don't.

 

[ChilliSauce]

The 15 miles from South Wigston north. And then the next 15 miles of Midland Main Line after that. And the next 15 miles...

More seriously: I seem to remember that the EMR Norwich to Liverpool can't use bimodes because the unelectrified stretches are beyond their range. So maybe Grindleford to Edale, or Grantham to Nottingham, or the MML from Nottingham to Sheffield... wait...

Wigston to Leicester station then the bi-modes can change traction whilst on a station stop so utilising all of the OLE to the south of Wigston and the Pancras / Corby service could be diverted to Leicester where it would provide better connections for intermediate stations to London ... With Kettering to "dead end" Corby relegated to a shuttle service.

 

[Mgameing123]

Don't worry, I'd always favour electrification over batteries, outside of a few niche cases.

For the Thames Valley branches, it's possible those could be among those niche cases. Ideally regardless of whether AC or battery you'd want as much commonality as possible. Marlow is the complicating factor unless some expensive remodelling happens. Through running from Maidenhead to Marlow is limited to 2 cars or c.50m formations, so you'd need some (or all) units as 2 car sets. No manufacturers (AIUI) offer a 2-car EMU, and any adaptation of an existing design would require the redesign of a driving car to have a pantograph well. Would batteries be easier to accommodate in a 2-car/50m unit? Quite possibly. Would it be cheaper than putting wires up (or appear cheaper on a DfT balance sheet)? Again, quite possibly.

I'd be tempted to look at Flirts (or something akin to Flirts) as the longer term solution to the branches, assuming it's possible to fit all the gubbins in a 50m set. A mix of 50m and 75/100m sets, with AC capability to get to/from the depot at Reading. Ideally the easier branches (Windsor & Henley) would in time be wired using lightweight catenary (e.g. Paisley Canal) with batteries used to Marlow (eventually just Bourne End to Marlow would be left unwired with Greenford style fast charging at either Bourne End or Marlow depending on which is easier to implement (space, grid connection, etc.). The peak time split could still be implemented with a longer set on the Maidenhead leg, with the shorter set also able to charge on that leg when running the whole branch during the off-peak. If Greenford itself remains part of GWR, this could use the same 50m sets as Marlow.

Maidenhead to Marlow could get awsy with batteries unless if the line to Wycombe opens again because then it definitely should be OHLE.

 

[The Planner]

Maidenhead to Marlow could get awsy with batteries unless if the line to Wycombe opens again because then it definitely should be OHLE.

Why? Bourne End to High Wycombe can't be more than 7 or 8 miles.

 

[Mgameing123]

Why? Bourne End to High Wycombe can't be more than 7 or 8 miles.

Maidenhead to High Wycombe would be a very useful freight corridor. But again this also relies on a green lit Chiltern Mainline electrification before OHLE on this connection would make sense.

 

[Ridgeblog]

Anyone here mentioned the Uckfield line? That was rumoured to be battery converted for a long time but nothing ever came out of that.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Anyone here mentioned the Uckfield line?

Already been mentioned, several times. Been noted that the not yet electrified section beyond Hurst Green is somewhat more than 15 miles, so is out of scope for the purposes of this thread.

 

[Elecman]

Although 2 car EMU have been created in the past, in the form of class 456's (19.5m coach lengths).

and the class 309s

 

[The Ham]

and the class 309s

Thanks, whilst not quite before my time, used in regions I didn't travel in much.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The freight line from Hoo Junction.

 

[The Planner]

Maidenhead to High Wycombe would be a very useful freight corridor. But again this also relies on a green lit Chiltern Mainline electrification before OHLE on this connection would make sense.

For what? Chiltern isn't cleared for intermodals of any size and you just run into problems north of Risborough due to the signalling capacity and speed difference. No freight uses it now apart from HS2, and eventually waste back to Calvert for that reason. Id bet you would also have to rebuild the bridge across the Thames too. Chiltern is likely to end up discontinuous and BEMU.

 

[Mgameing123]

For what? Chiltern isn't cleared for intermodals of any size and you just run into problems north of Risborough due to the signalling capacity and speed difference. No freight uses it now apart from HS2, and eventually waste back to Calvert for that reason. Id bet you would also have to rebuild the bridge across the Thames too. Chiltern is likely to end up discontinuous and BEMU.

We would be able to send the Acton bonus freight via that route. Would just require 2 additional curves aswell.

 

[zwk500]

Chippenham to BTM via Bath isn't all that far...

It is, however, more than 15 miles (just over 20, IIRC).

The freight line from Hoo Junction.

For what? 92s will need shunting around the terminals, and anything that has it's own power to move around the terminals would also have the power to move the train up to where the juice rails begin.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2026 ==

We would be able to send the Acton bonus freight via that route. Would just require 2 additional curves aswell.

'Just' is doing some heavy lifting there. Freight from Acton to High Wycombe already runs via the Greenford Branch - freight wouldn't benefit from any reopening.
Also a reopening is hardly an easy 'quick win' for electrification.

 

[WAO]

I suggest Christian Malford to Bathampton ATS, so as to electrify the heavy climb/descent through the (already cleared) tunnels. This would help battery and Diesel Bimodes.

WAO

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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

Doesn't make much sense unless you also do Carnforth-Barrow (30 miles), as the trains interwork.
Then there's the Morecambe branch, but that might be suitable for battery operation (Manchester-Morecambe sounds a promising route).

It's more than 15 miles but I think Allerton-Trafford Park (CLC, 24 miles) is close to a no-brainer.
It would need bi-modes on TPE/EMR services to get the most out of the wires (as far as Hazel Grove).

 

[WAO]

It's more than 15 miles but I think Allerton-Trafford Park (CLC, 24 miles) is close to a no-brainer.
It would need bi-modes on TPE/EMR services to get the most out of the wires (as far as Hazel Grove).

Turned down recently.

https://www.thepwi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/CLC-Line-of-Route-Upgrade_W-Hastie-A-Paton.pdf

WAO

 

[zwk500]

I suggest Christian Malford to Bathampton ATS, so as to electrify the heavy climb/descent through the (already cleared) tunnels. This would help battery and Diesel Bimodes.

WAO

If part of a wider programme for the BEMU maybe but that'd be more than 15 route miles. On it's own it only lets the half-hourly Bi-modes run a few extra miles on electric so it doesn't really benefit the network as a whole.

 

[Zomboid]

Doesn't make much sense unless you also do Carnforth-Barrow (30 miles), as the trains interwork

Unit diagrams in 2026 are not a reason to not electrify a route. It'll require new units which will then be diagrammed according to their capabilities, existing interworking arrangements will be broken and new ones created.

 

[The exile]

Doesn't make much sense unless you also do Carnforth-Barrow (30 miles), as the trains interwork.
Then there's the Morecambe branch, but that might be suitable for battery operation (Manchester-Morecambe sounds a promising route).

What the interworking currently is should not of itself be a show-stopper.
Beaten to it, I see!

 

[Mgameing123]

It is, however, more than 15 miles (just over 20, IIRC).

For what? 92s will need shunting around the terminals, and anything that has it's own power to move around the terminals would also have the power to move the train up to where the juice rails begin.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2026 ==


'Just' is doing some heavy lifting there. Freight from Acton to High Wycombe already runs via the Greenford Branch - freight wouldn't benefit from any reopening.
Also a reopening is hardly an easy 'quick win' for electrification.

Im talking about trains from the Reading direction to London could be diverted via Beaconsfield.

 

[Towers]

Though since there are currently no scheduled Bristol - London services via Badminton, Filton Bank on its own isn’t going to do much.

Indeed, Filton would be poor value for money. Nothing operates there that would benefit from OHLE except for the occasional 800/802 running to/from Gloucester, and it’d be barely worth raising the pan.

In today’s constrained times, ‘value for money’ means a real demonstrable benefit; the suggested Didcot to Oxford allowing electric rolling stock to replace diesel Turbos being a good example.

 

[zwk500]

Im talking about trains from the Reading direction to London could be diverted via Beaconsfield.

Running Reading-Northolt-Ealing? If you're trying to bypass the GWML Relief lines then don't send them onto the Chiltern Main Line which is hardly less congested.

And that's ignoring the practicalities of putting in a west curve at Maidenhead, or extending over the high street at Bourne End, or building some outrageous curve above the M40 west of Beaconsfield. And it's more than 15 miles of electrification needed....

 

[Zomboid]

Indeed, Filton would be poor value for money. Nothing operates there that would benefit from OHLE except for the occasional 800/802 running to/from Gloucester, and it’d be barely worth raising the pan.

In today’s constrained times, ‘value for money’ means a real demonstrable benefit; the suggested Didcot to Oxford allowing electric rolling stock to replace diesel Turbos being a good example.

Filton into Temple Meads would permit a local proper electric service to Cardiff, and I'd suggest it's probably essential for the batterification of the Weston/ Portishead/ Avonmouth/ Henbury/ Yate suburban operations.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

For what? 92s will need shunting around the terminals, and anything that has it's own power to move around the terminals would also have the power to move the train up to where the juice rails begin.

My suggestion included electrifying the terminals.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2026 ==

Filton into Temple Meads would permit a local proper electric service to Cardiff, and I'd suggest it's probably essential for the batterification of the Weston/ Portishead/ Avonmouth/ Henbury/ Yate suburban operations.

But these should all be electrified though. Weston to Yate is on the XC spine anyway.