Should have Network Southeast when they electrified the Hastings line, also electrified other lines?

[JohnElliott]

I have a recollection that when this was discussed before, someone (quoting Chris Green?) said that once the figures had been run and it had proved to be cheaper to electrify to East Grinstead than remove asbestos from the DEMUs on that route, that in hindsight it would have been cheaper to do the same to all the routes the DEMUs ran on. But by that time the money had already been spent on asbestos removal and so wasn't available for electrification.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It's hard nowadays to comprehend where BR was in the early 1980s, the economy had seen a downturn following winter of discontent, and with a 2 year timetable lag BR cut services in 1982.

Cutting services freed up some EMUs, but back in 1982 there was also a looming asbestos deadline (1987) and trains either had to be stripped or scrapped. From memory some (might have been all) of the Hastings line DEMUs had asbestos.

It was deemed cheaper to single track the tunnels (one had been done few years before), put in a basic electrification and use spare 4VEPs from the 1982 cuts, than strip and refurbish the DEMUs.

The electrification wasn't mainline standard, from memory south of Tunbridge Wells the power was restricted to 8car units to save capital costs. I think some power upgrades happened around 15-20 years later when the newer and more powerful 375s took over from the 4VEPs

Really the economics of Hastings direct line were dominated by replacing stock with asbestos, and the electrification was a practical alternative cost wise, not because it was upgrade driven.

The cost of upgrading Tunbridge Wells West line didn't pass and that got closed instead

We originally planned it as a 33kV distribution system as per majority of the Southern but costs were lot higher at that voltage level for cables, transformers and switchgear and GM Pettit sent us a way for a cheaper solution. This was where engineer and operator collaborated and came up with the 8 car railway but with occasional use by 12 car in emergency if all distribution and traction plant was available. So 11kV was adopted for the distribution scheme except High Brooms substation which was 33kV albeit still with a 1.5MW transformer. This may have been uprated to a 2.5MW unit but the rest of the line between Tunbridge Wells and Bopeep Junction is the original scheme coming up 40 years old in a couple of months. The 375's have a power profile that mimiced VEP/CEPs to avoid any power upgrades.

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably the upturn from 2002ish will be associated with the new trains, and presumably also the more regular through trains to London.

Yes, the through trains in particular.

However assuming a similar pattern for the whole line, no doubt a good proportion of this will be railheading where people have switched from other nearby locations - places like Lewes, Haywards Heath, Three Bridges, Etchingham, Stonegate, Tunbridge Wells, East Grinstead to name but a few. Then a considerable amount of investment to cater for this (lengthened platforms, car park expansions and extra trains) to suddenly find all these people end up working from home, which clearly hasn’t recovered.

Is it also correct that the Uckfield line has tended to have cheaper fares than the adjacent routes?

Absolutely. I know people who drive from the Hastings line to Buxted / Eridge etc as season ticket prices are substantially lower.

Personally I suspect privatisation was the larger cause here. For all the talk of BR's financial woes, they always managed to get something electrified each year with the exception of 1981 and 1982 - it was clearly a priority for capital expenditure. Come privatisation this dropped off dramatically - once the last of the BR-initated schemes completed in 1995 there was pretty much nothing for a decade and a half, with most years seeing no new electrification at all.

It was the early 90s recesssion that stopped it. All investment on anything not already committed was stopped, with the exception of urgent safety items, and Channel Tunnel related works.

Privatisation just made it harder to restart.

 

[eldomtom2]

It was the early 90s recesssion that stopped it. All investment on anything not already committed was stopped, with the exception of urgent safety items, and Channel Tunnel related works.

Privatisation just made it harder to restart.

The recession officially ended in 1993 - considering electrified lines kept opening until 1995 before new electrification ceased pretty much entirely, I think that the recession might have caused a gap of a couple of years as in the early 1980s, but it was privatisation that meant the economy picking up and rail travel increasing during the second half of the 1990s and most of the 2000s did not spur any further electrification. Ironically it was not until yet another recession that electrification started to pick up again on any scale.

 

[izvor]

The website linked attributes it primarily to the re-establishment of direct trains to London. However, railheading is certainly very common for this line, and many documents have referenced the fact this causes parking issues at the stations and crowding issues.

Yes, also car parking is free at several "small stations" on the Uckfield line, which attracts more mobile users from other lines e.g. Tunbridge Wells.

A restoration of the 2tph peak service would also see that graph shoot upwards.

 

[The exile]

Why would NSE be interested in electrifying part of a longer Regional Railways service (Bristol-Salisbury-Southampton-Portsmouth) or what was then effectively a freight-only line (Romsey-Eastleigh) if they couldn't even justify their own lines?

Salisbury - Southampton stoppers operated by DEMUs were still a thing. It would have needed a lot of spare cash and pressure to see the solution for them as being electrification rather than integration with Severn- Solent line services (which I believe is what happened prior to the Romsey 6 service getting off the ground) - but stranger things have happened.

 

[Ritchie333]

I missed this thread the first time around, so apologies for the delay.

However, my understanding is at the time the Hastings Line was upgraded, there just wasn't the economic case to upgrade the Marshlink. Indeed, having survived Beeching simply by virtue of the surrounding road network being awful (a situation which remains true to this day), I get the impression BR wanted to do as little as possible with it, in the hope it would just go away. Aside from the two endpoints, the only other stop of any significance is Rye, and possibly Ham Street. It was only really in 2002, when Southern had taken over, that investment was talked about. I believe electrification was seriously discussed in the same manner as Hastings - to get rid of the old Class 206 rolling stock - but was rejected in cost grounds, so the Class 371s were installed instead. For the subsequent 25 years, people keep talking about electrifying the Marshlink again, and again and again (it was a favourite soundbite of Amber Rudd, then MP for Hastings) but I seriously wouldn't hold your breath.

Electrification would mean that Southeastern could run 375s past Ore up to Ashford, looping back round to Tonbridge, in an analogous manner to domestic HS1 services that loop around Ebbsfleet via Ashford, Thanet and Faversham. I've seen enough instances of a class 371 waiting at Platform 1 at Ashford right next to a class 375 going in the opposite direction to know the demand is there, and the track layout permits this. You'd get lots more services for not much more rolling stock.

Nowadays, the demand for the Marshlink is clearly there. I'm probably going to be using it this bank holiday weekend and given the weather I expect all daytime services to be absolutely rammed, standing room only all the way.

 

[brad465]

As was the discussion of another thread from memory, I think a far more logical area of NSE electrification after Hastings would have been OHLE on their core GWML routes to Reading, Oxford and Newbury/Bedywn, and maybe also the North Downs' line and Thames' Branches. Then the GWML Networker Turbo order could have been something like a larger 365 order. They could have sold huge growth benefits along this corridor with reduced journey times, and with the Heathrow link being built with electrification anyway, could have easily tied into this. There would obviously have been a higher cost, but the benefits would have been much higher compared to the Marshlink and Uckfield lines.

 

[steamybrian]

Yes, also car parking is free at several "small stations" on the Uckfield line, which attracts more mobile users from other lines e.g. Tunbridge Wells.

A restoration of the 2tph peak service would also see that graph shoot upwards.

As far as I know only Cowden has free parking outside the station because there is no car park..! There is a proposal to build a car park on the disused former goods yard.
At Hever I believe there is a private car park for which the owner collects the fees.

A number of commuters who live in the Tunbridge Wells area prefer to use the Ockfield Line due to cheaper fares, cheaper car parking fees and easier to park rather than Tunbridge Wells station where parking is limited and more expensive.

 

[yorksrob]

And the Establishment try to put down rail use as dependant on everything other than fares !

 

[JonathanH]

As was the discussion of another thread from memory, I think a far more logical area of NSE electrification after Hastings would have been OHLE on their core GWML routes to Reading, Oxford and Newbury/Bedywn, and maybe also the North Downs' line and Thames' Branches. Then the GWML Networker Turbo order could have been something like a larger 365 order. They could have sold huge growth benefits along this corridor with reduced journey times, and with the Heathrow link being built with electrification anyway, could have easily tied into this. There would obviously have been a higher cost, but the benefits would have been much higher compared to the Marshlink and Uckfield lines.

The urgency on the Thames services was replacement of the rolling stock in time for the remodelling of Paddington station. There is no way that there was time for electrification work, nor would the branches have been done first. Also, the intercity fleet wasn't due for replacement at that time.

365s were later. The 471 order could have displaced slam door units from the Southeastern area for third rail electrification schemes if there had been impetus for this, but clearly that didn't happen.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. On the Southern Region, BR managed a lot of little local schemes during the 1980's that over time when added up would have been equivalent to the main ones (BML/South Coast/Kent/Bournemouth).

Trying to electrify the whole of Thames and Chiltern probably would have been a few steps too far.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I have a recollection that when this was discussed before, someone (quoting Chris Green?) said that once the figures had been run and it had proved to be cheaper to electrify to East Grinstead than remove asbestos from the DEMUs on that route, that in hindsight it would have been cheaper to do the same to all the routes the DEMUs ran on. But by that time the money had already been spent on asbestos removal and so wasn't available for electrification.

Indeed, part of the problem was enough DEMUs had their asbestos removed to work on the remaining DEMU routes after East Grinstead electrification (Uckfield, Redhill - Tonbridge and Marshlink) so a use needed to be found for them as this was quite a lot of expenditure.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Indeed. On the Southern Region, BR managed a lot of little local schemes during the 1980's that over time when added up would have been equivalent to the main ones (BML/South Coast/Kent/Bournemouth).

Trying to electrify the whole of Thames and Chiltern probably would have been a few steps too far.

Not forgetting that NSE also did some infill schemes like Whitham, St Albans, Romford-Barking following the same principles as adopted in the Southern area to leverage off existing grid connections.

 

[yorksrob]

Not forgetting that NSE also did some infill schemes like Whitham, St Albans, Romford-Barking following the same principles as adopted in the Southern area to leverage off existing grid connections.

Indeed, although my knowledge of North of the river at the time was more limited !

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wasn't there an issue with grid supply that prevented DC to Uckfield? Or at least pushed the costs beyond what BR were willing to fund?

 

[yorksrob]

Wasn't there an issue with grid supply that prevented DC to Uckfield? Or at least pushed the costs beyond what BR were willing to fund?

Ironically, there's been a large grid connection at Tunbridge Wells since Kent electrification, therefore this would presumably have been easier had the line through Groombridge remained in use.

 

[Swedenorer]

You could have asked the same question about Portcreek Junction/Southampton/Eastleigh/ when i moves here in 1976 and only one pax train week (SO Hastings/Bristol or Exeter) used the top of the triangle. That it took until 1990 for the end of the need to 'change at Fratton' - and now given our reluctance to do a Gilbert Walker these days of it hadn't been done then it never would have been - is another poser.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ironically, there's been a large grid connection at Tunbridge Wells since Kent electrification, therefore this would presumably have been easier had the line through Groombridge remained in use.

I vaguely recall some discussion somewhere about how DC to Uckfield would be problematic as it couldn't all be fed from Oxted as 750v DC needs more frequent feeders and there was no suitable existing power lines to feed from. Although IANAEE (the final two letters standing for Electrical Engineer!).

 

[nw1]

What might have seemed possible with third rails in 1986 was no longer feasible after the Electricity at Work Regulations came fully into effect during 1990.

Lucky they got the Solent electrification done just in time in that case! Mind you wasn't third-rail from Redhill to Tonbridge post-1990?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2026 ==

Salisbury - Southampton stoppers operated by DEMUs were still a thing. It would have needed a lot of spare cash and pressure to see the solution for them as being electrification rather than integration with Severn- Solent line services (which I believe is what happened prior to the Romsey 6 service getting off the ground) - but stranger things have happened.

Dunbridge and Dean were indeed wholly (IIRC) served by Southampton-Bristol and vice-versa Regional Railways, later Wales and West, stoppers, operated mostly with 150s, from at least 1993 onwards and well into the privatised era. This also meant that neither station had a particularly regular service: for example Southampton to Bristol had departures IIRC at around 0830, 0930, 1230, 1630 and 1730 so some big gaps but happily departures at convenient times for commuters.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I vaguely recall some discussion somewhere about how DC to Uckfield would be problematic as it couldn't all be fed from Oxted as 750v DC needs more frequent feeders and there was no suitable existing power lines to feed from. Although IANAEE (the final two letters standing for Electrical Engineer!).

There was a 33kV supply available from Uckfield Grid but capacity was extremely limited in the 80s its been subsequently upgraded since so im sure a few more MVA could be had now. There is always the issue though that if the feed from the Hurst Green end was compromised then Uckfield would need to support the entire load which is what the grid connection has to be rated for.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2026 ==

Lucky they got the Solent electrification done just in time in that case! Mind you wasn't third-rail from Redhill to Tonbridge post-1990?

Correct in 1994 along with the West London Line from Clapham Jcn upto Mitre Bridge both done for the Channel Tunnel services

 

[HamworthyGoods]

What might have seemed possible with third rails in 1986 was no longer feasible after the Electricity at Work Regulations came fully into effect during 1990. The continuing Channel Tunnel related works only survived through to 1994 because they had been committed before that date.

Then how was the East London line extension done as new build with 3rd rail in 2010?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Then how was the East London line extension done as new build with 3rd rail in 2010?

The defence is its a much more secure railway from trespass than the rural extensions being proposed. ie has no public footpaths and the majority of it is up on viaducts. They also are continuously staffed at platform level.

 

[nw1]

The defence is its a much more secure railway from trespass than the rural extensions being proposed. ie has no public footpaths and the majority of it is up on viaducts. They also are continuously staffed at platform level.

You could argue the best way of preventing accidents is to educate children about third rail in parts of the country where it is present from a very early age, not stop laying it in cases where it could lead to a greener railway and/or more operational convenience. I'd agree that OHLE would be better for entirely new projects, but third-rail seems natural for "infill" in areas which are already mostly third-rail electrified.

At age 11 I understood the concept of third-rail and that you must never touch it as it was potentially lethal, and first crossed the railway line just north of Haslemere on a public footpath "raw crossing" (not sure what the technical term is) aged 12 and alone. I was fully aware of all the safety considerations one must make as a footpath user crossing the railway even at that age.

Returning to the original question I do think the natural time to electrify Uckfield would have been when the 377s came in - they could have just built more. This was IIRC the same time the Thumpers were due for replacement so would have been particularly convenient.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

When the Hastings line was electrified, why were the rest of the unelectrified lines such as Ore to Ashford also done, to eliminate the few pockets left of unelectrified lines in the South east,

Yes.

 

[martin butler]

You could argue the best way of preventing accidents is to educate children about third rail in parts of the country where it is present from a very early age, not stop laying it in cases where it could lead to a greener railway and/or more operational convenience. I'd agree that OHLE would be better for entirely new projects, but third-rail seems natural for "infill" in areas which are already mostly third-rail electrified.

At age 11 I understood the concept of third-rail and that you must never touch it as it was potentially lethal, and first crossed the railway line just north of Haslemere on a public footpath "raw crossing" (not sure what the technical term is) aged 12 and alone. I was fully aware of all the safety considerations one must make as a footpath user crossing the railway even at that age.

Returning to the original question I do think the natural time to electrify Uckfield would have been when the 377s came in - they could have just built more. This was IIRC the same time the Thumpers were due for replacement so would have been particularly convenient.

Simerly the time to have filled in the gaps from Redhill to Reading, would have been when the Redhill to Tonbridge was done,

 

[JonathanH]

Simerly the time to have filled in the gaps from Redhill to Reading, would have been when the Redhill to Tonbridge was done,

That is rewriting history though. Redhill to Tonbridge was electrified for Channel Tunnel freight, passenger services was a byproduct, and Reading to Redhill electrification would have needed separate funding.

There was no operational reason to maintain through working across Redhill between the Reading and Tonbridge lines once electrification opened up the possibility of sending Redhill to Tonbridge services to London and Gatwick.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Lucky they got the Solent electrification done just in time in that case! Mind you wasn't third-rail from Redhill to Tonbridge post-1990?

Correct in 1994 along with the West London Line from Clapham Jcn upto Mitre Bridge both done for the Channel Tunnel services

As has been stated in previous threads about 3rd rail, those schemes (and sundry other bits and bobs) were part of the Channel Tunnel related works initiated before the Electricity at Work regulations came in.

 

[marshlinker]

Not just that, but it would have changed train services certainly in my neck of the woods, Ore to Ashford would probably been an extension to the existing services, offering direct services to and from London, either via Lewes, or Tunbridge wells,

If electrification had reached Exeter, again, it would have meant better services, possibly faster because electric trains can accelerate faster, and if it had meant more 442's that would have been an upgrade over the MK2's being used at the time.

The HS1 effect means that by far the most important flow on Marshlink is now Rye to St Pancras/ Stratford Int. The shortest route from Rye to Tonbridge is via Ashford not Hastings. If a non hs1 direct route to London was to happen it needs to be by extending the Charing Cross to Ashford service to Eastbourne via Hastings, a 3 hour Rye to Victoria via Lewes is going to attract no one.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You could argue the best way of preventing accidents is to educate children about third rail in parts of the country where it is present from a very early age, not stop laying it in cases where it could lead to a greener railway and/or more operational convenience. I'd agree that OHLE would be better for entirely new projects, but third-rail seems natural for "infill" in areas which are already mostly third-rail electrified.

At age 11 I understood the concept of third-rail and that you must never touch it as it was potentially lethal, and first crossed the railway line just north of Haslemere on a public footpath "raw crossing" (not sure what the technical term is) aged 12 and alone. I was fully aware of all the safety considerations one must make as a footpath user crossing the railway even at that age.

Returning to the original question I do think the natural time to electrify Uckfield would have been when the 377s came in - they could have just built more. This was IIRC the same time the Thumpers were due for replacement so would have been particularly convenient.

I was involved with all the 80/90's DC electrification in the SE and we had a huge campaign of doing school talks along the line of route where the con rail was going to be installed. They were run by operations and often used drivers to help get the point across. Be interesting to know what issues have ocurred on these routes post electrification.

As an aside the worst outcome we had on Ton-Hastings was badger electrocutions and from that there was an outcry which resulted in us in gaining a far better insight on their behaviours. From this on future schemes we had a badger survey to identify where they crossed the line and badger gaps were introduced into the con rail such that on the next scheme down to E.Grinstead the incidents were significantly reduced.