Far from it, the fact it has relatively little traffic means it won't need track renewal for some time and maintenance of plain line track isn't huge, whereas altering signalling is quite the opposite.
Given that points are many, many times more expensive to maintain than plain line track, by singling this quite short section you'd stand a fair chance of increasing maintenance costs with the additional interlocking and S&C. It depends how you decide to include the passing/regulating opportunity (but one *will* need to be provided). The most sensible option would be a passing loop at Castle Bar Park, but by the time you've built it to 60mph through speed and 775m standage length how much plain line have you really saved?
Opportunities for electric freight are increased by 0, given the curves between Acton Yard and the WCML/WLL are not electrified. Also neither is the Chiltern Main Line, so the calvert freight can't go anywhere. Best option is for Calvert trains to go to bi-mode and Park Royal to have an Electric + Battery loco. The focus on removing diesel traction from London should be on Oxted-Uckfield, and the Chiltern Main Line, as they are far more significant in terms of usage and emissions. Once the Chiltern Line is wired then you'd have a case for in-fill.
I said increase in opportunities for electric freight, not an increase in electric freight. In the grand scheme of things this is a pretty important freight artery and will need to be electrified at some point in the future, so we might as well do it now. It's also a lot simpler than Chiltern or Oxted, although its benefits aren't quite as large. Why not get on with it?
Did you read my comment?
No, it's not 'pretty important'. It serves two moderate-traffic terminals and provides no real diversionary capacity due to the Chiltern Line being very restricted on freight capacity.
Battery locos and Bi-Modes will probably be genuinely viable long before the case adds up for electrification. In fact, Bi-modes are viable in the UK now and battery is in operation in other countries. These technologies will further reduce the demand for electrification so why bother spending money we may not even have to in 5 years time?
1) I did read your comment, yes. Thanks. It's wrong to say that opportunities won't be increased. The more track that's electrified, the more opportunities there are for electric freight. It would also be wrong to say that there will be more electric freight if this line is electrified (which is what I think you think I'm thinking, if that makes sense). There won't be more electric freight if this line is electrified, but there will be opportunities for freight to exploit (potentially with bi-modes, as you reference later on).
The electrification needs to go where the freight is going in order to increase the opportunities for electric freight. Extending the wires 2 miles towards a non-wired section doesn't help.
It's important to the traffic that uses it, but not in comparison to other freight corridors nationally. I'd rather the money was spent on wiring Reading-Basingstoke. Or Nuneaton-Lawley Street.
Because they've got working diesels, new locos are expensive and there's no old bi-modes yet. With the drive for decarbonisation I'd expect that calculation to shift somewhat in the next few years.
If something could be done more efficiently later, why do it now at higher cost? If you're needing non-electric capability anyway, save the costs until you can realise the maximum benefit!
Significant doesn't mean high-traffic. The freight flows are significant in that they carry a large load and keep vehicles off the roads. Therefore any changes to the branch need to consider the impact on these freight flows.
Exactly - Significant, but not high traffic. And all the more reason not to fill the line up with empty passenger units. Similar to Stewarts Lane and St Pancras Churchyard terminals.
I'm not suggesting filling the line up with empty passenger units, I'm suggesting electrifying it and running a similar level of service. The rest of your points are pretty fair (although decarbonisation will be better dealt with by electrifying as much as possible instead of relying upon 'last mile' capability which becomes 'last mile plus several miles in the middle').
I realise that the suggestion is made in a light hearted manner but there are so many things wrong with it - firstly, just because Upminster and Ealing Broadway are at opposite ends of the District line does not mean the trivial number of people making that journey actually use that route - you would need to build flyovers at West Ealing and Romford to access the branch routes - it doesn't reflect where the primary demand is which is on the main line rather than the branch - platforms would need to be extended and, in particular, neither Greenford or Upminster with single platforms are set up for this service.You could even electrify the line from West Ealing to Greenford, then introduce CrossRail trains from Upminster to Greenford via Romford and Ealing. Admittedly this may mean a reduction in CrossRail trains to Gidea Park and west of West Ealing. It would mean a much faster journey from Upminster to Ealing Broadway than on the District Line.
I mean, there is a minor problem in the sense that the stations on the branch get a poor service by London standards. I agree that it's not going to radically improve transport provision for anyone else, though.
I guess so, but even TfL might eventually work out that 4 tph might not be justified everywhere...