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

[zwk500]

My suggestion included electrifying the terminals.

With moveable or very high OLE? If the wagons are loaded from the top and side then it may be viable for high OLE but if they're loaded from a hopper directly over the track then the OLE will need to be moveable or the 92 pushed over the gap.

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

Weston SM is off the XC spine, which depending on your definition would either end at Bristol TM or use the avoiding line. It would however make a lot of sense to electrify Bristol-Weston and then use Battery from the end of OLE to Taunton.
Portishead is a classic case for batteries, especially if working through to Henbury. It's sensitive and engineeringly challenged through the gorge and isn't going to see sustained high power requirements between stations.
There's 2 tunnels on the Stapleton Road-Avonmouth section that would be very awkward to electrify for double-track, which would be needed to increase the service. However I do agree that electrifying out to at least Avonmouth should really be done.
Henbury is much less awkward, so I would hope is done (although IIRC when WECA announced they were looking at the Filton Bank again it didn't mention going round to Henbury).

Yate-Bristol Parkway is probably going to have to wait for Swindon-Gloucester/Cheltenham to get wired, and that's a very very long way off right now.

 

[The exile]

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.

Although they sometimes do for Westerleigh - Bristol Parkway, so it presumably would be. Agree, though, little point in doing Filton (on its own) until there’s an immediate prospect of battery bi-modes at the very least.
Coming closer (or all the way) to Bristol via Bath, on the other hand, does make more sense.

 

[Zomboid]

But these should all be electrified though

That applies to pretty much all suggestions in this thread!

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

Coming closer (or all the way) to Bristol via Bath, on the other hand, does make more sense

Once you've done that then the case for Filton bank ought to be further enhanced, given the proximity and presence of the depot at Filton.

Basically, the original GWEP scope needs completing.

 

[brad465]

The freight line from Hoo Junction.

From a freight perspective there isn't much point, especially given the relative few trains using that line. If the Sharnal Street proposal ever gets back off the ground, then passenger services will likely be extensions from Gravesend using stock with batteries, which Southeastern happen to be trying to get procured.

 

[The exile]

That applies to pretty much all suggestions in this thread!

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


Once you've done that then the case for Filton bank ought to be further enhanced, given the proximity and presence of the depot at Filton.

Basically, the original GWEP scope needs completing.

Until there are bi-modes for Bristol area services the only thing to benefit from Filton bank would be ecs to/from Stoke Gifford (plus a Bristol - Cardiff stopper that doesn’t yet exist). Try getting that past the Treasury.

 

[Zomboid]

I'm not making a case to do it today, but the Turbos aren't going to be around forever and the Bristol suburban network is very likely to end up n being BEMU operated when they're replaced. And at that point Filton bank would be so obviously the right thing to do that it'd stand no chance at all.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not making a case to do it today, but the Turbos aren't going to be around forever and the Bristol suburban network is very likely to end up n being BEMU operated when they're replaced. And at that point Filton bank would be so obviously the right thing to do that it'd stand no chance at all.

WECA have certainly been looking into Filton Bank and procurement of BEMUs. There's some minutes for a meeting in January 2024 approving initial funding for development of the case.

 

[anthony263]

Filton to WSM and tm to Chippenham would help maybe a charging bar then at Portishead and Severn beach etc like Caerphilly has at its bay platform

 

[zwk500]

Filton to WSM and tm to Chippenham would help maybe a charging bar then at Portishead and Severn beach etc like Caerphilly has at its bay platform

Filton to WSM is 23 miles, Chippenham to Bristol Temple Meads is 25 miles.
Charging Bars at Portishead and Severn Beach are presumably going to require fleet replacement for BEMUs as Turbos won't need them. That seems to go against the 'quick wins' the thread is asking about.

 

[brad465]

Don't know the distance, but Dunblane-Perth would allow Dunblane EMU terminators to be extended to Perth, assist BEMUs under Scotrail's future order and to a lesser extent give LNER Azumas more time on electric. Would need Perth to be remodelled though.

Inverness-Colluden would be the prime area for future BEMU Highland mainline services, giving units a run up the first part of Slochd bank without consuming any battery charge.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

and the class 309s

I tried my best to word my comment about 2-car EMUs in a way that discouraged spurious mentions of ones that were manufactured decades ago... I must obviously try harder next time!

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).

Current unit diagrams aren't really that important, certainly not so important that it would put a hard stop on wiring to Windermere. There's a tendency to treat diagrams as if they're set in stone. If the attitude is "we can't wire that because it means we'd have to wire a load of other lines too" then the tail is wagging the dog.

Operators will plan diagrams in order to be as efficient as possible while minimising risk of disruption, within the constraints of the available fleet and the requirements of each group of services concerned. If something changes, then the parameters of how to get the best solution will also change.

 

[Zomboid]

I tried my best to word my comment about 2-car EMUs in a way that discouraged spurious mentions of ones that were manufactured decades ago... I must obviously try harder next time!

If we're after an electric unit that would work for Marlow, then there's the 398, at least as a concept. They're 40m long so would fit quite easily on the branch. Given the right interior and multiple working capability and the concept would work on the TV branches. The problem would be that they'd only really need a fleet of about 6. But I suppose the same idea could be applied to the other branch services in the GWR area.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If we're after an electric unit that would work for Marlow, then there's the 398, at least as a concept. They're 40m long so would fit quite easily on the branch. Given the right interior and multiple working capability and the concept would work on the TV branches. The problem would be that they'd only really need a fleet of about 6. But I suppose the same idea could be applied to the other branch services in the GWR area.

Indeed my point was that any electric unit suitable for that route would involve some R&D expenditure because none of the current designs on offer from the established manufacturers would fit the bill- I had mistakenly been under the impression that the 398s were a low-floor design like the 399s in use in Sheffield as both are part of the Stadler Citylink family. The fact that there were two car EMUs in the past is neither here nor there.

The question then becomes whether it's better to have a microfleet of units dedicated to Marlow, or whether the constraints of Marlow influence the design of the entire Thames Valley Branches fleet for the sake of uniformity.

 

[Class 317]

Short section of lines should concentrate on 3 things.

The first one is to concentrate on short extensions allowing greater use of existing electrified fleets via the extension of existing electric services. NSE were very good at this one which both reduces costs, reduces journey times and increases journey opportunities.

The second one is to create electrified islands to facilitate BEMU'S on secondary routes. For example one based on Shrewsbury to facilitate Shrewsbury to Birmingham and Cardiff to Manchester service conversion.

The third one would be short links to freight terminals like London Gateway to facilitate more electric freight operations helping to speed up freight transit times reducing costs through lower manpower levels, better utilisation of wagon and loco fleets etc. This would also lead to less line occupancy freeing up capacity for additional services.

The key to achieve higher BCR is to use the schemes to also reduce costs not just from the lower operating costs of electric and battery operations but also from wider cost savings from fleet reductions and increase revenue from new journey opportunities.

 

[zwk500]

The third one would be short links to freight terminals like London Gateway to facilitate more electric freight operations helping to speed up freight transit times reducing costs through lower manpower levels, better utilisation of wagon and loco fleets etc. This would also lead to less line occupancy freeing up capacity for additional services.

Have you read the discussion above about the issues with electrifying freight terminals?

Anywhere loading by overhead gantry or bunker will need to a gap in the OLE when loading. Moveable OLE may work for some areas but isn't likely to be viable for a multi-track loading area or for retrofitting to many loading bunkers. If you electrify for current stock and just leave gaps you will need shunters (additional manpower and resource costs, not lower) or multiple rounds of shunting with very careful stopping positions (worse utilisation of fleet resources).

If you are buying new battery or bi-mode locos anyway there is minimal value in wiring towards the terminal as the locos would be able to get their trains to the junction and then pan up.

Technology has now moved on such that multi-mode locos are the future of low-carbon rail freight, electrification of terminals is a distraction.

 

[Avenger20]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Cowlairs West Jn to Anniesland/Westerton. Run the Anniesland service as a circle from GLQ low level via Springburn, Maryhill and Partick.

 

[MadMac]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Cowlairs West Jn to Anniesland/Westerton. Run the Anniesland service as a circle from GLQ low level via Springburn, Maryhill and Partick.

I think it was mentioned upthread. Issue is the Forth & Clyde Canal tunnels at Blochairn. Certainly an ideal candidate for BEMU.

 

[Class 317]

Have you read the discussion above about the issues with electrifying freight terminals?

Anywhere loading by overhead gantry or bunker will need to a gap in the OLE when loading. Moveable OLE may work for some areas but isn't likely to be viable for a multi-track loading area or for retrofitting to many loading bunkers. If you electrify for current stock and just leave gaps you will need shunters (additional manpower and resource costs, not lower) or multiple rounds of shunting with very careful stopping positions (worse utilisation of fleet resources).

If you are buying new battery or bi-mode locos anyway there is minimal value in wiring towards the terminal as the locos would be able to get their trains to the junction and then pan up.

Technology has now moved on such that multi-mode locos are the future of low-carbon rail freight, electrification of terminals is a distraction.

The reduced costs would occur in terms of reduced infrastructure upgrades to allow more trains etc. How you reward the freight operator would need to be worked out.

Most of the cost reductions I was referring to were on the passenger side. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post.

 

[43096]

If you are buying new battery or bi-mode locos anyway there is minimal value in wiring towards the terminal as the locos would be able to get their trains to the junction and then pan up.

Technology has now moved on such that multi-mode locos are the future of low-carbon rail freight, electrification of terminals is a distraction.

New electro-diesel locos are a very expensive asset, so you want to be minimising that cost wherever possible. That means electrifying as far as you can and using a genuine "last mile" capability in the mainline loco

You can also look at how you electrify a terminal - there's plenty done elsewhere in Europe that don't need a diesel shunter. You electrify the arrival area and the far end of the terminal beyond the loading facility, and wire a loco release road. An electric loco can then still shunt the train.

 

[Falcon1200]

You electrify the arrival area and the far end of the terminal beyond the loading facility, and wire a loco release road. An electric loco can then still shunt the train.

As in the UK at Coatbridge Freightliner Terminal, my Post #66! It does of course need the space for such an arrangement.

 

[zwk500]

New electro-diesel locos are a very expensive asset, so you want to be minimising that cost wherever possible. That means electrifying as far as you can and using a genuine "last mile" capability in the mainline loco

What's the cost of wiring a terminal vs buying a new class 93 or 99? And consider that the loco will be far more flexible in application than the terminal.

You can also look at how you electrify a terminal - there's plenty done elsewhere in Europe that don't need a diesel shunter. You electrify the arrival area and the far end of the terminal beyond the loading facility, and wire a loco release road. An electric loco can then still shunt the train.

You absolutely can, at the cost of consumption of more resources. The loco must stay on site longer to do all the shunting.

 

[43096]

You absolutely can, at the cost of consumption of more resources. The loco must stay on site longer to do all the shunting.

But that is what happens now - there aren’t hordes of shunters in terminals, as Beacon have found out with the Class 18 order.