Tricky one.
Im pro-electrification, especially when theres a diesel island to sort out. Youd free many more DMU coaches (
per mile of electrification) by wiring Uckfield than you would with pretty much any other scheme in the UK due to the long formations and the fact that they spend so much time on Third Rail.
(Okay, youve have to then take those DMUs out of service for a couple of years whilst someone turned the couplers back to what they used to be - if Southerns slow progress at converting 170s to 171s is anything to go by - but even still
)
You can then run from Uckfield to a choice of London destinations (rather than DMUs being restricted to certain platforms at London Bridge due to emissions and banned from Victoria), you can interwork them with other Southern services, you can use the stock more efficiently
it all sounds positive.
I suppose that the difference is that, on most lines electrification is that wiring a line is enough to give other benefits too. In blunt terms, a lot of the other schemes around the UK have seen electrification as the means to provide longer trains, newer trains, better acceleration, better frequency etc. So we look at the increased passenger numbers as proof that electrification works but some of the benefit comes from seeing knackered two coach trains replaced by more reliable four coach trains.
Given the cold feet that the industry has had about ordering new DMUs and the potential surplus of midlife EMUs, electrification has seemed the best way of achieving these kind of improvements elsewhere in the UK. Its a one-step way of getting from thirty/forty metre 75mph DMU to an eighty metre 100mph EMU with better acceleration. It can solve a number of issues in one move.
But, the Uckfield line has seen extensions to ten coaches anyway to cope with demand (so EMUs = longer trains doesnt work here). Its had additional DMUs acquired for it (so not like electrification was the only option to get more seats). Its all run by post-privatisation stock (unlike most of Southern). The 171s already have the joint-fastest top speed of any Southern stock (so speed benefits are marginal, rather than replacing a 142/150/156 with a 100mph EMU). There are no gaping gaps in the timetable that can only be filled by more stock (given the bottlenecks further north). So the marginal benefits of electrification are less significant here than they would be on some other routes (e.g. if you can replace a thirty metre 75mph Pacer in the Valleys with a mid-life 100mph EMU then youve got a quicker/ longer train that can accelerate better and deliver a faster more reliable timetable
but replacing a Turbostar with an Electrostar wont give those improvements).
So, given the other schemes available around the UK, it starts to feel like less of a priority. Especially given the other schemes committed to that have stalled (MML, elements of the TPML and GWML). Weve still got a long list of things that were promised before now without getting into the nice to have list.
Theres also the issue of what to do about Marsh Link
since the two can share resources at the moment but electrifying one without the other may leave a headache. D-trains? Bundle it to Uckfield electrification (in which case the costs go up a lot but with only a smaller marginal benefit)?
Id still consider Uckfield a reasonable priority, I can think of a lot of lines that could do with the dozens of turbostar coaches it would cascade to other lines, I have no problem with electrifying a line in the south if it frees up lots of DMUs to benefit lines in the north that dont have a great for electrification (e.g. hourly branches up here may not have a great case for wiring but could do with some post-privatisation 23m long DMU carriages).
However, whilst Im not a big fan of the idea of making places pay directly for infrastructure improvements (since theres not a level playing field of abilities to pay for things), any further investment (on a line that has seen new DMUs, extended platforms etc in recent years) may mean that the local fares are brought into line with the BML which would be unpopular and potentially push more people off Uckfield stations towards already busy BML
but the idea of allowing cheaper fares on the branch is only really explainable on the basis that they see a second-class level of service compared to the main line. How do you get the passengers to accept a higher fare to pay for electrification when the service isnt appreciably different (modern ten coach 100mph trains being replaced by modern ten coach 100mph trains)?
Talking of the BML, the idea that electrification to Uckfield justifies another rehash of reopening a line through the countryside to Lewes
please, not again weve already had threads about SELRAP (Skipton Colne), the Somerset & Dorset and the line from Tavistock to Okehampton in the past month
could we not spread out the wistful threads about re-opening scenic lines through relatively empty sections of the countryside out a bit?
If weve just spent millions extending Uckfield line stations to ten coach trains and passenger demand is keeping up with the supply of new seats then that suggests theres not going to be a lot of scope for Lewes passengers to get seats too. And thats before anyone focusses their attention away from the quaint quiet end of BML2 and starts thinking about how to get beyond Croydon and whether its worth finding something north of the Thames for this scheme to connect to.
Solution seeks problem, GSOH essential