• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Future of the 350/2s

Nicholas Lewis

On Moderation
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,320
Location
Surrey
If they would otherwise go to scrap, I can see them going to GWR, so Southern can take the 387s, then move 377s over to Southeastern. They're 4x20M 110mph units, so there would be no platform or pathing issues. There is also 7 more of them than the 387s, giving some room for future electrification.

However, the depot and training changes might put the DfT off and instead let them go to scrap.
DfT don't own them aren't paying for anything off lease so aren't that bothered I imagine although what you propose is eminently sensible and in the round would further reduce the amount of new train SE require to replace Networkers.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Brubulus

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2022
Messages
544
Location
Cambridge
Why on earth buy new trains? An absoloute waste.

What about, send them down to SWT and send the new Arterio stock over to Southern/South Eastern?
They're not dual voltage, only the /1s are, though a conversion probably wouldn't be too difficult and they'd be very similar to the class 450s
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
33,046
They're not dual voltage, only the /1s are, though a conversion probably wouldn't be too difficult and they'd be very similar to the class 450s
Being similar to 450s also means they’re unsuitable for inner suburban routes, as is regularly noted, and their numbers hardly compare, being 148 vs 650 vehicles.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,480
I don't think they have the safety systems required to operate in any other countries, and I can't see it being a cheap retrofit either.
It depends what the safety systems are. Many medium/low income countries have a similar gauge and much more primitive safety systems - we have previously exported the Class 141s to Iran, to give an example.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
18,829
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
If they would otherwise go to scrap, I can see them going to GWR, so Southern can take the 387s, then move 377s over to Southeastern. They're 4x20M 110mph units, so there would be no platform or pathing issues. There is also 7 more of them than the 387s, giving some room for future electrification.

However, the depot and training changes might put the DfT off and instead let them go to scrap.

Wouldn’t be surprised that’s what will eventually happen. However they’ll probably spend a lengthy period in store like the 379s did, and become wrecked in the process, again like the 379s.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
33,046
Why are they unsuitable for inner suburban routes?
Not enough stand back space at the doorways, slow door cycle time, narrow gangways between seats. I think this has all been known and discussed for years, which is why the 2017 franchise spec called for what became the 701s.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,799
Location
North
There is nothing higher than 110 until north of Alnmouth, and that 26 miles produces a net time saving of 1m42s. If you assume a more sensible door arrangement anyway, you are probably getting reduced dwell times at stations such as Morpeth, Alnmouth and Reston, so actually it's probably net even. Running them as 8 cars every two hours or so, you've probably got it licked.
Sorry, my mistake. I didn't read 'until' north of Alnmouth.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,799
Location
North
Wouldn't it be cheaper to reseat 350/2s to 2+2 than convert to BEMUs and keep them on the Euston-Birmingham/Crewe services? The 30 bimode 350/1s can then be transferred to the Southern keeping 385s on the GWR. No need to scrap them.
 

Russel

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2022
Messages
2,545
Location
Whittington
If they would otherwise go to scrap, I can see them going to GWR, so Southern can take the 387s, then move 377s over to Southeastern. They're 4x20M 110mph units, so there would be no platform or pathing issues. There is also 7 more of them than the 387s, giving some room for future electrification.

However, the depot and training changes might put the DfT off and instead let them go to scrap.

That's not a bad call really and it potentially reduced the number of new units needed at SE, so never say never!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,099
I thought that too but as said before, I think they are better off as 158/159 replacements alongside with the 450's.

At the lower end of the seating capacity quoted on Wikipedia the 350's have 230 seats vs the 159's 169 seats, which would mean when comparing a 9 coach service with a 12 an uplift of 183 seats (not sure on the uplift vs a 10 coach 158/159 train, but it would likely be over 100 seats).

Even an 8 coach train formed of 350's would only reduce the seating capacity by 47 seats.

Given that there's also a total to 37 158/159's at SWR the numbers match, but without the need to use 158's to create capacity into Waterloo it would likely mean more pairs of services could run.

The Salisbury 6 services (which run Salisbury, Romsey through Southampton and back to Romsey before doing the reverse on the way back) would likely work well as battery trains due to the fairly short distances off the wires but with an electric charge in the middle of the run.

You'd need to roll out station batteries for top up charging on the way to Exeter, however as the trains often have to wait for the service coming the other way (and with better acceleration and a higher top speed) such station stops could be long enough for a bit of a top up without materially changing journey times.

For example both Salisbury and Yeovil each have a 5 minute timetable stop, which might be able to be lengthened to 6 or 7 minutes without altering the overall journey time. This compares well with the 3.5 minutes at West Ealing which the battery trains needed for the Greenford Branch services (yes I know it's a short branding, but then there's potential to double the length of charge time).

Andover has a 3 minute stop, as it's the stop in the Tisbury Loop (on the down), both would be useful top ups.

Further down your need to lengthen some other station stops to be sure, however Honiton and Axminster are already 2 minutes, so potential for a bit of a top up at each. Although there's also stops at Axminster West Junction and Pinhoe for pathing on the single track sections, which may also provide a bit more charge.

That's 8 locations with potential for charging.

You'd also need some charging in the depot at Exeter.

Ideally you'd want some electrification at Exeter (at least to Exmouth Junction, if not Pinhoe), which could help if the 80x's were to also look to be converted to be battery trains (although would reduce the need for diesel burn none the less). As it's currently single track a length of a (say) 20 miles of electrification along the route would also certainly help and might not be too complex (and because of the batteries many of the bridges may not need much doing even if the clearances were too tight for electrification) which could keep the costs low(ish).
 

Zomboid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
898
Location
Oxford
You'd need to roll out station batteries for top up charging on the way to Exeter, however as the trains often have to wait for the service coming the other way (and with better acceleration and a higher top speed) such station stops could be long enough for a bit of a top up without materially changing journey times.
It would make more sense to just electrify a chunk of the route so you're not enforcing long stops which you might get away with normally but would make recovery from disruption all but impossible.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,150
Once upon a time we were electrifying Iines with part of the business case being to take surplus EMUs. Wasn't that one of the drivers behind the valleys and NW electrification? Wish we could do that now! Plenty of places would be good for them for a short electrification project.

Appreciate the DfT might think they aren't paying for them, but they are. The costs all get absorbed into ROSCO charges.
 

tfw756rider

Member
Joined
30 Nov 2024
Messages
405
Location
Wales
If they would otherwise go to scrap, I can see them going to GWR, so Southern can take the 387s, then move 377s over to Southeastern. They're 4x20M 110mph units, so there would be no platform or pathing issues. There is also 7 more of them than the 387s, giving some room for future electrification.

However, the depot and training changes might put the DfT off and instead let them go to scrap.
AI-generated images show a Class 350 in Great Western Railway livery, edited to show unit number 350262.
 

Attachments

  • modifiedGrokGWR350_1.jpeg
    modifiedGrokGWR350_1.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 112
  • modifiedGrokGWR350_2.jpeg
    modifiedGrokGWR350_2.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 112

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
8,894
Location
Taunton or Kent
That's not a bad call really and it potentially reduced the number of new units needed at SE, so never say never!
No it is a really bad idea (so the DfT will probably do it). Southeastern has been on the receiving end of multi-link scrappy cascades for years now and doing this would just show how shambolic they are being treated again. They also have several small fleets now as a result, what SE should be getting is the reverse, a large enough new fleet to bin off some of the smaller fleets to increase homogeny in their fleet.

Besides if Project Churchward is approved, the 387s might be getting replaced anyway as GWR want a standard design for all their non-intercity fleet. Why would GWR take on another stop-gap fleet* for a few years, with no commonality with the rest of the fleet, only for them to be binned off again?

*The 175s will essentially be a stop-gap for GWR.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,480
No it is a really bad idea (so the DfT will probably do it). Southeastern has been on the receiving end of multi-link scrappy cascades for years now and doing this would just show how shambolic they are being treated again. They also have several small fleets now as a result, what SE should be getting is the reverse, a large enough new fleet to bin off some of the smaller fleets to increase homogeny in their fleet.
Should SE be a priority for a new fleet, when perfectly decent 377s could become available for use though?
They just had the decent quality 707s cascaded, and more 377s could eliminate some of the oldest and most decrepit Networkers?
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
8,894
Location
Taunton or Kent
Should SE be a priority for a new fleet, when perfectly decent 377s could become available for use though?
They just had the decent quality 707s cascaded, and more 377s could eliminate some of the oldest and most decrepit Networkers?
Or alternatively, if you're going to do another cascade like this, maybe Southern could have a net boost in the size of their fleet to makeup for what they've lost in recent years? (As in do the cascade, but Southern is the end point, not Southeastern)
 

BranstonJnc

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2025
Messages
109
Location
Castle Gresley
Or alternatively, if you're going to do another cascade like this, maybe Southern could have a net boost in the size of their fleet to makeup for what they've lost in recent years? (As in do the cascade, but Southern is the end point, not Southeastern)
I can't stand the idea of yet another cascade of stuff, which leaves the network attempting to source a stack of spares, from multiple manufacturers and generations. Southeastern just needs a single, smart replacement, of a uniform type, albeit potentially with a Metro and Mainline interior design difference.

That means 707s can be displaced to an appropriate operator, the 376s and 375s (what is still desired) can go to Southern, and the more versatile and helpful dual-voltage 387s can go off in turn to a different place again, which, if someone finally sorts out wiring in certain other areas would require a fair few of them.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,480
Or alternatively, if you're going to do another cascade like this, maybe Southern could have a net boost in the size of their fleet to makeup for what they've lost in recent years? (As in do the cascade, but Southern is the end point, not Southeastern)
Does Southern really need extra units though?
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
8,894
Location
Taunton or Kent
Does Southern really need extra units though?
Other users have said on here after the 455s left that passenger volumes have effectively been forced down by lower capacity; they also lost 313s, while they only gained 2x 377s back from Southeastern, plus are getting a small net gain from GN, but still short of where they were. Therefore, there is market potential to increase passenger levels from current levels if more stock is provided for them, which will only be more necessary as more housing is built (look at Croydon's towering apartment blocks for starters).
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,480
Other users have said on here after the 455s left that passenger volumes have effectively been forced down by lower capacity; they also lost 313s, while they only gained 2x 377s back from Southeastern, plus are getting a small net gain from GN, but still short of where they were. Therefore, there is market potential to increase passenger levels from current levels if more stock is provided for them, which will only be more necessary as more housing is built (look at Croydon's towering apartment blocks for starters).
It's a fair point, although there's an argument that TfL should run the inner metro services of all the London suburban operators and then they can make a combined order for a new fleet, as and when they can afford it.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
7,609
No it is a really bad idea (so the DfT will probably do it). Southeastern has been on the receiving end of multi-link scrappy cascades for years now and doing this would just show how shambolic they are being treated again. They also have several small fleets now as a result, what SE should be getting is the reverse, a large enough new fleet to bin off some of the smaller fleets to increase homogeny in their fleet.

Besides if Project Churchward is approved, the 387s might be getting replaced anyway as GWR want a standard design for all their non-intercity fleet. Why would GWR take on another stop-gap fleet* for a few years, with no commonality with the rest of the fleet, only for them to be binned off again?

*The 175s will essentially be a stop-gap for GWR.
Why would GWR, or rather GBR, want a standard fleet for everything other than the 80xs? The needs of west country branch lines are completely different from those of London commuter services.
 

Brubulus

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2022
Messages
544
Location
Cambridge
It's a fair point, although there's an argument that TfL should run the inner metro services of all the London suburban operators and then they can make a combined order for a new fleet, as and when they can afford it.
The only electric stock in the SE which needs to be replaced is the Networkers. I suspect there will just be a 701 order to replace them, given most of the problems have finally been ironed out. (and Alstom might threaten redundancies at Derby) If 387s can be used by the DfT to reduce the size of this order, by cascading from GWR, the DfT is going to use that option.

Remember SE already has 60 5 car metro trains, and the use of electrostars on Southern metro routes does not seem to have caused a disaster, despite the reduction in capacity and increase in door cycle times.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,480
The only electric stock in the SE which needs to be replaced is the Networkers. I suspect there will just be a 701 order to replace them, given most of the problems have finally been ironed out. (and Alstom might threaten redundancies at Derby) If 387s can be used by the DfT to reduce the size of this order, by cascading from GWR, the DfT is going to use that option.

Remember SE already has 60 5 car metro trains, and the use of electrostars on Southern metro routes does not seem to have caused a disaster, despite the reduction in capacity and increase in door cycle times.
Maybe there will be a 701 order, but you could get rid of the 466s in the interim by the cascade.
 

Southern Dvr

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2010
Messages
925
Noticed one or two of the Wembley units are pan down. That’s generally a sign of acceptance of their fate!
 

Top