Future of the 350/2s

[BerkshireRails]

I'm sure you could modify the Cardiff services to be 387s, but what are those units meant to do in the peak and evening, and what do the released 80x units do during the day before they are needed at peak times. The fact is that Cardiff services essentially only operate for part of the day, and there is an 80x depot in Swansea.

Swansea wiring in 2030 still leaves a surplus of 350s not needed for five years.

The now free 5-car IETs could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth fast services to help relieve overcrowding and provide a second service an hour between Cardiff and Portsmouth, which would require 8 5-car IETs. 12-13 IETs would be freed from the 350/2s and 387s reshuffle, with an additional 5 coming from the South West with the 175 introduction. Also, this would allow for the North Cotswolds to continuously operate with 10-car IETs to Oxford and then 5-car to Worcester and another 5-car running to Banbury, which would allow for the withdrawal of the every other hour Didcot to Banbury stopper to be replaced by an hourly service instead which improves frequency and reduces overcrowding on Cross Country.

 

[JonathanH]

The now free 5-car IETs could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth fast services to help relieve overcrowding and provide a second service an hour between Cardiff and Portsmouth, which would require 8 5-car IETs. 12-13 IETs would be freed from the 350/2s and 387s reshuffle, with an additional 5 coming from the South West with the 175 introduction. Also, this would allow for the North Cotswolds to continuously operate with 10-car IETs to Oxford and then 5-car to Worcester and another 5-car running to Banbury, which would allow for the withdrawal of the every other hour Didcot to Banbury stopper to be replaced by an hourly service instead which improves frequency and reduces overcrowding on Cross Country.

That is all well and good, but if the IETs were used on Cardiff to Portsmouth, how would they get to Paddington to operate the half hourly peak flow service to Swansea.

Even if we wait for Swansea wiring in 2030, is there really a scenario where prime Paddington to Wales services use 350s or 387s, and 80x run a regional service from Cardiff to Portsmouth.

 

[BerkshireRails]

That is all well and good, but if the IETs were used on Cardiff to Portsmouth, how would they get to Paddington to operate the half hourly peak flow service to Swansea.

Even if we wait for Swansea wiring in 2030, is there really a scenario where prime Paddington to Wales services use 350s or 387s, and 80x run a regional service from Cardiff to Portsmouth.

Yes, there is a future with the 387s and 350s on the Wales services, and this is because they offer greater capacity than an IET; hence, they are used to replace IETs during major sporting events.

 

[Transilien]

Yes, there is a future with the 387s and 350s on the Wales services, and this is because they offer greater capacity than an IET; hence, they are used to replace IETs during major sporting events.

I can imagine the Welsh Government speaking out against this as this is essentially proposing that the primary route between the two capital cities of Cardiff and London should be ran by commuter/regional trains.

 

[amahy]

I can imagine the Welsh Government speaking out against this as this is essentially proposing that the primary route between the two capital cities of Cardiff and London should be ran by commuter/regional trains.

If you refurbished the 350/2s with a similar interior and seats to that of the other 350 subclasses, it’s not a bad idea. I’d much rather travel on a 350/1 long distance than a 387 or IET. Both GWR IET and 387 seats are pretty back-breaking.

 

[JonathanH]

If you refurbished the 350/2s with a similar interior and seats to that of the other 350 subclasses, it’s not a bad idea. I’d much rather travel on a 350/1 long distance than a 387 or IET. Both GWR IET and 387 seats are pretty back-breaking.

By that view, the 350s might as well be used on fast services from London to Birmingham (with some changes to pathing on the WCML). The route is already electrified, and the units available soon.

What has South Wales done to deserve a change in its rolling stock for London services that the West Midlands hasn't?

 

[Sonik]

By that view, the 350s might as well be used on fast services from London to Birmingham (with some changes to pathing on the WCML). The route is already electrified, and the units available soon.

That fits with a post HS2 scenario, but the 350s will be a bit long in the tooth by then.

Besides, LNW gave them back simply because the leases were too expensive.

 

[BerkshireRails]

By that view, the 350s might as well be used on fast services from London to Birmingham (with some changes to pathing on the WCML). The route is already electrified, and the units available soon.

What has South Wales done to deserve a change in its rolling stock for London services that the West Midlands hasn't?

The 350s are arguably better units than the Hitachi units in some respects.

 

[Nym]

By that view, the 350s might as well be used on fast services from London to Birmingham (with some changes to pathing on the WCML). The route is already electrified, and the units available soon.

What has South Wales done to deserve a change in its rolling stock for London services that the West Midlands hasn't?

Would rather be on a nicely seated Class 350 than any form of 80x any day of the week.

Mid doors aren't always a bad thing for long distance, look at the new Belgian / Dutch long distance trains with mid carriage doors...

 

[swt_passenger]

The now free 5-car IETs could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth fast services to help relieve overcrowding and provide a second service an hour between Cardiff and Portsmouth, which would require 8 5-car IETs.

That’s complete overkill for the max line speed on the Portsmouth Cardiff route isn’t it? None of the route allows for fast services, even the 158s don't run at their max for a majority of the route. I’d be very surprised if room for a second ‘GW’ path exists from Southampton to Portsmouth

 

[stevieinselby]

Mid doors aren't always a bad thing for long distance, look at the new Belgian / Dutch long distance trains with mid carriage doors...

For services that only have infrequent stops, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference – if the doors only open once or twice an hour, any negative impact on passengers is far less than if the train is stopping every 5 or 10 minutes!

 

[BerkshireRails]

For services that only have infrequent stops, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference – if the doors only open once or twice an hour, any negative impact on passengers is far less than if the train is stopping every 5 or 10 minutes!

350s and 387s can operate with a shorter dwell time than a IET.

That’s complete overkill for the max line speed on the Portsmouth Cardiff route isn’t it? None of the route allows for fast services, even the 158s don't run at their max for a majority of the route. I’d be very surprised if room for a second ‘GW’ path exists from Southampton to Portsmouth

IETs can at least run at 100mph on the Northern section of the route.

 

[The exile]

350s and 387s can operate with a shorter dwell time than a IET.

IETs can at least run at 100mph on the Northern section of the route.

But I suspect they’d come a cropper at whichever bridge it is that precluded HSTs (or repurposed 442s).

 

[Sonik]

Mid doors aren't always a bad thing for long distance

End doors do allow for more seats, at the expense of standing room and longer dwells.

Both types are optimised to their stopping pattern

 

[Nym]

End doors do allow for more seats, at the expense of standing room and longer dwells.

Both types are optimised to their stopping pattern

The amount of seating space available relates to the length of the vestibules, not the door positions.

 

[Sonik]

The amount of seating space available relates to the length of the vestibules, not the door positions.

Fair point

Most mid door stock though (including 350) has larger vestibules optimised for stoppers.

 

[Peter0124]

TPE ran 350s Glasgow - Manchester which is about 220+ miles
It used to be 185s aswell at one point. How times have changed

 

[The Ham]

That is all well and good, but if the IETs were used on Cardiff to Portsmouth, how would they get to Paddington to operate the half hourly peak flow service to Swansea.

Even if we wait for Swansea wiring in 2030, is there really a scenario where prime Paddington to Wales services use 350s or 387s, and 80x run a regional service from Cardiff to Portsmouth.

The way I would do it would be to run the relevant Portsmouth to Cardiff service to Swansea and then back to Paddington from there.

You could even (depending on the timetable) not have to run so many Paddington to Swansea services by running the Portsmouth services to Swansea instead to maintain the frequency to Swansea. Whilst that would put more pressure on the retained through services from London, there would likely be a bit of a rebalancing between services.

I’d be very surprised if room for a second ‘GW’ path exists from Southampton to Portsmouth

In which case run the extra service to Romsey via Eastleigh instead of the Salisbury 6 services. This would also mean that the net change in services between Salisbury and Southampton was zero.

It would also remove some of the trains terminating at Salisbury (which could allow other services to run), as well as freeing up 158's for use elsewhere.