Class 350s going to scotrail?

[BDLhouston]

I've seen rumors about the class 350 going to scotrail to replace the class 318 and 320, it could work but most modern routes line only have an at most 90mph top speed

 

[pdeaves]

I think train length would be a bigger consideration than top speed.

 

[JonathanH]

I've seen rumors about the class 350 going to scotrail to replace the class 318 and 320, it could work but most modern routes line only have an at most 90mph top speed

I suspect you haven't seen anything credible. Anyone can spread a rumour.

The recent announcement on 318 / 320 replacement wouldn't appear to be consistent in any way with 350s being the likely replacement.

Scotrail fleet procurement competition - Class 156, 318 & 320 replacements

Approval has also been given hold a procurement competition to identify a preferred manufacturer and financier for new suburban trains to operate decarbonised rail passenger services on the routes covered by East Kilbride, Fife and Borders routes, replacing 42 Class 156 trains and to replace the...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Falcon1200]

I think train length would be a bigger consideration than top speed.

Could the 350s be reduced to 3-car sets, in the same way as the Scotrail 320/4s were ?

 

[hexagon789]

Could the 350s be reduced to 3-car sets, in the same way as the Scotrail 320/4s were ?

I don't believe the location of certain equipment allows that.

 

[Falcon1200]

I don't believe the location of certain equipment allows that.

Thanks, 4-car 350s would be overkill on many routes, but also difficult to strengthen for the peaks.

 

[JonathanH]

Thanks, 4-car 350s would be overkill on many routes, but also difficult to strengthen for the peaks.

Don't the 318/320 fleet operate many services in 6-car formations already? Anyway, I think there should be a question mark on the thread title because it is very speculative.

 

[BDLhouston]

Thanks, 4-car 350s would be overkill on many routes, but also difficult to strengthen for the peaks.

Unless they could fill in for some 380/0s on Ayrshire and inverclyde services so they could go onto the argyle line

 

[HST43257]

Imagine that there was no issue around equipment or whatever and coaches could be added and taken away in any way wished for

Could SR, from 3x 4 car sets, make 2x 3 car and 1x 6 car? May be over complicating but felt it could be a way of utilising every carriage but create 3/6 formations

 

[Bletchleyite]

Imagine that there was no issue around equipment or whatever and coaches could be added and taken away in any way wished for

You can do that with 15x, of course. But not generally EMUs.

 

[JonathanH]

You can do that with 15x, of course. But not generally EMUs.

The 458 programme suggests that you can do it, but you potentially need to move motors and other equipment around between carriages to get the same amount of power.

With 350/2s, the pantograph is on one of the intermediate trailer carriages so that would need to stay in the two 3-car units. The two driving cars have the motors. That means there are then two 3-car units with 8 motors and one 6-car unit also with 8 motors. The two 3-car units would be overpowered and the 6-car unit would be underpowered. That would likely mean that motors would need to be fitted to one or two of the trailers which they may not have been constructed to carry. It may need the bogies to be replaced. It seems unlikely that it would happen.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Anyway, I think there should be a question mark on the thread title because it is very speculative.

I would expect nothing less in the Speculative Discussion sub-forum?

 

[43096]

Unless they could fill in for some 380/0s on Ayrshire and inverclyde services so they could go onto the argyle line

380s are 23m vehicles, whereas the Argyle line is set up for 6 x 20m.

 

[D365]

The reason why it was so easy to remove an coach from the Class 321/4s, is that the traction equipment (transformer, rectifier, motors) is entirely contained within the pantograph coach. This is a characteristic that is not common to EMUs, other than the Mk3 derivatives.

 

[43096]

The reason why it was so easy to remove an coach from the Class 321/4s, is that the traction equipment (transformer, rectifier, motors) is entirely contained within the pantograph coach. This is a characteristic that is not common to EMUs, other than the Mk3 derivatives.

It was also the case with VEP/CIG/BIG as well which enabled 3-cars to be formed from those sets, too, in their day. And to be fair units with traction equipment only in the driving cars (CEP/BEP) are also easier to shorten, as you can't do without a driving car!

 

[Clansman]

Don't the 318/320 fleet operate many services in 6-car formations already?

There are more 6 car services than 3 car services thats for sure.

 

[swt_passenger]

The 458 programme suggests that you can do it, but you potentially need to move motors and other equipment around between carriages to get the same amount of power.

With 350/2s, the pantograph is on one of the intermediate trailer carriages so that would need to stay in the two 3-car units. The two driving cars have the motors. That means there are then two 3-car units with 8 motors and one 6-car unit also with 8 motors. The two 3-car units would be overpowered and the 6-car unit would be underpowered. That would likely mean that motors would need to be fitted to one or two of the trailers which they may not have been constructed to carry. It may need the bogies to be replaced. It seems unlikely that it would happen.

Although this hypothetical 6 car 120m unit would still have the same power as a 444, which is about 117m long. Such a modified Desiro might just cope in the third rail area where everything’s on limited power anyway…

 

[skyhigh]

The reason why it was so easy to remove an coach from the Class 321/4s, is that the traction equipment (transformer, rectifier, motors) is entirely contained within the pantograph coach. This is a characteristic that is not common to EMUs, other than the Mk3 derivatives.

You'd be able to do it on 331s and 333s though I suppose that's a different situation

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The reason why it was so easy to remove an coach from the Class 321/4s, is that the traction equipment (transformer, rectifier, motors) is entirely contained within the pantograph coach. This is a characteristic that is not common to EMUs, other than the Mk3 derivatives.

If my memory serves me right, not even all mk3-derived units. I recall discussion of shortening 319s for Northern when the initial North West electrification scheme was green-lit. The consensus at the time was that it would require movement of equipment from the discarded non-pantograph trailer.

 

[D365]

If my memory serves me right, not even all mk3-derived units. I recall discussion of shortening 319s for Northern when the initial North West electrification scheme was green-lit. The consensus at the time was that it would require movement of equipment from the discarded non-pantograph trailer.

Indeed you're right there, which is why London Midland had their 321s replaced by 319s [when ScotRail needed more 320/4s].

 

[Iskra]

If we’re looking for uses for 350’s I’d like to see some with Northern in the North East for services on the ECML. They could run the Chathill services to remove diesels under the wires. I’d also like to see a Northern Newcastle-York service which could solve the Chester-le-Street problem and reinstate Northern services between Darlington and York to remove the annoying network gap, provide more capacity and potentially speed up other services. This would also free up a few DMU’s for strengthening and provide a better, more frequent service using the EMU’s that would be easier to path inbetween IC services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we’re looking for uses for 350’s I’d like to see some with Northern in the North East for services on the ECML. They could run the Chathill services to remove diesels under the wires.

With TPE looking to serve Widdrington with a more useful service I can see the Chathills being withdrawn and the other (mostly decidedly rural and fairly useless) stations closing.

 

[Iskra]

With TPE looking to serve Widdrington with a more useful service I can see the Chathills being withdrawn and the other (mostly decidedly rural and fairly useless) stations closing.

But are they useless because of the poor service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But are they useless because of the poor service?

Pegswood maybe, but for the others I suggest looking at a map. They make Cheddington look like a metropolis.

 

[Iskra]

Pegswood maybe, but for the others I suggest looking at a map. They make Cheddington look like a metropolis.

I’ve been up there, and given a decent service there may be people who would prefer to railhead and not use the A1. There is a reasonable albeit spread-out population up there.

It’s a difficult one to call.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve been up there, and given a decent service there may be people who would prefer to railhead and not use the A1. There is a reasonable albeit spread-out population up there.

There is, though the road network would mostly nicely funnel that to a combination of Alnmouth and Widdrington, which could gain decently sized car parks and EV chargers.

 

[class397tpe]

If we’re looking for uses for 350’s I’d like to see some with Northern in the North East for services on the ECML. They could run the Chathill services to remove diesels under the wires. I’d also like to see a Northern Newcastle-York service which could solve the Chester-le-Street problem and reinstate Northern services between Darlington and York to remove the annoying network gap, provide more capacity and potentially speed up other services. This would also free up a few DMU’s for strengthening and provide a better, more frequent service using the EMU’s that would be easier to path inbetween IC services.

Or give them to Northern to replace the 323s. Northern will end up with 34 323s, and there are 37 350/2s, so the numbers work. 4 20m cars vs 3 23m cars will provide a bit of a capacity upgrade, and the trains are newer with a much nicer passenger experience (air conditioning) - and they have gangways for if northern want to couple them up.

 

[JonathanH]

Or give them to Northern to replace the 323s. Northern will end up with 34 323s, and there are 37 350/2s, so the numbers work. 4 20m cars vs 3 23m cars will provide a bit of a capacity upgrade, and the trains are newer with a much nicer passenger experience (air conditioning) - and they have gangways for if northern want to couple them up.

'give' isn't the right word obviously.

Northern don't want 350s. They would rather standardise on 323s, 331s and 333s (and indeed on just 331s if they could).

If we’re looking for uses for 350’s I’d like to see some with Northern in the North East for services on the ECML. They could run the Chathill services to remove diesels under the wires. I’d also like to see a Northern Newcastle-York service which could solve the Chester-le-Street problem and reinstate Northern services between Darlington and York to remove the annoying network gap, provide more capacity and potentially speed up other services.

We probably aren't. There are already too many trains between Newcastle and York.

Darlington to York is only a 'network gap' in the sense of operator specific tickets and it is already government policy for those to go.

The 'Chester-le-Street problem' would be fixed with direct trains from Middlesborough to Newcastle but there isn't room for them either.

 

[Neptune]

If we’re looking for uses for 350’s I’d like to see some with Northern in the North East for services on the ECML. They could run the Chathill services to remove diesels under the wires. I’d also like to see a Northern Newcastle-York service which could solve the Chester-le-Street problem and reinstate Northern services between Darlington and York to remove the annoying network gap, provide more capacity and potentially speed up other services. This would also free up a few DMU’s for strengthening and provide a better, more frequent service using the EMU’s that would be easier to path inbetween IC services.

Point 1. Chathill services (mainly Morpeth - Carlisle services in reality would require 1 unit if they were curtailed at NCL.

Point 2. Northern have never run between York and Darlington. TPE took over from ATN in March 2004. After 18 years I’m sure it’s not a massive issue as there are plenty of TPE, LNER and XC services filling the gap.

 

[D365]

'give' isn't the right word obviously.

Northern don't want 350s. They would rather standardise on 323s, 331s and 333s (and indeed on just 331s if they could).

Indeed. And it certainly wouldn’t be in Porterbrook’s interest to remove the 323s from what is likely to be their final home.