Future of the 350/2s

[Doctor Fegg]

Previous thread considering (inter alia) whether they could be used for Birmingham-Manchester:

Birmingham-Manchester standalone service?

Birmingham–Manchester is currently reduced to an hourly service (as with much of the CrossCountry network). Several times in recent weeks on this forum, the idea of a standalone Birmingham-Manchester service has been mooted to restore a half-hourly frequency, perhaps using the surplus 350s for...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[daodao]

In the increasingly electrified railway, it makes sense to keep as many modern EMUs running in service as possible; still a good few routes where DMUs run under wires throughout which could do with upgrading to EMUS.

Previous thread considering (inter alia) whether they could be used for Birmingham-Manchester:

I have previously suggested that the Manchester-Birmingham segment of XC should be transferred to LNWR to be run with class 350/2 emus, to reduce dmus running under the wires and release Voyagers to strengthen other XC services on non-electrified routes, in particular the former Midland main line from Bristol to Sheffield.

 

[Philip]

Running 6-coach 323s might be OK now, but in a few years who is to say that rail demand won't have reached and surpassed 2019 levels, to the point that 6-car EMUs won't offer enough capacity on suburban and regional commuter routes? It may be the case that 8-coach units will be required on at least some of the Manchester-Preston services before the end of the decade, so in this instance double 350/2s would be better than 323s; also a higher top speed and I'm guessing they have better acceleration?

 

[Wolfie]

Running 6-coach 323s might be OK now, but in a few years who is to say that rail demand won't have reached and surpassed 2019 levels, to the point that 6-car EMUs won't offer enough capacity on suburban and regional commuter routes? It may be the case that 8-coach units will be required on at least some of the Manchester-Preston services before the end of the decade, so in this instance double 350/2s would be better than 323s; also a higher top speed and I'm guessing they have better acceleration?

HMT certainly do not authorise potentially significant expenditure on the basis of vague may bes.....

 

[JonathanH]

Running 6-coach 323s might be OK now, but in a few years who is to say that rail demand won't have reached and surpassed 2019 levels, to the point that 6-car EMUs won't offer enough capacity on suburban and regional commuter routes? It may be the case that 8-coach units will be required on at least some of the Manchester-Preston services before the end of the decade, so in this instance double 350/2s would be better than 323s; also a higher top speed and I'm guessing they have better acceleration?

Running 160m formations rather than 138m formations needs to be considered in the context of platform lengths, stabling facilities, maintenance arrangements and many other things. It is not just a case of a different lease arrangement. In reality, it isn't actually that much extra capacity, for a lot of upheaval.

Does the line from Manchester to Preston even allow faster speeds than a 323 could provide?

In the increasingly electrified railway, it makes sense to keep as many modern EMUs running in service as possible; still a good few routes where DMUs run under wires throughout which could do with upgrading to EMUS. In theory it makes more sense to retire the 323s than it does the 350/2s as the 323s are about 10 years older.

In an increasingly scrutinised railway, it makes sense to keep as costs manageable as possible. In theory it makes more sense to lease the 323s because they are a known quantity and do the job well.

From the point of view of future expansion, it is actually better to have 350s off lease and 323s on lease because you might imagine that Porterbrook would be less likely to scrap the 350s than the 323s if one fleet has to be out of service.

 

[Neptune]

Running 6-coach 323s might be OK now, but in a few years who is to say that rail demand won't have reached and surpassed 2019 levels, to the point that 6-car EMUs won't offer enough capacity on suburban and regional commuter routes? It may be the case that 8-coach units will be required on at least some of the Manchester-Preston services before the end of the decade, so in this instance double 350/2s would be better than 323s; also a higher top speed and I'm guessing they have better acceleration?

Have you digested anything I’ve said upthread? Which part of it don’t you get unless you’ve got all the answers to the replanning of unit stabling, platform allocation and lengthening and possibly resignalling and maintenance requirements that all this will cause in which case please feel free to share this information with us who do this for a living.

You base everything around idealism and what ifs instead of realism.

Again, Northern are not getting the 350/2’s no matter how much you want it to be so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2023 ==

Running 160m formations rather than 138m formations needs to be considered in the context of platform lengths, stabling facilities, maintenance arrangements and many other things. It is not just a case of a different lease arrangement. In reality, it isn't actually that much extra capacity, for a lot of upheaval.

I don’t think Philip wants to engage in the issues that all this would entail, it’s purely about playing trains with no grasp of the actual reality of it all.

 

[jfollows]

Does the line from Manchester to Preston even allow faster speeds than a 323 could provide?

There are MU95 and MU100 speed restrictions, yes (https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 2022/London North Western (North) December 2022.pdf).

(323 maximum speed 90mph, which can be exceeded by other multiple units on parts of the route.)

 

[43096]

While true, the age difference is arguably the only logical motive for Northern using 350/2s over 323s.

There are some elements of the 323s - the traction converters - that are newer than the equivalent on the 350/2s.

WMR 323212s recent return from Bletchley to receive digital mods (USB, passenger counter, media screens, etc) on benahlf of Northern shows that the transfer is very likely still happening.

The units that are transferring are already leased to Northern and are sub-leased back to WMT.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

My view is that the 350/2s would be suited for GWR to work from Paddington to Cardiff Central and other services that have overhead wired lines like Bristol Parkway.

 

[JonathanH]

My view is that the 350/2s would be suited for GWR to work from Paddington to Cardiff Central and other services that have overhead wired lines like Bristol Parkway.

Er? Paddington to Cardiff is not a self contained service. The peak trains run on to Swansea. GWR have enough IETs to run services between Paddington and Cardiff.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Didn't GWR put out a tender for four car emus capable of 110mph
If this is true then the 350s could work

 

[D365]

Didn't GWR put out a tender for four car emus capable of 110mph
If this is true then the 350s could work

Why would Porterbrook be interested when they already supply the Class 387s.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Why would Porterbrook be interested when they already supply the Class 387s.

Who knows, it's just speculation after all

 

[JonathanH]

Didn't GWR put out a tender for four car emus capable of 110mph
If this is true then the 350s could work

Who knows, it's just speculation after all

No speculation. It was just a contract renewal for the 387s, which has been fulfilled. End of story.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

Er? Paddington to Cardiff is not a self contained service. The peak trains run on to Swansea. GWR have enough IETs to run services between Paddington and Cardiff.

Okay. Then, why have they been putting the 387s from Paddington to Cardiff Central? Answer that. If that is the case. I did not mention anything about going to Swansea. You have been missing the point here. Another thing is that if other GWR lines like Oxford were to be electrified. Then I know that GWR will need more rolling stock. So, here is my Er.

 

[JonathanH]

Then, why have they been putting the 387s from Paddington to Cardiff Central?

It is one out and back journey on weekdays, to maintain traincrew competency to use the trains for other events, and what amount to some relief runs at the weekend.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/387-used-instead-of-800-802.245493/#post-6130072

I did not mention anything about going to Swansea.

The relevance of Swansea is that the trains which do off-peak workings to Cardiff work through to Swansea at the ends of the day so need to be IETs. It is highly unlikely that the GWR timetable is going to be restructured to have self-contained all day services between London and Cardiff that could be run with an incoming fleet of 350s.

 

[Philip]

Have you digested anything I’ve said upthread? Which part of it don’t you get unless you’ve got all the answers to the replanning of unit stabling, platform allocation and lengthening and possibly resignalling and maintenance requirements that all this will cause in which case please feel free to share this information with us who do this for a living.

You base everything around idealism and what ifs instead of realism.

Again, Northern are not getting the 350/2’s no matter how much you want it to be so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2023 ==

It's not a question of wanting, it's a question of suitability and trying to prevent very good units from going into wasteful storage.

On the points about stabling, maintenance and platform lengths relating to fixed 5-coach 331 and 4-coach 350 formations; how about keeping the 331s as they are, sending all 350/2s to Northern to cascade the 323s to storage, but before doing so remove one of the centre coaches in each 350/2 to convert them to 3-car units which can then run doubled up without impacting on platform lengths?

The spare coaches could be put in LNR's 350/1s and 350/4s, allowing their south WCML services to run as 10-coach trains.

 

[D365]

It's not a question of wanting, it's a question of suitability and trying to prevent very good units from going into wasteful storage.

On the points about stabling, maintenance and platform lengths relating to fixed 5-coach 331 and 4-coach 350 formations; how about keeping the 331s as they are, sending all 350/2s to Northern to cascade the 323s to storage, but before doing so remove one of the centre coaches in each 350/2 to convert them to 3-car units which can then run doubled up without impacting on platform lengths?

The spare coaches could be put in LNR's 350/1s and 350/4s, allowing their south WCML services to run as 10-coach trains.

Bit of a contradiction here.

And this benefits Northern, how?

 

[JonathanH]

It's not a question of wanting, it's a question of suitability and trying to prevent very good units from going into wasteful storage.

Why is it Northern's problem to ensure these units don't go into storage? Why is it even the DfT's problem. Trains are inanimate objects, just like office blocks. If no one needs them, they just lie dormant. We don't have to feel sorry for them.

On the points about stabling, maintenance and platform lengths relating to fixed 5-coach 331 and 4-coach 350 formations; how about keeping the 331s as they are, sending all 350/2s to Northern to cascade the 323s to storage, but before doing so remove one of the centre coaches in each 350/2 to convert them to 3-car units which can then run doubled up without impacting on platform lengths?

A three car 350 is 60m long, rather than 69m long like a 323, so that is reducing capacity.

The spare coaches could be put in LNR's 350/1s and 350/4s, allowing their south WCML services to run as 10-coach trains.

Huh? Again, there may be challenges in doing this, and it would no longer be possible to run 12 coach trains using 350s.

Why is any of this remotely worth doing? We have no obligation towards the 350/2s to find a future use for them.

 

[daodao]

Why is any of this remotely worth doing? We have no obligation towards the 350/2s to find a future use for them.

There is extensive "running under the wires" by diesel trains, in particular by operators such as XC who do not have bimode trains. Serviceable emus should not be sent to the scrapheap.

Removing Voyagers from the Manchester-Birmingham sector of XC and replacing them with standard class only class 350/2 trains run by LNWR would increase capacity on this route, release Voyagers for use elsewhere on the XC network, and use a "greener" form of traction. What's not to like?

 

[Neptune]

It's not a question of wanting, it's a question of suitability and trying to prevent very good units from going into wasteful storage.

On the points about stabling, maintenance and platform lengths relating to fixed 5-coach 331 and 4-coach 350 formations; how about keeping the 331s as they are, sending all 350/2s to Northern to cascade the 323s to storage, but before doing so remove one of the centre coaches in each 350/2 to convert them to 3-car units which can then run doubled up without impacting on platform lengths?

The spare coaches could be put in LNR's 350/1s and 350/4s, allowing their south WCML services to run as 10-coach trains.

So in the space of 9 hours you’ve gone from a requirement to increase capacity to now reducing it.

The cost implications of this to Northern would mean that we could no longer be in a position to replace all of the 15x units.

 

[Russel]

One thing is certain, as a regular Trent Valley user, I won't miss the 350/2, they really are an uncomfortable way to get to Euston.

Luckily, with most Trent Valley services being doubled up, the chances are one set will be something other than a /2, but when a double /2 turns up, my heart sinks...

 

[RobShipway]

There is extensive "running under the wires" by diesel trains, in particular by operators such as XC who do not have bimode trains. Serviceable emus should not be sent to the scrapheap.

Removing Voyagers from the Manchester-Birmingham sector of XC and replacing them with standard class only class 350/2 trains run by LNWR would increase capacity on this route, release Voyagers for use elsewhere on the XC network, and use a "greener" form of traction. What's not to like?

Whilst that might seem a good idea, to attract the XC passengers you would have to change the seating in the 350/2's to be 2+2 from the current 3+2. This costs a fair bit of money, that could otherwise be used for new stock.

Now, I hear you ask why was this not done for the class 360/1 fleet, I believe that there is plans for the seats to be changed in the future for the class 360/1's to be 2+2.

However, with regards the 350/2 units you really need a TOC that has commuter routes in need of overhead EMU units, which currently there is no such TOC. If there was then the class 379 units would have been picked up by now.

 

[daodao]

Whilst that might seem a good idea, to attract the XC passengers you would have to change the seating in the 350/2's to be 2+2 from the current 3+2. This costs a fair bit of money, that could otherwise be used for new stock.

Why? The 3+2 seating provides more potential capacity, and is deemed OK for the equivalent service from Liverpool to Birmingham.

 

[D365]

Whilst that might seem a good idea, to attract the XC passengers you would have to change the seating in the 350/2's to be 2+2 from the current 3+2. This costs a fair bit of money, that could otherwise be used for new stock.

Now, I hear you ask why was this not done for the class 360/1 fleet, I believe that there is plans for the seats to be changed in the future for the class 360/1's to be 2+2.

The spare change from postponing an interior refurbishment is going to buy you any additional carriages. EMR is a prime example which you are quoting right there.

 

[A0]

I have previously suggested that the Manchester-Birmingham segment of XC should be transferred to LNWR to be run with class 350/2 emus, to reduce dmus running under the wires and release Voyagers to strengthen other XC services on non-electrified routes, in particular the former Midland main line from Bristol to Sheffield.

And at a stroke you remove connectivity between Manchester and anywhere south of Birmingham that isn't going via London. It's a ridiculous idea for that reason alone.

And in your haste to remove "diesels under the wires" you ignore the fact that south of Basingstoke those XC DMUs run alongside the 3rd rail - funny how "diesels under the wires" is a huge problem that needs to be solved, yet diesels alongside 3rd rail doesn't warrant a mention....

 

[Wolfie]

There is extensive "running under the wires" by diesel trains, in particular by operators such as XC who do not have bimode trains. Serviceable emus should not be sent to the scrapheap.

Removing Voyagers from the Manchester-Birmingham sector of XC and replacing them with standard class only class 350/2 trains run by LNWR would increase capacity on this route, release Voyagers for use elsewhere on the XC network, and use a "greener" form of traction. What's not to like?

Lots of surveys show that people don't like changing trains. They also generally (see EMR for example) don't like InterCity stock being replaced by 3+2 EMUs with limited luggage space.... Hence lots not to like!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2023 ==

Why? The 3+2 seating provides more potential capacity, and is deemed OK for the equivalent service from Liverpool to Birmingham.

So a definite quality downgrade to satisfy a desperate need to somehow shoehorn this stock, which the TOCs don't want, in.

 

[RailWonderer]

Running 6-coach 323s might be OK now, but in a few years who is to say that rail demand won't have reached and surpassed 2019 levels, to the point that 6-car EMUs won't offer enough capacity on suburban and regional commuter routes? It may be the case that 8-coach units will be required on at least some of the Manchester-Preston services before the end of the decade, so in this instance double 350/2s would be better than 323s; also a higher top speed and I'm guessing they have better acceleration?

Call me pessimistic but demand up north won't increase that much because the frequency and reliability will never be enough to convince that many people off the roads, leaving aside general population growth.

 

[A0]

Call me pessimistic but demand up north won't increase that much because the frequency and reliability will never be enough to convince that many people off the roads, leaving aside general population growth.

Which given the complaints about trains in the north being "overcrowded" suggests the current frequencies do attract alot of users - rather undermines your theory.

The reality is the railways are only ever good for a certain set of passenger journeys - which are usually things like journeys to city centres where there is high demand to travel to. So journeys like Macclesfield into Manchester make sense as rail journeys in the same way a rail journey from St Albans into London makes sense by rail - equally a journey from Macclesfield to Buxton or Warrington would make little sense by rail, in the same way in the south a journey from St Albans to High Wycombe would make no sense by rail.

 

[tbtc]

Why is it Northern's problem to ensure these units don't go into storage? Why is it even the DfT's problem. Trains are inanimate objects, just like office blocks. If no one needs them, they just lie dormant. We don't have to feel sorry for them

I think that Northern must just be a dumping ground for old stock, in the eyes of some people, hence the threads suggesting that we have to deal with rubbish like the 175s because people can’t contemplate that some trains are either unfit for purpose or too costly to upgrade or are just surplus to requirements (without massive infrastructure expenses like restricting lines, extending platforms)

If the Forum existed fifty years ago then we’d have had threads suggesting using surplus Deltics on the Ormskirk - Colne branchlines

If Northern ran lots of services suited to eighty meter trains running entirely under the wires then 350/2s would be welcomed. However, since they don’t, it feels fairly pointless trying to imagine homes for them in this neck of the woods