Future of the 350/2s

[brad465]

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.

Southeastern need 4/8/12 car trains more, particularly on the Victoria routes which cannot do 10-car due to platform lengths and fouling junctions at stations. They also have seen numerous 12-car platform upgrades in the last 10-15 years, but are unable to fully utilise them due to insufficient stock and other station limitations, such as Charing X only allowing 12-car non-SDO on P1-3, and Woolwich Dockyard being 11-car non-SDO. An SDO metro fleet of 4-car length per unit would unlock lots of potential and flexibility.

Also, just because something didn't turn out to be a disaster, doesn't mean it's suddenly a brilliant idea.

 

[The Ham]

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.

Indeed, however I was thinking how to do it in a timeframe which allowed the user of the 350's, electrification wouldn't (at least not this time around, of course there may not be a next time).

 

[Kite159]

Southeastern need 4/8/12 car trains more, particularly on the Victoria routes which cannot do 10-car due to platform lengths and fouling junctions at stations. They also have seen numerous 12-car platform upgrades in the last 10-15 years, but are unable to fully utilise them due to insufficient stock and other station limitations, such as Charing X only allowing 12-car non-SDO on P1-3, and Woolwich Dockyard being 11-car non-SDO. An SDO metro fleet of 4-car length per unit would unlock lots of potential and flexibility

In my eyes they should go down the similar route as Thameslink in having fixed formation 8 & 12 coach units rather than having multiples of 4 coach units with wasted space.

 

[Zomboid]

Indeed, however I was thinking how to do it in a timeframe which allowed the user of the 350's, electrification wouldn't (at least not this time around, of course there may not be a next time).

I would imagine that it's already too late for the 350s, as the Greenford trial hasn't come to any conclusions yet, so rolling that technology out on the 130 miles between Basingstoke and Exeter is probably not realistic.

Headbolt Lane/ 777 style discontinuous electrification is a bit more proven, but still nowhere near the scale the West of England line.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

In my eyes they should go down the similar route as Thameslink in having fixed formation 8 & 12 coach units rather than having multiples of 4 coach units with wasted space.

There’s a lot of routes that can take 10 but not 12 though, which makes me think six and four car variants are best. Means eights, tens and twelves can be made.

 

[Kite159]

There’s a lot of routes that can take 10 but not 12 though, which makes me think six and four car variants are best. Means eights, tens and twelves can be made.

Which routes are those which can only take 10 coaches?

Other than Woolwich Dockyard which is where 12 coach units having SDO will come in

 

[The Ham]

Which routes are those which can only take 10 coaches?

Other than Woolwich Dockyard which is where 12 coach units having SDO will come in

The 450's (which the 350's are just for 3rd rail) have ASDO which appears to work very well.

I would imagine that it's already too late for the 350s, as the Greenford trial hasn't come to any conclusions yet, so rolling that technology out on the 130 miles between Basingstoke and Exeter is probably not realistic.

Probably also fair, I was looking at (assuming it was a viable option) where you might need to put charging points.

 

[Nym]

The 450's (which the 350's are just for 3rd rail) have ASDO which appears to work very well.

Class 450 ASDO was retrofitted and would today be classed as "Expensive" because it needs beacons rather than having yet another system relying on American satellites.

 

[The Ham]

Class 450 ASDO was retrofitted and would today be classed as "Expensive" because it needs beacons rather than having yet another system relying on American satellites.

Some might say relying on anything American might not be great idea just now...

 

[Brubulus]

Some might say relying on anything American might not be great idea just now...

If GPS shuts down, SDO not working is the least of our worries. It's much the same with Starlink and onboard WiFi.

However the idea of 350s being used as battery trains on the West Of England line is pretty ridiculous, given the amount of infrastructure that would be required, along with how the distances and charging speeds would stretch even brand new purpose built trains. I still think GWR is the most likely solution, though I just realised it does leave Heathrow Express with a microfleet. Otherwise it could be battery fitment for use by Northern, even though this seems unlikely or they could be fitted with third rail shoes, and sent to Southern or Southeastern. However it's all pure speculation at this point and the mostly likely short term course of action is long term storage.

 

[The Ham]

If GPS shuts down, SDO not working is the least of our worries. It's much the same with Starlink and onboard WiFi.

Indeed, the comment wasn't necessarily made seriously.

However the idea of 350s being used as battery trains on the West Of England line is pretty ridiculous, given the amount of infrastructure that would be required, along with how the distances and charging speeds would stretch even brand new purpose built trains. I still think GWR is the most likely solution, though I just realised it does leave Heathrow Express with a microfleet. Otherwise it could be battery fitment for use by Northern, even though this seems unlikely or they could be fitted with third rail shoes, and sent to Southern or Southeastern. However it's all pure speculation at this point and the mostly likely short term course of action is long term storage.

Again, my long post was looking at what could be done assuming that 350's were to used, not that it was the best thing to do.

 

[SolomonSouth]

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.

Replacing a new fleet with trains that are 10 years older doesn’t sound like an especially good idea.

I am aware Siemens products on the whole are very bulletproof compared to Bombardier products (or just about anything else really), but unless the 350/2s aged exceptionally well, the advanced age compared to 387s would become an issue.

 

[hwl]

Do we know for certain that 222s can form six car trains?

Yes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2025 ==

Cross Country desperately needs the entire fleet of 44x 221s. They have major capacity issues. I think the priority should be sending all 221s (including the GC ones) to Cross Country so that they have the entire fleet of 44x 221s.

Agreed - but there are other potential way of addressing XC capacity e.g. 350/2 with all 2+2 and lots of extra luggage racks running the Manchester - Birmingham (Coventry) leg.
Reading and few other station can't cope with double voyagers well without upgrades so there are limits as to what can be achieved with more voyagers.

Ultimately DfT need to be persuaded to increase subsidy to XC to allow more voyagers to be leased.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2025 ==


Agreed - but there are other potential way of addressing XC capacity e.g. 350/2 with all 2+2 and lots of extra luggage racks running the Manchester - Birmingham (Coventry) leg.
Reading and few other station can't cope with double voyagers well without upgrades so there are limits as to what can be achieved with more voyagers.

Ultimately DfT need to be persuaded to increase subsidy to XC to allow more voyagers to be leased.

And cutting off the UK’s second city from the rest of Southern England.
I just said second, not second largest

 

[hwl]

And cutting off the UK’s second city from the rest of Southern England.
I just said second, not second largest

Just change at New Street. The 350/2 would also be far better for the environment.

 

[tfw756rider]

Replacing a new fleet with trains that are 10 years older doesn’t sound like an especially good idea.

I am aware Siemens products on the whole are very bulletproof compared to Bombardier products (or just about anything else really), but unless the 350/2s aged exceptionally well, the advanced age compared to 387s would become an issue.

The oldest 2008 350/2s are 9 years older than the youngest 2017 Great Western Railway (GWR) 387s, and the youngest 2009 350/2s are 7 years older than the oldest 2016 GWR 387s.

 

[amahy]

Yes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2025 ==


Agreed - but there are other potential way of addressing XC capacity e.g. 350/2 with all 2+2 and lots of extra luggage racks running the Manchester - Birmingham (Coventry) leg.
Reading and few other station can't cope with double voyagers well without upgrades so there are limits as to what can be achieved with more voyagers.

Ultimately DfT need to be persuaded to increase subsidy to XC to allow more voyagers to be leased.

I agree with the 350/2s on Manchester to Birmingham leg, formed of 8 cars. Would finally give the UK's 2nd and 3rd cities a proper rail link.

Another, similar option, would be to deploy 350/2s on the York to Edinburgh leg of XC's North East - South West services.

 

[Zomboid]

Reading and few other station can't cope with double voyagers well without upgrades so there are limits as to what can be achieved with more voyagers.

Reading can and does handle double voyagers - though not in platform 3.
Nowhere on the Birmingham to Bournemouth leg has an issue in that sense, though obviously 350s can't get south of Coventry.

 

[SolomonSouth]

The oldest 2008 350/2s are 9 years older than the youngest 2017 Great Western Railway (GWR) 387s, and the youngest 2009 350/2s are 7 years older than the oldest 2016 GWR 387s.

On average, an 8 year age gap. The difference between a 9 and 17 year old train is significant. Down the line (pun completely intended), the difference between a 26 and 34 year old train, say, is arguably even more significant. My point still stands.

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.

Siemens products are much better quality than Bombardier products. Desiros are much sturdier than Electrostars. Countless reliability figures from 2017-2023 prove this. The odds are 350/2s take any lengthy period in storage much, much better than the 379s.

 

[hwl]

I agree with the 350/2s on Manchester to Birmingham leg, formed of 8 cars.

Why only 8car? 12 car would help with added capacity on lots of local flows and more doors is good for dwell time reduction.

Would finally give the UK's 2nd and 3rd cities a proper rail link.

Another, similar option, would be to deploy 350/2s on the York to Edinburgh leg of XC's North East - South West services.

Give it 2-3 years and go Edinburgh - Leeds /Doncaster with EMUs on either XC and TP or both. Given the constrains on paths train length need to be maximised.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I agree with the 350/2s on Manchester to Birmingham leg, formed of 8 cars. Would finally give the UK's 2nd and 3rd cities a proper rail link.

Another, similar option, would be to deploy 350/2s on the York to Edinburgh leg of XC's North East - South West services.

So the annihilation of most of the UK’s direct cross-country rail services then.

 

[amahy]

So the annihilation of most of the UK’s direct cross-country rail services then.

I'm only suggesting this in the event that XC is deprived of proper length bi-mode trains for years to come. The current use of tiny 4 car sets between the UK's second and third cities is simply not acceptable.

 

[daodao]

I agree with the 350/2s on Manchester to Birmingham leg, formed of 8 cars. Would finally give the UK's 2nd and 3rd cities a proper rail link.

I agree - probably the best suggestion for these 350/2 trains, and they could stay with the same TOC. It would increase capacity on this route and reduce diesel "running under the wires". These trains are already used on the equivalent Liverpool to Birmingham route and provide a better service than that currently provided between Manchester and Birmingham.

However, there is limited capacity for terminating trains at New Street, so the service would probably need to be extended to Birmingham International/Coventry. The XC Bournemouth to Birmingham service would probably need to be extended to Derby/Leeds/NE England and the XC Paignton/Bristol to Birmingham service to Leicester or Derby/Nottingham (in lieu of existing class 170 services on these seements).

 

[Iskra]

Do Leeds and Doncaster have room for a diesel train from the South and an additional train from the North both terminating and occupying platforms for reasonable lengths of time?

Why only 8car? 12 car would help with added capacity on lots of local flows and more doors is good for dwell time reduction.

Give it 2-3 years and go Edinburgh - Leeds /Doncaster with EMUs on either XC and TP or both. Given the constrains on paths train length need to be maximised.

 

[The Planner]

I agree - probably the best suggestion for these 350/2 trains, and they could stay with the same TOC. It would increase capacity on this route and reduce diesel "running under the wires". These trains are already used on the equivalent Liverpool to Birmingham route and provide a better service than that currently provided between Manchester and Birmingham.

However, there is limited capacity for terminating trains at New Street, so the service would probably need to be extended to Birmingham International/Coventry. The XC Bournemouth to Birmingham service would probably need to be extended to Derby/Leeds/NE England and the XC Paignton/Bristol to Birmingham service to Leicester or Derby/Nottingham (in lieu of existing class 170 services on these seements).

Doesn't work. You'll have immense fun with the current inferworking of Bristol and Manchester services and no capacity to get the split Manchester to International or Coventry.

 

[bramling]

I agree - probably the best suggestion for these 350/2 trains, and they could stay with the same TOC. It would increase capacity on this route and reduce diesel "running under the wires". These trains are already used on the equivalent Liverpool to Birmingham route and provide a better service than that currently provided between Manchester and Birmingham.

I agree in principle Manchester to Birmingham is a good use for them, though it does make a total mockery of things that the same TOC which got rid of them (supposedly for being too expensive) ends up keeping them essentially to give them a home.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree in principle Manchester to Birmingham is a good use for them, though it does make a total mockery of things that the same TOC which got rid of them (supposedly for being too expensive) ends up keeping them essentially to give them a home.

If they're the only TOC interested in them that may well mean a better value lease, of course. Though I can't see WMT needing many of them even if they go for both the Manchester and Airport extensions.

 

[daodao]

Doesn't work. You'll have immense fun with the current inferworking of Bristol and Manchester services and no capacity to get the split Manchester to International or Coventry.

The need to revise the current timetable significantly is not by itself a fundamental reason why these suggestions cannot be considered. They do not increase the total number of trains significantly on any of the affected sectors.

 

[The Planner]

The need to revise the current timetable significantly is not by itself a fundamental reason why these suggestions cannot be considered. They do not increase the total number of trains significantly on any of the affected sectors.

It is when they don't fit and the detriment to other service groups isn't worth the trade off.

 

[The_Train]

So the annihilation of most of the UK’s direct cross-country rail services then.

In reference to the ex Manchester services, realistically, how many people are getting on at Manchester and travelling further than Birmingham? I'd be very surprised if it was a majority as I would expect a good chunk of people who got on at Manchester to have alighted by the time the train leaves Stoke! And equally, those boarding at Stoke, Stafford and even Wolves will get off at Birmingham. So will it be that many people inconvenienced by a change of trains at Birmingham?

Add to this that all XC services arriving Manchester until 9am start at Birmingham and after 6pm all of the Bristol's only go as far as Birmingham anyway. If there is a reasonable connection onto a NE-SW service at Brum, just turn all of the Bristol's into Manchester-Birmingham shuttles using 350/2's and then the freed up voyagers can boost capacity on the Bournemouth route.

Who do I send my CV to at XC - this planning malarkey is easy