London NorthWestern Railway Class 350/2 withdrawal

[43096]

Indeed, they've obviously paid for themselves so it's just pure profit for the ROSCOS.

Why “obviously”? Unless you know how the ROSCOs work and how the finances for the 350s’ acquisition were structured then you do not know if it is pure profit.

Maybe they would have to carry the coats for refurbishment and upgrades and they don't want to

”Maybe”? There’s a lot of assumptions and guesswork going on!

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Why “obviously”? Unless you know how the ROSCOs work and how the finances for the 350s’ acquisition were structured then you do not know if it is pure profit.

”Maybe”? There’s a lot of assumptions and guesswork going on!

Well of course it's all guesswork, I don't have any details regarding the initial leasing. However, given how long they have been in service you would expect the financing of which to be 'paid off'. As in the lease coats to TOCs having equalled the cost of building.

Surely that's part of having open discussions on an internet forum, no? At no point have I stated any of this as fact. Merely what I would expect to be the case.

 

[Wolfie]

Well of course it's all guesswork, I don't have any details regarding the initial leasing. However, given how long they have been in service you would expect the financing of which to be 'paid off'. As in the lease coats to TOCs having equalled the cost of building.

Surely that's part of having open discussions on an internet forum, no? At no point have I stated any of this as fact. Merely what I would expect to be the case.

The ROSCO expenditure is not just about the upfront acquisition cost.

If you are trying to say that you believe that they are a sunk cost you are ignoring the costs of any mods funded by the ROSCO, financing costs and doubtless many others.

 

[blogham]

I see 350247 broken at Hemel this evening on up slow I wonder what broke on it

 

[modernrail]

The ROSCO expenditure is not just about the upfront acquisition cost.

If you are trying to say that you believe that they are a sunk cost you are ignoring the costs of any mods funded by the ROSCO, financing costs and doubtless many others.

It’s a fair question though. Likely where is a ROSCO on a train half way through its design life.

It is also very relevant to what deals the railway might be able to do to get these units back into service to bust some overcrowding, of which there is plenty.

I am still taken a back at the fiasco at TP with the Mark V. I am similarly baffled at the 350’s potentially not having a home. I don’t like the ROSCO model as, for instance, I think it must have meant we massively overpaid for leasing of the pacers. However, I don’t see that objecting to generalities without being able to quote some specifics in terms of bench mark amortisation periods etc is massively useful.

The most important question here is, LNR ordered trains that displaced perfectly good units (subject to the interiors being looked after). What is the ROSCO likely to do commercially with those units to get the asset generating cash again. Or is there some massively perverse world in which they don’t accept a much lower lease income because, for instance, they don’t want to suppress the leasing rates for the rest of their assets.

 

[Wolfie]

It’s a fair question though. Likely where is a ROSCO on a train half way through its design life.

It is also very relevant to what deals the railway might be able to do to get these units back into service to bust some overcrowding, of which there is plenty.

I am still taken a back at the fiasco at TP with the Mark V. I am similarly baffled at the 350’s potentially not having a home. I don’t like the ROSCO model as, for instance, I think it must have meant we massively overpaid for leasing of the pacers. However, I don’t see that objecting to generalities without being able to quote some specifics in terms of bench mark amortisation periods etc is massively useful.

The most important question here is, LNR ordered trains that displaced perfectly good units (subject to the interiors being looked after). What is the ROSCO likely to do commercially with those units to get the asset generating cash again. Or is there some massively perverse world in which they don’t accept a much lower lease income because, for instance, they don’t want to suppress the leasing rates for the rest of their assets.

I suspect that the current system does at least to some extent encourage the sort of thing mentioned in your last sentence.

 

[DBS92042]

350255 is back in use with LNR, seen this evening on EUS/MKC stoppers. I presume this is to cover for the units still unavailable after the flooding at Northampton

 

[Tram203]

350255 is back in use with LNR, seen this evening on EUS/MKC stoppers. I presume this is to cover for the units still unavailable after the flooding at Northampton

Yes I had to do a double take when it rolled in to Harrow heading for Euston around lunchtime.

350236 and 350245 look to be the latest residents of the Camden 'siding of doom', both parked with lights off and pans down.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Any developments on the rumoured 2+2 refurbishment and permanent retention of a handful of 350/2s, as discussed upthread?

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Can't say I've heard anything about a refurb.

 

[RealTrains07]

I would be very surprised if the seating was changed on the 350/2s considering they are all still to be withdrawn soon

 

[JonathanH]

I would be very surprised if the seating was changed on the 350/2s considering they are all still to be withdrawn soon

There was some report / speculation mentioned that implied a requirement for some 350/2s to be retained by London Northwestern Railway, for example if their application to run to Manchester Victoria were to be approved. That is still an open application though with no guarantee of it happening.

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...y-class-350-2-withdrawal.275457/#post-7000221

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I would be very surprised if the seating was changed on the 350/2s considering they are all still to be withdrawn soon

Hence where I mentioned permanent retention

 

[mansonlo49]

There was some report / speculation mentioned that implied a requirement for some 350/2s to be retained by London Northwestern Railway, for example if their application to run to Manchester Victoria were to be approved. That is still an open application though with no guarantee of it happening.

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...y-class-350-2-withdrawal.275457/#post-7000221

the Manchester operations think they’ll be using 730/2?

 

[JonathanH]

the Manchester operations think they’ll be using 730/2?

Yes, but the implication of adding extra services is needing extra units to backfill.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Have WMT even submitted a formal proposal for said extensions?

 

[Russel]

The Manchester services are an extention of the Crewe services, aren't they?

From a purely selfish point of view, I hope it doesn't happen, the Trent Valley services are already very busy but generally quite reliable.

 

[XCTurbostar]

The Manchester services are an extention of the Crewe services, aren't they?

From a purely selfish point of view, I hope it doesn't happen, the Trent Valley services are already very busy but generally quite reliable.

Yes, it’s an extension.

I understand your selfish point of view, I suppose from LNR’s perspective, the 10 car 730s will give a 30% increase in capacity over a 8 car 350 which should help.

I would be extremely surprised if a micro fleet of 350/2s is retained for three reasons; Lease Costs (higher than the 350/1s), The owner and the owner’s probable expectation to keep the fleet together under one operator.

LNR don’t plan on the Manchester extensions running until Summer 2026 at the earliest so I would imagine an application will be made in early 2025. I doubt Transport UK has much interest in the proposal either since they will not be the operator by the time any commencement is even possible.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The Manchester services are an extention of the Crewe services, aren't they?

From a purely selfish point of view, I hope it doesn't happen, the Trent Valley services are already very busy but generally quite reliable.

Again, from a purely selfish point of view, but a completely different one, I also hope it doesn't happen As it stands, my dad is willing to pay for the cheapest direct trains between Manchester and London to get me to the family home several times per year, and as soon as he discovers these, he'll be telling me Avanti is a "luxury option" and making me pay the difference if I want a Pendolino

And yes, I'm 21, what's your point

 

[danbarjon]

Again, from a purely selfish point of view, but a completely different one, I also hope it doesn't happen As it stands, my dad is willing to pay for the cheapest direct trains between Manchester and London to get me to the family home several times per year, and as soon as he discovers these, he'll be telling me Avanti is a "luxury option" and making me pay the difference if I want a Pendolino

And yes, I'm 21, what's your point

Love this point of view!

 

[Russel]

Again, from a purely selfish point of view, but a completely different one, I also hope it doesn't happen As it stands, my dad is willing to pay for the cheapest direct trains between Manchester and London to get me to the family home several times per year, and as soon as he discovers these, he'll be telling me Avanti is a "luxury option" and making me pay the difference if I want a Pendolino

And yes, I'm 21, what's your point

Can't fault the logic there!

I find Avanti are usually cheaper than LNWR, if booked in advance, for me, Lichfield/Tamworth to Euston is usually £20-£25 advance return on Avanti and with £30 with LNWR... Despite being generally cheaper and quicker by around 30 minutes on Avanti, I find myself booking with LNWR more these days as the temperature on the Pendolinos is unbearable.

 

[DBS92042]

350231/236/240/244/245/251/253 are all now stored off lease at Wembley Yard

350238/255 have returned to use with LNR to cover for the flood damaged units

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Have WMT even submitted a formal proposal for said extensions?

The exec team say they have, (around end of October) both the airport extension to the Stafford shuttles and the Victoria extension. Supposedly find out around February for the Victoria work

 

[All Line Rover]

Can't fault the logic there!

I find Avanti are usually cheaper than LNWR, if booked in advance, for me, Lichfield/Tamworth to Euston is usually £20-£25 advance return on Avanti and with £30 with LNWR... Despite being generally cheaper and quicker by around 30 minutes on Avanti, I find myself booking with LNWR more these days as the temperature on the Pendolinos is unbearable.

I also go out of my way to avoid Avanti because of the ridiculously high temperatures. 25+ degrees even in winter. It's nauseating.

I don't know what's wrong. I don't recall temperature being an issue under Virgin Trains, other than where the HVAC system failed completely in a carriage.

Fingers crossed the 730s maintain the 350s comfortable temperatures. Never too cold, never too warm.

 

[Merle Haggard]

350231/236/240/244/245/251/253 are all now stored off lease at Wembley Yard

350238/255 have returned to use with LNR to cover for the flood damaged units

-240/53 were stored at Rugby until recently - do you happen to know if others taken their place, or is the idea to concentrate all off-lease sets at Wembley?
Also interesting that the 3 flood damaged units (-233/42/54) aren't there - possibly under repair?

 

[DBS92042]

-240/53 were stored at Rugby until recently - do you happen to know if others taken their place, or is the idea to concentrate all off-lease sets at Wembley?
Also interesting that the 3 flood damaged units (-233/42/54) aren't there - possibly under repair?

350240/253 moved this morning from Rugby to Northampton EMD to join with 251, all three then continuing on to Wembley. No others at Rugby as far as I know at the moment.

350233/242/254 are all stored at Northampton for now but not sure if repairs are being done or not?

 

[Merle Haggard]

350240/253 moved this morning from Rugby to Northampton EMD to join with 251, all three then continuing on to Wembley. No others at Rugby as far as I know at the moment.

350233/242/254 are all stored at Northampton for now but not sure if repairs are being done or not?

Thanks yes; the flood victims being kept at Northampton possibly suggest that there's still discussions about what the course of action might be. Only guessing.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The exec team say they have, (around end of October) both the airport extension to the Stafford shuttles and the Victoria extension. Supposedly find out around February for the Victoria work

Very interesting thank you.

 

[778]

LNR don’t plan on the Manchester extensions running until Summer 2026 at the earliest so I would imagine an application will be made in early 2025. I doubt Transport UK has much interest in the proposal either since they will not be the operator by the time any commencement is even possible.

I am not sure why LNR are interested in running to Manchester when they will be taken over by GBR in less than 2 years?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

That’s LNR, Lumo and Virgin all trying to get there now.