Possible use for Class 350/2s

[Iskra]

I think you need to look at a timetable. Manchester-Birmingham trains almost all run through to Reading/Bristol and beyond. As for change at Doncaster for Newcastle, there’s so many problems with that.

I know they do. But, XC is desperate for capacity and has been for a long time. All that is immediately available are surplus EMU's. If you want to provide immediate and game-changing capacity enhancements, the only way to do it is to be a bit brutal with through services. Some people will lose from that, some will gain as with all changes on the network. XC's 4-car Voyagers are totally unacceptable on many of the routes they currently run. If you can run an 8-car EMU instead and then use the released units elsewhere to further improve capacity, then I don't understand why you wouldn't.

York is an alternative option to Doncaster. Most could continue to use the remaining XC direct service via Leeds if a direct train is that important to them.

 

[The Ham]

If you're going to run 350's in the North East it could be that you find a different end point for the Voyagers, so that you have a bit of an overlap. Maybe not all services, but enough that you don't put off too many people from the total loss of through services.

 

[Iskra]

If you're going to run 350's in the North East it could be that you find a different end point for the Voyagers, so that you have a bit of an overlap. Maybe not all services, but enough that you don't put off too many people from the total loss of through services.

Interesting, could you expand...

 

[tetudo boy]

If CrossCountry made a regional service between Birmingham and Manchester (stopping at more stations to make it differ from the current one between Bristol/Bournemouth to Manchester via Birmingham services) then the Class 350/2's would make good use on that line. Also, a few other services can operate them if more services are made.

 

[Iskra]

If CrossCountry made a regional service between Birmingham and Manchester (stopping at more stations to make it differ from the current one between Bristol/Bournemouth to Manchester via Birmingham services) then the Class 350/2's would make good use on that line. Also, a few other services can operate them if more services are made.

I think it would have to replace the current XC service to use the same paths and it needs to remain an 'express' service. Perhaps move it to LNWR and add it on to their Northampton-Birmingham Service, but keep the current calling points Birmingham-Manchester? That would balance out the need for the capacity to terminate an XC service at Birmingham, save XC crews learning another traction type and save repainting trains.

 

[VT 390]

I agree it isn't a perfect solution but for many of the journeys from South of Birmingham a faster option than XC exists already. I would only replace one of the two XC services that operate on the ECML (probably the Reading service North of York) and leave the other one to maintain direct links. Would passengers prefer to stand on a 4 car voyager or sit on an 8 car 350.

If XC were to do something like this with the 350/2 units (I don't think they should on the north east routes) then would it not be better to cut the Plymouth to Edinburgh at Leeds as this is the slower service to North East from Birmingham with the via Doncaster being much quicker and Leeds has many other services up the East Coast and then have a separate service from York such I think has more capacity to terminate a train from he north than Doncaster.
Although with any of these would 350 work on the ECML as they are limited to (I think) 110mph, does the northern part of the ECML have 125mph running?

 

[Iskra]

If XC were to do something like this with the 350/2 units (I don't think they should on the north east routes) then would it not be better to cut the Plymouth to Edinburgh at Leeds as this is the slower service to North East from Birmingham with the via Doncaster being much quicker and Leeds has many other services up the East Coast and then have a separate service from York such I think has more capacity to terminate a train from he north than Doncaster.
Although with any of these would 350 work on the ECML as they are limited to (I think) 110mph, does the northern part of the ECML have 125mph running?

The Leeds service is much more popular though, hence why the HST's go that way; it serves a much bigger population, I don't think XC would ever want to lose that revenue. XC is often not the fastest route anyway. If you lived in Reading and wanted to go to Doncaster or further North, I'm pretty sure it would be faster via London with better frequencies too.

There is 125 running on the Northern ECML, yes. As I said upthread, XC timings are pretty slack anyway so it may work and 350's do offer some advantages in terms of superior door arrangements and acceleration.

 

[VT 390]

The Leeds service is much more popular though, hence why the HST's go that way; it serves a much bigger population, I don't think XC would ever want to lose that revenue. XC is often not the fastest route anyway. If you lived in Reading and wanted to go to Doncaster or further North, I'm pretty sure it would be faster via London with better frequencies too.

There is 125 running on the Northern ECML, yes. As I said upthread, XC timings are pretty slack anyway so it may work and 350's do offer some advantages in terms of superior door arrangements and acceleration.

I agree that the Leeds service is more popular but going from Birmingham (where there is a large turnover of passengers) it is the faster service to the North East, and with the Voyagers saved from the via Leeds service being cut back to Leeds you could make the via Doncaster at least 8 carriages (at least some of the time) which would allow you to introduce more cheaper fares this way, encouraging people to use this service instead. This way the only place which really looses anything is Wakefield.
Also this would allow HST's to operate more services between Leeds and Birmingham (to Plymouth), the busiest part of the route. And if Leeds to York is ever electrified the 350 service north of York could be extended to Leeds.
If 350/2 do replace a service north of York I would hope it is only temporary anyway whichever service it replaces until XC either get more Voyagers or new stock.

 

[Iskra]

I agree that the Leeds service is more popular but going from Birmingham (where there is a large turnover of passengers) it is the faster service to the North East, and with the Voyagers saved from the via Leeds service being cut back to Leeds you could make the via Doncaster at least 8 carriages (at least some of the time) which would allow you to introduce more cheaper fares this way, encouraging people to use this service instead. This way the only place which really looses anything is Wakefield.
Also this would allow HST's to operate more services between Leeds and Birmingham (to Plymouth), the busiest part of the route. And if Leeds to York is ever electrified the 350 service north of York could be extended to Leeds.
If 350/2 do replace a service north of York I would hope it is only temporary anyway whichever service it replaces until XC either get more Voyagers or new stock.

But then West Yorkshire gets its Scotland service slashed, it has only just got to a level that is approaching adequate.

I agree about the 350's running Northwards from Leeds should the electrification ever happen would be a good idea.

I agree it should ideally only be temporary, but so often temporary solutions on the rail network end up being permanent so perhaps we ought to be careful what we wish for.

 

[Energy]

If Chiltern ever get electrified the 350/2s could work for them although as Chiltern hasn't been electrified yet I'm not going to deep into this idea.

 

[TheWalrus]

I’m feeling another suggestion for bedwyns if the battery idea goes forward. Could running on electric between London and Newbury generate enough battery power for the short section to Bedwyn and back?

 

[The Ham]

Interesting, could you expand...

I don't know the area overly well and how cost varies lines are, however if you went from Doncaster to Hull (45 minutes) with the Voyagers and then ran 350's from Doncaster to Newcastle (90 minutes) then you'd free up one unit, maybe two if you could tighten the turnaround at Newcastle around a bit.

It could also allow XC to use the 350's for running some of the Glasgow services rather than those services which have come up through Leeds. However it's likely that any cutting back of those, via Leeds, services would be to Newcastle, so that there's still a good overlap.

For each service you do that to you gain 5 extra units. If you shorten the overlap to Darlington rather than Newcastle you gain an extra unit.

I'm sure someone's with better knowledge of the area will explain why this can't be done.

 

[johnnychips]

I don't know the area overly well and how cost varies lines are, however if you went from Doncaster to Hull (45 minutes) with the Voyagers and then ran 350's from Doncaster to Newcastle (90 minutes) then you'd free up one unit, maybe two if you could tighten the turnaround at Newcastle around a bit.

It could also allow XC to use the 350's for running some of the Glasgow services rather than those services which have come up through Leeds. However it's likely that any cutting back of those, via Leeds, services would be to Newcastle, so that there's still a good overlap.

For each service you do that to you gain 5 extra units. If you shorten the overlap to Darlington rather than Newcastle you gain an extra unit.

I'm sure someone's with better knowledge of the area will explain why this can't be done.

I don’t think XC passengers who don’t need Leeds or Wakefield would appreciate their current faster journeys via Donny broken up by having to change.

 

[The Ham]

I don’t think XC passengers who don’t need Leeds or Wakefield would appreciate their current faster journeys via Donny broken up by having to change.

Probably not, however by increasing capacity it would bring them other benefits (such as getting a seat) which maybe enough to retain them.

However any such split in services should likely be short lived until there's new rolling stock, which is likely to be 2 or 3 years, which again would likely also assist in retaining passengers.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Could you insert the middle carriages of the 350/2s into 185s or something to lengthen them, or would they be too heavy then? A four carriage 185 could couple to make an eight carriage 185? Then you could use with the soon to be surplus 22x 185s for eight carriage CrossCountry trains between Manchester and Bristol? Of course there is the problem that these coaches would be unpowered as they have no engine, would this be a problem? Locos carry unpowered coaches - I figure locos are more powerful but 91s for example carry up to nine coaches! We’re only talking one or two extra here?

 

[tetudo boy]

Could you insert the middle carriages of the 350/2s into 185s or something to lengthen them, or would they be too heavy then? A four carriage 185 could couple to make an eight carriage 185? Then you could use with the soon to be surplus 22x 185s for eight carriage CrossCountry trains between Manchester and Bristol? Of course there is the problem that these coaches would be unpowered as they have no engine, would this be a problem? Locos carry unpowered coaches - I figure locos are more powerful but 91s for example carry up to nine coaches! We’re only talking one or two extra here?

It probably won't happen since class 350/2 carriages are slightly shorter in length, but if you put the pantograph carriage on them it would probably make Bi-modes.

 

[JonathanH]

It probably won't happen since class 350/2 carriages are slightly shorter in length, but if you put the pantograph carriage on them it would probably make Bi-modes.

No it wouldn't, not without traction motors. A pantograph would be useless on a 185.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Why are they replacing them? They're only 15 years old.

 

[Doomotron]

Why are they replacing them? They're only 15 years old.

As has been explained many times before, the leasing costs are too expensive.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

okay so forget bi modes but could it work to insert 350/2 carriages into a 185? they look identical

 

[Energy]

okay so forget bi modes but could it work to insert 350/2 carriages into a 185? they look identical

Still a no for a couple reasons:

1. 185s have 23m coaches, 350s have 20m coaches
2. In a 185 each coach has an engine, for the 350 coach to work it would either need to be dragged by the other coaches, slowing down the train, or have an engine fitted which would be expensive and with cheaper leasing costs for new trains right now I doubt it would be cost effective for the operator.
3. Finally, the 350/2s are owned by Porterbrook, the 185s are owned by Eversholt and I doubt either want to sell their fleet.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I remeber reading in a discussion a while back about 195's a comment that it was possible to inset an powered trailer into a 185, but not a 195 as they're aren't powerful enough.

I'm against shortening them full stop! Don't forget more lines are to be electrified in the oncoming years although no-one apart from NR seems to know which lines are to be recommended as part of NR's de-carbonisation strategy.

 

[Domh245]

Still a no for a couple reasons:

1. 185s have 23m coaches, 350s have 20m coaches
2. In a 185 each coach has an engine, for the 350 coach to work it would either need to be dragged by the other coaches, slowing down the train, or have an engine fitted which would be expensive and with cheaper leasing costs for new trains right now I doubt it would be cost effective for the operator.
3. Finally, the 350/2s are owned by Porterbrook, the 185s are owned by Eversholt and I doubt either want to sell their fleet.

1. isn't insurmountable - there have been old trains in the past formed of different width (and length) stock, so no reason why it would prevent this - so long as both are gauge cleared

2. also not the biggest issues - 185s are notoriously overpowered and often run with an engine shutdown (albeit cycled between different vehicles to prevent uneven wear). The ability to power the ancillary functions like lighting and HVAC may be an issue but wouldn't be insurmountable as there is clearly cross-feed between vehicles of some sort to enable the engine shutdowns ('eco mode')

3. is the biggest stumbling block!

I'm against shortening them full stop! Don't forget more lines are to be electrified in the oncoming years although no-one apart from NR seems to know which lines are to be recommended as part of NR's de-carbonisation strategy.

There are probably lines which when electrified would suit a 60m long EMU perfectly, although as the list of electrification targets is unknown we'll have to see on that one

 

[43096]

I remeber reading in a discussion a while back about 195's a comment that it was possible to inset an powered trailer into a 185, but not a 195 as they're aren't powerful enough.

Do you mean unpowered trailer? If so, yes, a 185 will take an unpowered vehicle in it: at one stage there was a proposal to construct such vehicles but the plan was rejected by the DfT.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Yes!

 

[cactustwirly]

Knowing the way people treat Beemers probably the Dacia. That is a fair point, though while I'd agree the Desiro is a Beemer, the Aventra isn't a bad train, perhaps more of a Vauxhall Astra (which is a decent car). It's CAF I'd call a Dacia.

Eh? I'd take the beemer, it's more likely to be looked after well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Eh? I'd take the beemer, it's more likely to be looked after well.

The deal was a used Beemer vs a new Dacia, wasn't it? A new Dacia is yours, nobody else has messed with it.

 

[D365]

It probably won't happen since class 350/2 carriages are slightly shorter in length, but if you put the pantograph carriage on them it would probably make Bi-modes.

okay so forget bi modes but could it work to insert 350/2 carriages into a 185? they look identical

I know that this is the speculative subform, but you really ought to consider the engineering practicalities of "cutting and shutting" two completely different types of unit.

 

[37057]

I know that this is the speculative subform, but you really ought to consider the engineering practicalities of "cutting and shutting" two completely different types of unit.

Actually, as long as a train has a pantograph fitted and/or shoegear it becomes an EMU, right? The rest of the equipment is irrelevant after all.... a common theme throughout this thread.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, as long as a train has a pantograph fitted and/or shoegear it becomes an EMU, right? The rest of the equipment is irrelevant after all.... a common theme throughout this thread.

It would absolutely be possible to convert a Class 185 to an EMU (for a price). It's just a Desiro body, with the length/width of the 444 but the layout of the 350 (ish).

However, with a shortage of DMUs and a glut of EMUs, what on earth would you do that for?