Where are the 350/2s going?

[bramling]

The whole point of them is those stations, and serving them hourly is a franchise requirement. The service does not exist to provide an alternative to Virgin, that's a fortunate side-effect.

Or unfortunate side-effect, if you travel from somewhere like Atherstone where LM is your only service, and the train is stuffed full of people on cheap advances from Crewe or Stoke-on-Trent - whilst watching half-empty Pendolinos cruise past every 20 minutes.

Longer LM trains would of course largely resolve this situation, but thusfar it hasn't happened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is going to happen in December 2018 when the services will all go to 8-car. Shame it can't happen sooner.

Will be interesting to see if Abellio maintain the low-fares policy or if they increase a little to manage the overcrowding before then.

 

[HLE]

The london Midland services are painful anyway, but with the 2+3 seating and lack of tables, it makes the journey much more painful... Would rather them bulk the 350/1s and 3s to 125mph running, and then drop the annoying stops (Atherstone, Litchfield Trent Valley etc).

The 350/1s and 350/3s could run the fast services from Liverpool (Liverpool, Runcorn, Crewe, Stafford, Nuneaton, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Watford Junc, Euston)

The 350/2s could run the more stopping service via Northampton...

Why Lichfield?

 

[centraltrains]

I don't think it's related, but anyone know why there is half a class 350 in Tyseley right now on the far sidings next to the sheds?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Meh, I'm not too worried... I'll just take the Virgin Train, or hopefully HS2, when the 'Stafford HS2 hub opens' ... Seriously though, I was just thinking that if a 350/2 was used on STOPPERS only, then Polesworth could get a better service

But in one direction only!

 

[59CosG95]

I don't think it's related, but anyone know why there is half a class 350 in Tyseley right now on the far sidings next to the sheds?

That would be 3/4s of 350264 which was moved by road from Northampton Kings Heath to free up space there until the 4th (and most damaged) coach returns from Krefeld, which is likely to be around May. Of course, I saw this on Facey, so whether this sentiment is true is anyone's guess!

Moving on, I think that while SWR would be the most logical destination for 350231-267 (converted to 450s obviously), I'm not sure if there's enough stabling space for them anywhere on the network. It very much depends on if the depots SWR have (Wimbledon, Bournemouth, Northam etc) can take 148 more vehicles, even though the loss of the 707 fleet (150 veh's total) would cover a like-for-like swap, as the SWR Aventra fleet needs to be taken into account.

However, this is early days for both WMT and SWR with regards fleet cascade planning, so options are still very much open AFAIK.

 

[HLE]

So we’re again replacing (to a degree) new-ish trains with new trains.

Should be banned unless they have a confirmed home to go after. Re-negotiate the leasing costs and the jobs a good’un.

 

[Bevan Price]

But Crewe to Euston on 350/2 seats is a dreadful prospect!

That already happens occasionally - I saw one last time I was at Crewe, a few weeks ago.

 

[Roast Veg]

Should be banned unless they have a confirmed home to go after. Re-negotiate the leasing costs and the jobs a good’un.

If the ROSCOs were more on the ball they would cut the future leasing costs of all the stock that was unlikely to stick around, especially in the run up to a franchise award. It will be them that now has the responsibility of getting any value out of the stock. It's one of the advantage of privatisation that the costs won't be brunted by the public, no matter how wasteful it seems to the passengers.

 

[sd0733]

That already happens occasionally - I saw one last time I was at Crewe, a few weeks ago.

Certainly does far more than it should... im on 350253 on the 7:55 ex Crewe as I type this.
The problem is a few diagrams come out the bays at Northampton so if they end up in the wrong order at night then they come out wrong in the morning.
Diagramming 350s on the face of it seems odd where we have at least one 350/1 diagram on a Walsall diagram for example, sure there is some logic to balance miles or something.

 

[Bletchleyite]

350/2s aren't diagrammed for the 110mph Crewes. If they end up on them, it's a substitute for whatever reason.

In one way it'd have made sense for Abellio to just sweep up all the spare Desiros (360s etc), reduce the 5s to 4-car sets, then refurb the older ones and /2s so they were all in the same (high density 2+2) layout. One homogeneous fleet (give or take gangways) would have been very easy to manage.

 

[Spirit555]

There is another set going to Long Marston tomorrow

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K79616/2017/10/28/advanced

Also a return. Not sure if 350238 is coming back this quick though

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K79615/2017/10/28/advanced

 

[43096]

350/2s aren't diagrammed for the 110mph Crewes. If they end up on them, it's a substitute for whatever reason.

Substitutions seem to be largely because London Midland control has inherited Central Trains disease, where if it had wheels and ran they'd allocate it to any service.

In one way it'd have made sense for Abellio to just sweep up all the spare Desiros (360s etc), reduce the 5s to 4-car sets, then refurb the older ones and /2s so they were all in the same (high density 2+2) layout. One homogeneous fleet (give or take gangways) would have been very easy to manage.

Agreed. Would have made much more sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Substitutions seem to be largely because London Midland control has inherited Central Trains disease, where if it had wheels and ran they'd allocate it to any service.

Otherwise known elsewhere as the Northern "random unit generator". But yes CT were particularly bad at it (well, they were bad at most things generally, really), and LM got a lot of ex-CT management.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If they ever were to be uprated for a max speed of 110mph, would they get reclassified as 350/3s?

 

[D365]

If they ever were to be uprated for a max speed of 110mph, would they get reclassified as 350/3s?

Err... Why?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 350/2 are being converted to 110mph running starting this week.

Seems a pointless upgrade when they've no home to go to.
350/1 have a long DfT usage guarantee to 2023-ish, 350/2 have no such protection.
So the ROSCO makes a killing on one fleet and loses out on the other.

 

[D365]

So the ROSCO makes a killing on one fleet and loses out on the other.

Not even the same ROSCO - Angel owns the /2s, Porterbrook owns all other 350s.

 

[AM9]

If the ROSCOs were more on the ball they would cut the future leasing costs of all the stock that was unlikely to stick around, especially in the run up to a franchise award. It will be them that now has the responsibility of getting any value out of the stock. It's one of the advantage of privatisation that the costs won't be brunted by the public, no matter how wasteful it seems to the passengers.

No, all railway costs are landed on the traveller via fares or the overall population via public funds. Only a bean counter/privatisation evangelist would pretend that the cost of functional rolling stock spending useful life standing in storage sidings doesn't affect anybody outside the commercial entities that profit from rail operations.

 

[swt_passenger]

If they ever were to be uprated for a max speed of 110mph, would they get reclassified as 350/3s?

It would only be likely if they remained with the same operator, and we already know they are not.
But the last 2 digits of the combined 350 class are unique and in numerical sequence across all four subclasses so they do allow for any such 'batch' designation changes by altering the fourth digit.
Vehicle numbers are the thing that is for most purposes fixed over the life of rolling stock, unit numbers are fairly flexible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seems a pointless upgrade when they've no home to go to.

They'll be used on LM and "wmtrains" for some time yet, the new stock isn't being pulled out of a hat on day one of the franchise. Having them capable of 110mph will reduce delays and increase flexibility of the fleet.

It will also make them more marketable, there's no way they will get scrapped. It's quite likely there will be a bonfire of ex-BR EMUs soon (up to and including class 323), but homes will be found for the new kit.

 

[Far north 37]

It would only be likely if they remained with the same operator, and we already know they are not.
But the last 2 digits of the combined 350 class are unique and in numerical sequence across all four subclasses so they do allow for any such 'batch' designation changes by altering the fourth digit.
Vehicle numbers are the thing that is for most purposes fixed over the life of rolling stock, unit numbers are fairly flexible.

class 350/4s are numbered 401-410 so not in sequence with the other subclasses

 

[swt_passenger]

class 350/4s are numbered 401-410 so not in sequence with the other subclasses

Ah, so only the 3 LM batches are sequential. Can still be changed of course, if they ever chose to do so. Indeed if (as expected) they end up with LM it is likely they would be changed, to avoid the duplication. The main point is that altering unit numbers is pretty much normal business; it can and is done already.

 

[D365]

Ah, so only the 3 LM batches are sequential. Can still be changed of course, if they ever chose to do so. Indeed if (as expected) they end up with LM it is likely they would be changed, to avoid the duplication. The main point is that altering unit numbers is pretty much normal business; it can and is done already.

And has nothing to do with any increase of the in service top speed. The 350/1s were not renumbered.

 

[London Trains]

class 350/4s are numbered 401-410 so not in sequence with the other subclasses

And when they are painted in their new livery, it is not hard to make the numbers "350478 - 350487"

 

[D365]

And when they are painted in their new livery, it is not hard to make the numbers "350478 - 350487"

I don't think number changes are quite that simple...

 

[Marklund]

And has nothing to do with any increase of the in service top speed. The 350/1s were not renumbered.

Other stock has been renumbered when modified though.
While it would be unlikely in this case, it's yet another smart Alec dismissive answer from you to the same poster...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

And has nothing to do with any increase of the in service top speed. The 350/1s were not renumbered.

Probably something to do with the 350/1s being dual-voltage when the rest of the 350s aren't

 

[childwallblues]

Certainly does far more than it should... im on 350253 on the 7:55 ex Crewe as I type this.
The problem is a few diagrams come out the bays at Northampton so if they end up in the wrong order at night then they come out wrong in the morning.
Diagramming 350s on the face of it seems odd where we have at least one 350/1 diagram on a Walsall diagram for example, sure there is some logic to balance miles or something.

 

[D365]

Probably something to do with the 350/1s being dual-voltage when the rest of the 350s aren't

The /2s are owned by a different ROSCO and are fitted with a different seating arrangement - I don’t understand.