Where could class 350/2s units go?

[Bletchleyite]

350/2s don't currently have anywhere to go, but I would be amazed if somewhere wasn't found for them. There are still plenty of Mk3 EMUs knocking about the place.

 

[JonathanH]

350/2s don't currently have anywhere to go, but I would be amazed if somewhere wasn't found for them. There are still plenty of Mk3 EMUs knocking about the place.

Only the Mk3 class 318 / 320 EMUs in Scotland (and 769s and Southern's 455s) don't have replacements lined up and 4-car 350/2s have been discounted as a suitable replacement for the Scottish 3-car fleet.

There is plenty of discussion on here about possible homes for the 350/2 fleet - no one has been able to identify one - however a dumping of the 458 fleet having itself been part of a decision to dump the 442s would seem somewhat odd.

 

[Class455]

350/2s don't currently have anywhere to go, but I would be amazed if somewhere wasn't found for them. There are still plenty of Mk3 EMUs knocking about the place.

Perhaps TPE could convert them to bi-modes and take them on to replace Class 185's once the Transpennine Route Upgrade is complete?

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Perhaps TPE could convert them to bi-modes and take them on to replace Class 185's once the Transpennine Route Upgrade is complete?

Porterbrook have or had a plan to add batteries to 350/2s.

 

[D365]

Perhaps TPE could convert them to bi-modes and take them on to replace Class 185's once the Transpennine Route Upgrade is complete?

A rather pointless exercise on South Transpennine as things stand.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Perhaps TPE could convert them to bi-modes and take them on to replace Class 185's once the Transpennine Route Upgrade is complete?

I wouldn't convert them to bi-modes but I think once Huddersfield to Leeds has been upgraded they should be used on that by either Northern or TPE.

I would also stick them on the triangle, not sure what to do with the 333s but really we need more knitting!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps TPE could convert them to bi-modes and take them on to replace Class 185's once the Transpennine Route Upgrade is complete?

TPE already have some bi-modes. As the wires go up, the 185s can progressively be changed to EMUs and solve it that way.

 

[Halifaxlad]

TPE already have some bi-modes. As the wires go up, the 185s can progressively be changed to EMUs and solve it that way.

Surely the 185s should be used to eradicate older diesels ?

Route permitting of course!

 

[JonathanH]

Surely the 185s should be used to eradicate older diesels ?

Route permitting of course!

Perhaps with retractioning. The problem is they are powered for 100mph operation and for going up and down hills and aren't necessarily more energy efficient than older units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the 185s should be used to eradicate older diesels ?

Route permitting of course!

Sorry, I meant you would move 185s out and EMUs (e.g. 350/2s) in. The 185s would indeed go and replace 15x.

 

[Bigman]

How about a small fleet up North to work the TPE Newcastle - Edinburgh service. If I read things right, as things stand TPE 802's are not allowed to work under the wires all the way, but would 350's be allowed to?

 

[Halish Railway]

I think the fact that the hydraulic doors take so long to open would discount them from working metro-style services where Mk3 EMUs with quick to open pocket doors are the mainstay e.g. Southern’s South London & South Coast routes.

Really they ought to be working the St Pancras to Corby route (To take advantage of the gangways when all the diagrams are booked to be worked as two units) but the 360s were ready sooner. I think we’ll just have to wait for more wires to be strung up. Maybe they could displace the 360s to work solo on routes such as Leicester to Nottingham and Matlock (providing the wires get there) to Nottingham. Maybe even the post TRU semi-fast service across the Pennines.

Its important to wait and see how the extensive 360 refurbishment goes so that we can see what sort of state the Desiros are in beneath the paintwork, it shouldn’t be that bad given that these are fairly young aluminium units, but there are still some small bits of steel e.g. Yaw Damper mounting brackets that could have caused some corrosion. Hopefully the reasonable amount of time between these units being released by WMT & some electrification schemes being completed will give Porterbrook more than enough time to refurbish these trains to a ‘like new’ state on a par with the /1s, /3s & /4s, address any corrosion or mechanical issues and maybe, just maybe install a quite AC system!

 

[NoMorePacers]

Transpennine services seem like they'd be a good fit for them (provided they were reseated to 2+2, they'd probably need the batteries plugging in as well). They'd be near enough perfect for services such as Manchester - Hull.

 

[Neptune]

I would also stick them on the triangle, not sure what to do with the 333s but really we need more knitting!

Why would you want to decrease capacity on one of the busiest routes outside London? The triangle has bounced back really well from covid and the plans to go to 6 car 331 operation are still in the future plans.

I’ve said this many times before but Porterbrook not having a home lined up for the 350’s is not Northern’s problem. If more EMU’s are required then they have already said in the last year that they’ll order more 331’s to simplify the fleet.

 

[bramling]

I think the fact that the hydraulic doors take so long to open would discount them from working metro-style services where Mk3 EMUs with quick to open pocket doors are the mainstay e.g. Southern’s South London & South Coast routes.

Really they ought to be working the St Pancras to Corby route (To take advantage of the gangways when all the diagrams are booked to be worked as two units) but the 360s were ready sooner. I think we’ll just have to wait for more wires to be strung up. Maybe they could displace the 360s to work solo on routes such as Leicester to Nottingham and Matlock (providing the wires get there) to Nottingham. Maybe even the post TRU semi-fast service across the Pennines.

Its important to wait and see how the extensive 360 refurbishment goes so that we can see what sort of state the Desiros are in beneath the paintwork, it shouldn’t be that bad given that these are fairly young aluminium units, but there are still some small bits of steel e.g. Yaw Damper mounting brackets that could have caused some corrosion. Hopefully the reasonable amount of time between these units being released by WMT & some electrification schemes being completed will give Porterbrook more than enough time to refurbish these trains to a ‘like new’ state on a par with the /1s, /3s & /4s, address any corrosion or mechanical issues and maybe, just maybe install a quite AC system!

Gangways really aren't necessary on the Corby service. Other comparable routes have managed perfectly well without gangways, and indeed in some cases where they've had them they've fallen into disuse or been removed.

Commuters get to know where to board the train to get a seat, and the Corby service is largely commuter oriented.

It's only "an issue" because of the dispute, which the consensus on here was more about setting a precedent for when the new Sheffield / Nottingham trains arrive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2021 ==

Why would you want to decrease capacity on one of the busiest routes outside London? The triangle has bounced back really well from covid and the plans to go to 6 car 331 operation are still in the future plans.

I’ve said this many times before but Porterbrook not having a home lined up for the 350’s is not Northern’s problem. If more EMU’s are required then they have already said in the last year that they’ll order more 331’s to simplify the fleet.

The "it's the leasing company's problem" is something which needs addressing if the railway is to demonstrate financial efficiency. The mess with rolling stock, especially EMUs, over the last few years does not reflect credit on the industry.

It really doesn't look good to have accidentally built loads more of one type of train which weren't needed, and as if this wasn't bad enough having a shortage of another type, and whilst some passengers find themselves being ferried around in ghastly 1970s Underground conversions.

 

[Purple Orange]

Transpennine services seem like they'd be a good fit for them (provided they were reseated to 2+2, they'd probably need the batteries plugging in as well). They'd be near enough perfect for services such as Manchester - Hull.

They would, if the line had wires. However, if electrification was not an issue, I agree that a 350 would be a suitable train to have on a Liverpool-Hull or a Liverpool-Nottingham/Cleethorpes service.

But within the constraints of electrified railway, with XC reduced to 1 tph, it might be a useful time to introduce an 8-car 350 shuttle between Manchester & Birmingham. Ideally calling at more stops than XC do, it could be a pre-cursor to the type of service we could see post HS2 on the WCML.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2021 ==

Since this is the speculation forum, I’d have an 8-car 350 working Manchester-Birmingham via Stoke, providing a hybrid semi-fast & local commuter service closer in to Manchester & Birmingham. Stations that don’t need an increase in frequency wouldn’t be served. Perhaps we could see:

Piccadilly - Stockport - Cheadle Hulme - Bramhall - Poynton - Macclesfield - Congleton - Stoke - Stafford - Wolverhampton - Coseley - Dudley Port - New Street.

Between Birmingham & Wolverhampton, it’s difficult to say which stations should have stops, as so many of them have a good frequency already. The worst being 2 tph, so it might be better to just call at one additional stop at most between New Street & Wolverhampton.

 

[Fokx]

It has to be a strong vote for Northern for me (with 3 by 2 seating replaced with 2 by 2 and first class removed or declassified)

37x units to directly replace ALL current 32x class 319 and 323 units which are not suitable for the services they work at all (No bike spaces, poor luggage facilities for Airport routes, no ASDO for running as double sets etc) . To be based at Ardwick and Allerton and allowing for a standardised fleet of full electric units to be formed of 331’s and 350’s.

With the current allocation of 333’s eventually would be replaced or supplemented by Northerns speculated additional order for further 331’s as would the expected WMT 323’s (which would then not be required).

 

[Halifaxlad]

Sorry, I meant you would move 185s out and EMUs (e.g. 350/2s) in. The 185s would indeed go and replace 15x.

Ahhhhh

Why would you want to decrease capacity on one of the busiest routes outside London? The triangle has bounced back really well from covid and the plans to go to 6 car 331 operation are still in the future plans.

Because operating 3 car 331s is a decrease in capacity in off peak services which is crazy! For the sake of 6 car services during the peak which is an extra 2 carriages compared to at the movement, you have to effectively shorten all services to 3 car trains throughout the rest of the day! This works out at increase of only 48 seats which is marginal for an additional 2 carriages at the loss of off peak services!

Personally I would refurbish the 350/2s with 2+2 seating which would give you an additional 74 seats if doubled up to 8 cars during the peaks. More if you got rid of first class which they probably would if they went to Northern. Due to that 350/s are slightly shorter per car than 333's & 331's, when doubled up to 8 they are only 20.4 meters longer than 2, 3 car 331's coupled together. So really its about the same length as a 7 car 331! (I know there is no such thing)

Now especially after COVID less longer services seem to becoming the thing like it or not!

 

[Neptune]

Because operating 3 car 331s is a decrease in capacity in off peak services which is crazy! For the sake of 6 car services during the peak which is an extra 2 carriages compared to at the movement, you have to effectively shorten all services to 3 car trains throughout the rest of the day! This works out at increase of only 48 seats which is marginal for an additional 2 carriages at the loss of off peak services!

Personally I would refurbish the 350/2s with 2+2 seating which would give you an additional 74 seats if doubled up to 8 cars during the peaks. More if you got rid of first class which they probably would if they went to Northern. Due to that 350/s are slightly shorter per car than 333's & 331's, when doubled up to 8 they are only 20.4 meters longer than 2, 3 car 331's coupled together. So really its about the same length as a 7 car 331! (I know there is no such thing)

Now especially after COVID less longer services seem to becoming the thing like it or not!

All triangle services will be 4 car 333’s or 6 car 331’s. Where do you get this idea about 3 car units running outside the peaks?

8 car 350’s? Where are you magicking the extra platform and stabling space for that?

I still don’t understand why Northern is deemed to be a good place for 350’s (there’s a bloody good financial reason why LNWR are getting rid, who’s going to want to take that burden on). The 323’s are replacing the 319’s and if they do decide to call time on the 333’s (nothing in the pipeline in the near future) then they will bring in more 331’s to harmonise the east side electric fleet.

 

[Halifaxlad]

All triangle services will be 4 car 333’s or 6 car 331’s. Where do you get this idea about 3 car units running outside the peaks?

It was the plan not so long ago to run 331s doubled up during the peaks!

8 car 350’s? Where are you magicking the extra platform and stabling space for that?

As pointed out in post 18, 350s

"when doubled up to 8 they are only 20.4 meters longer than 2, 3 car 331's coupled together."

obviously some platforms will require lengthening anyway.

 

[Neptune]

It was the plan not so long ago to run 331s doubled up during the peaks!

Which plan? The plan I work on from within the company is that the services with 2x331 will be all day diagrams.

As pointed out in post 18, 350s

"when doubled up to 8 they are only 20.4 meters longer than 2, 3 car 331's coupled together."

obviously some platforms will require lengthening anyway.

Yes I understand that point so I ask again, where are you magicking up extra platform and stabling space for 20.4 extra metres when the existing plans are around 2x331’s?

 

[Halish Railway]

Yes I understand that point so I ask again, where are you magicking up extra platform and stabling space for 20.4 extra metres when the existing plans are around 2x331’s?

This whole problem is made worse by the fact that as part of TRU significant track realignment works will take place at Neville Hill, which will presumably result in decreased access to the depot.

 

[Minstral25]

Pure Speculation but numbers seem to work. How about the 37 Class 350/2 get transferred to work GN services to replace the 35 Class 387's (29 GN units plus 6 loaned from GatEx) allowing these units to go south of river and replace the majority of Class 455's on Southern (46 units) - that way GN & Thameslink become fully Siemens Desiro/Desiro City at Hornsey depot, plus another step closer to fully Electrostar on Southern services - only 313's left on Coastway which are ripe for return of 377/2 & /5's from SE in future.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Which plan? The plan I work on from within the company is that the services with 2x331 will be all day diagrams.

I was obviously still under the impression that they are only to be doubled up during the peaks.

Yes I understand that point so I ask again, where are you magicking up extra platform and stabling space for 20.4 extra metres when the existing plans are around 2x331’s?

As stated in post 20:

obviously some platforms will require lengthening anyway.

Regarding stabling space, is this anything specific or are just presuming there isn't enough room ?

It's already acknowledged that the lack of stabling space and the location of Neville Hill depot are both current issues that need resolving.

Perhaps you should start a thread ? Although I suspect some of this might be resolved once the track by Neville Hill is realigned as part of TRU that may give the depot some more room.

I think platform space at Ikley is probably more of a concern as either way running anything in multiples of 6 or above means that only two services can be stabled at any one given time!

 

[Neptune]

Regarding stabling space, is this anything specific or are just presuming there isn't enough room ?

It's already acknowledged that the lack of stabling space and the location of Neville Hill depot are both current issues that need resolving.

I think platform space at Ikley is probably more of a concern as either way running anything in multiples of 6 or above means that only two services can be stabled at any one given time!

The issue isn’t just at Neville Hill and Ilkley but also mainly at Skipton. 20m+ per train is one thing but start multiplying it and you get a very different outlook on the issues it would cause.

I do have an issue with these ‘great ideas’ of moving 350/2’s to Northern (we’ve also had 379‘s mentioned in the past) because it is the usual solution looking for a problem. Northern’s electric fleet is sorted and all planning is in place once the 323 moves happen to replace the 319’s. Northern have stated themselves that once the time is right then they’ll investigate a further fleet of 331’s to tidy up the electric situation even more.

Trying to add into the Northern mix yet another class of train, because the leasing company cocked up and made them easier and cheaper to replace with new, is a non starter. Just because you think something looks good on a piece of paper doesn’t mean to say it is workable in reality.

 

[whoosh]

Pure Speculation but numbers seem to work. How about the 37 Class 350/2 get transferred to work GN services to replace the 35 Class 387's (29 GN units plus 6 loaned from GatEx) allowing these units to go south of river and replace the majority of Class 455's on Southern (46 units) - that way GN & Thameslink become fully Siemens Desiro/Desiro City at Hornsey depot, plus another step closer to fully Electrostar on Southern services - only 313's left on Coastway which are ripe for return of 377/2 & /5's from SE in future.

All very well, but they'd need bodyside cameras and, perhaps more of an issue, somewhere to place the DOO screens in the cabs.

They really need somewhere electrified with Guards, unless they undergo modifications.

Also.... Electrostars have a programme planned to fit with Driver Machine Interfaces (speedo etc. on a computer screen to be retro-fitted in the cab) to enable running under ETCS - which is coming within the next few years on the ECML.

Is there any such plan for any 350s?

 

[Halifaxlad]

There does seem to be a few comments with the often 'solution looking for a problem' thrown in, so here's why I think 350,2s would be great for Northern.

With me it certainly isn't because I would like to see them on Northern as I couldn't care less.

Initally it was because I was under the impression that off peak services on the Aire & Wharf Valley were to be 3 car, 1 car less than at the moment, as pointed out this is no longer the case.

But still running multiples of 4 car 350s allows services to be reduced in length in the evenings and weekends without making them shorter than the services at the moment!

There are also revenue implications for Northern as whilst during the peaks two conductors are used, it is unrealistic to expect them to have two on every service 7 days a week.

Revenue protection will become an issue on 331s if they run as 6 car services 24/7, as there are no corridor connections through the cab!

Simply building more 331s won't solve this issue!

 

[Neptune]

There does seem to be a few comments with the often 'solution looking for a problem' thrown in, so here's why I think 350,2s would be great for Northern.

With me it certainly isn't because I would like to see them on Northern as I couldn't care less.

Initally it was because I was under the impression that off peak services on the Aire & Wharf Valley were to be 3 car, 1 car less than at the moment, as pointed out this is no longer the case.

But still running multiples of 4 car 350s allows services to be reduced in length in the evenings and weekends without making them shorter than the services at the moment!

There are also revenue implications for Northern as whilst during the peaks two conductors are used, it is unrealistic to expect them to have two on every service 7 days a week.

Revenue protection will become an issue on 331s if they run as 6 car services 24/7, as there are no corridor connections through the cab!

Simply building more 331s won't solve this issue!

But it is a solution looking for a problem.

The east side electrics consist of 16 x 333’s and 12 x 4 car 331’s which is an over provision of units at the moment. Once a certain amount of 3 car 331’s are transferred over in exchange for the 4 car 331’s there will be adequate EMU’s to run services on both sides of the Pennines as are the current plans. Crews only have to sign what units they already do with no additional training required. Maintainence depots don’t have to learn yet another fleet of trains either which is oft overlooked alongside the storage of spares etc….

There aren’t 2 operational conductors on any services. LPO’s work alongside conductors on the some trains at a much lesser cost and are much more flexible in where they can be. Do you really think 1 conductor can be checking tickets in 8 coaches when they will have to be in the centre of the train at every station? The average time between stations is 3 minutes on the routes the electrics work (slightly more on the Donny service).

If the 333’s are replaced then sense dictates that an additional fleet of 4 car 331’s should replace them which means no extra crew or maintenance training and less spare parts required as it will be a single fleet at Neville Hill.

 

[Halish Railway]

In my opinion the only way in which 350/2s could be allocated to Neville Hill would be if more lines were electrified (post-TRU stopping services) or if capacity on the Shipley triangle was increased by increasing frequency rather than train length.

I seem to remember an idea to have 4tph between Keighley & Leeds by somehow building a new bay platform at Keighley, with the Skipton to Leeds service being limited stop beyond Keighley. I can’t help but feel that Operation Princess proved that this could be completely impractical. Any available paths along the Airedale line should be left for trains using the SELRAP route to get into Leeds.

Unless these could be reformed as 3-car trains to run in pairs around Yorkshire.

 

[Neptune]

In my opinion the only way in which 350/2s could be allocated to Neville Hill would be if more lines were electrified (post-TRU stopping services) or if capacity on the Shipley triangle was increased by increasing frequency rather than train length.

If Northern get any more EMU’s it will be 331’s.

The capacity isn’t there for the NW triangle but if it were then the current fleet of 28 x 4 car EMU’s allocated to NL would be enough to cover it.