Future of the 350/2s

[Defiance149]

Bearing in mind the thread title it seems fair to point out that I've heard reliably that some have already gone off-lease - ?last week.

350236 ran from Northampton to Wolverton on Wednesday. Wouldn't be the first to go to Wolverton for an ad-hoc repair but did wonder if it might be the first off lease.

 

[childwallblues]

Why does ‘use 350/2’s to replace 323’s at Northern’ constantly come up on here. Why do people not listen. The 323’s will run as 6 car units when the WMR units arrive. There won’t be space to operate 8 car 350’s so by default means they would have to run as 4 car units with way less capacity as they would be an 80m train compared to a 138m train.

All of the 323 from WMT are already at Northern.

 

[Energy]

Bearing in mind the thread title it seems fair to point out that I've heard reliably that some have already gone off-lease - ?last week.

Still on lease. I know someone who was on one yesterday. I don’t think the LNWR 730s are in service yet?

 

[Wolfie]

The 2+3 350/2 were almost exactly the same as 450s internally as delivered, but they haven’t had the same first class relocation/reduction as 450s. Can’t say about power points though.

There are no power sockets in 350/2 standard class.

 

[D365]

Why does ‘use 350/2’s to replace 323’s at Northern’ constantly come up on here. Why do people not listen. The 323’s will run as 6 car units when the WMR units arrive. There won’t be space to operate 8 car 350’s so by default means they would have to run as 4 car units with way less capacity as they would be an 80m train compared to a 138m train.

Or the 350/2s be reduced to 3 car units if Porterbrook sees fit…

 

[Nym]

Or the 350/2s be reduced to 3 car units if Porterbrook sees fit…

Perhaps FLEX Mk.2… “this time the dumb interior requirements won’t screw us…” ..?

 

[brad465]

Put third rail shoes on them and send them to SWR. SWR then send their 458s (or some surplus 701s) to Southeastern, who send an equal number of Networker carriages off to storage, continuing the ever long chain of SE having to chip away at the latter fleet because the DfT won't approve a brand new homogenous fleet for the area.

 

[swt_passenger]

All of the 323 from WMT are already at Northern.

Ah, but they weren’t in May 2023 when Neptune posted what he did.

 

[Wolfie]

Or the 350/2s be reduced to 3 car units if Porterbrook sees fit…

Is that, given the tendency of rolling stock builders to spread accessories over all coaches, actually possible? I know it has been an issue with reducing the length of other classes. Genuine question as l don't have a clue.

If it was to happen could the surplus coaches be used to lengthen other classes? I'm thinking 360s or 185s as possible candidates.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2024 ==

Put third rail shoes on them and send them to SWR. SWR then send their 458s (or some surplus 701s) to Southeastern, who send an equal number of Networker carriages off to storage, continuing the ever long chain of SE having to chip away at the latter fleet because the DfT won't approve a brand new homogenous fleet for the area.

If that is possible it would make some sense albeit it sucks for Southeastern to always be at the end of the chain and get unwanted elsewhere, mostly clapped-out old, stock.

 

[Northerngirl]

If it was to happen could the surplus coaches be used to lengthen other classes? I'm thinking 360s or 185s as possible candidates.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2024 ==

185s are mechanical transmission I believe, otherwise that would be a brilliant way of making them bi mode & replacing the mk5s. they definitely have the power to pull another coach so it could still work for capacity

 

[brad465]

If that is possible it would make some sense albeit it sucks for Southeastern to always be at the end of the chain and get unwanted elsewhere, mostly clapped-out old, stock.

The comment was mainly a tongue-in-cheek dig at the way SE has been getting stock so far, given the 707s arrived this way and the next plan appears to be Class 379s initiating a chain of cascades, to get some more 377s to replace some more Networkers. However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with authority at least thinks of the concept I came up with regarding 350/2s.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

God, more wasted stock. Britains railways surely seem like the place EMUs go to die.

What about, send those new Bombardier trains running on SWR to south eastern to replace the Networkers (pain), then replenish the stock with the 350s

 

[Wolfie]

God, more wasted stock. Britains railways surely seem like the place EMUs go to die.

What about, send those new Bombardier trains running on SWR to south eastern to replace the Networkers (pain), then replenish the stock with the 350s

What makes you think that ASLEF Southeastern members will be anymore accepting of them than ASLEF SWR members?

I doubt that the numbers stack up either. There are 60 10-car and 30 5-car 701s. How would 37 4-car 350/2s replace those?

Even if the 458s are retained, the 455s, which don't forget are significantly older than the Networkers, won't last forever. Their reliability is apparently already declining significantly.

 

[D365]

God, more wasted stock. Britains railways surely seem like the place EMUs go to die.

Unlike the ex-BR EMUs, the 350/2s were privately financed. So it’s entirely down to Porterbrook to find a new ’home’ for their assets.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Unlike the ex-BR EMUs, the 350/2s were privately financed. So it’s entirely down to Porterbrook to find a new ’home’ for their assets.

350236 ran from Northampton to Wolverton on Wednesday. Wouldn't be the first to go to Wolverton for an ad-hoc repair but did wonder if it might be the first off lease.

Thanks, that ties in with the information I have.

Unlike the ex-BR EMUs, the 350/2s were privately financed. So it’s entirely down to Porterbrook to find a new ’home’ for their assets.

And the reason they're going off lease is because Porterbrook would not renegotiate the high lease costs, so the TOC terminated it and leased 730/2 units more cheaply instead.

 

[Wolfie]

And the reason they're going off lease is because Porterbrook would not renegotiate the high lease costs, so the TOC terminated it and leased 730/2 units more cheaply instead.

To be fair to Porterbrook the timing of the purchase of the 350/2s meant that they were locked into high finance charges themselves. I assume that refinancing wasn't easy....

 

[Merle Haggard]

To be fair to Porterbrook the timing of the purchase of the 350/2s meant that they were locked into high finance charges themselves. I assume that refinancing wasn't easy....

My understanding is that the 350/1 leasing charge was based on all day use but the 350/2s were originally intended to be used only in the peak, so they had a low fixed element price and a high mileage price - the result was that total lease costs were similar to the 350/1s, the latter's lease having higher fixed and lower mileage - based prices. When the 350/2 s started to be used more intensively that obviously increased the total lease charge to higher than the 350/1s (because the higher mileage base rate was more significant). The new TOC wanted to renegotiate so total lease charges were similar to the 350/1s.
Of course I have no inside knowledge it's just what I've deduced from statements made and it sort of makes sense - but I may have made 2+2 = 5

 

[43096]

To be fair to Porterbrook the timing of the purchase of the 350/2s meant that they were locked into high finance charges themselves. I assume that refinancing wasn't easy....

Presumably any re-financining would see those providing the finance wanting a reasonable likelihood of a return on their investment, which isn't obvious with no lease signed up.

I'm also not entirely sold on the entire "high lease costs therefore they got binned" theory because the 172s were bought by the same ROSCO, at the same time, for the same operator and they have not been replaced by new trains (196s) which you would think would have happened had the lease cost been the issue.

 

[Kite159]

Replacements for the 323s in Northern, giving passengers a more modern train with Air conditioning. Lines already used to mostly 3+2 seating [bar the odd 331 diagram].

Hadfield/Stoke/Crewe line stoppers, which can only operate as single 323s due to short platforms. Also on Manchester - Liverpool stoppers, keeping the 331s to running paired up on Liverpool - Wigan/Blackpool & Manchester - Blackpool. 323s paired up are just asking for trouble due to the lack of SDO and lack of gangway where all those customers whom think payment is optional can join the front unit for a reduced chance of being asked to pay

Although some of the timetables will need to be adjusted to take into account the slower door opening process of a 350 compared to a 323.

 

[Transilien]

I'm also not entirely sold on the entire "high lease costs therefore they got binned" theory because the 172s were bought by the same ROSCO, at the same time, for the same operator and they have not been replaced by new trains (196s) which you would think would have happened had the lease cost been the issue.

I'm convinced that the 730's were only bought so that WMR could say "Look we will make great improvements to our network if we take over this franchise." to the government. New trains are one of the easiest ways that a train operator can say that they are improving a service so as seen with Greater Anglia with their complete fleet replacement despite much of their fleet being under 20 years old (i.e. the Class 379s, 170s and 360s) they are simply doing it to get brownie points with the government and passengers with the publicity of new trains.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, they did it because the lease costs were lower, appreciably so in some cases. The DfT wanted ROSCO costs reduced and new build, with the financing rates at that time, was cheaper. Getting your bid costs cheaper than your competitors is a big way towards you winning the gig.

I can’t speak for the WM bids, but the bids for GA had fleet replacement. It was such an obvious move.

 

[Energy]

I can’t speak for the WM bids, but the bids for GA had fleet replacement. It was such an obvious move.

GA needed some new build anyway for 317 replacement. IIRC the DfT had some pretty high passenger predictions so new stock made a lot of sense to meet them.

Abellio’s very high capacity 720s almost certainly helped them win the bid, even if the layout is quite poor to move through.

I'm convinced that the 730's were only bought so that WMR could say "Look we will make great improvements to our network if we take over this franchise." to the government.

WMR needed more stock for fully 6 car and 6th Cross City operation. Porterbrook wasn’t willing to lease the 323s to Arriva Rail North, assuming they’d all end up at WMR. Instead WMR went for new build 730 and the 323s ended up retained at Northern.

WMR/LNWR also originally planned 720 seating layout 730s on the London - MK / Tring, which would have had very high seated capacities. This demonstrates the flaws of franchising quite well, the 3+2 layout sounds great in a franchise proposal but the 720 layout is poor in real life, with passengers struggling to move through. Franchise bids also often come from bid teams detached from operations, had the bid team being able to speak to London Midland they’d find out pretty quickly that the middle seat on 350/2s is often not used and having stock with multiple seating layouts is poor operationally. This did thankfully get changed.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'm convinced that the 730's were only bought so that WMR could say "Look we will make great improvements to our network if we take over this franchise." to the government. New trains are one of the easiest ways that a train operator can say that they are improving a service so as seen with Greater Anglia with their complete fleet replacement despite much of their fleet being under 20 years old (i.e. the Class 379s, 170s and 360s) they are simply doing it to get brownie points with the government and passengers with the publicity of new trains.

GA also had a significant fleet that was end of life (153s, 156s, 37s+MkIIs, quite a lot of the old EMUs), as well as a serious stock shortage, so a big new fleet was needed anyway - making it full-fleet was a way to simplify planning and training. the new fleet was also cheaper than the 379s, and the tiny number of 170s GA had was better off as part of a bigger fleet elsewhere.

of course, WMR opted to replace only the 350/2s, but keep the other 350s, which suggests there was something about the /2s that made them unattractive, and the lease costs being higher than that of the new fleet is an obvious one.

The situation of the 172s vs the 196s may well have been different.

 

[Mikey C]

GA also had a significant fleet that was end of life (153s, 156s, 37s+MkIIs, quite a lot of the old EMUs), as well as a serious stock shortage, so a big new fleet was needed anyway - making it full-fleet was a way to simplify planning and training. the new fleet was also cheaper than the 379s, and the tiny number of 170s GA had was better off as part of a bigger fleet elsewhere.

of course, WMR opted to replace only the 350/2s, but keep the other 350s, which suggests there was something about the /2s that made them unattractive, and the lease costs being higher than that of the new fleet is an obvious one.

The situation of the 172s vs the 196s may well have been different.

The only GA EMUs that needed to be replace were the Mk3 EMUs. Yes it was handy for them to be able to replace the 360s and 379s as well, but not every operator can have that luxury, as someone has to use the displaced stock.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes it was handy for them to be able to replace the 360s and 379s as well, but not every operator can have that luxury, as someone has to use the displaced stock.

It has been established that, were it not for what happened in 2020, the 379s would have gone straight to GTR, instead of spending three years in store. The 360s were the perfect sized fleet for EMR. What has never been established is where the 350/2s were meant to go.

 

[Trainbike46]

The only GA EMUs that needed to be replace were the Mk3 EMUs. Yes it was handy for them to be able to replace the 360s and 379s as well, but not every operator can have that luxury, as someone has to use the displaced stock.

you are aware that GA had three classes (317,321,322) of MkIII EMUs, numbering 153 units, so that that was the vast majority of their EMU stock? There's only 30 379s and 21 360s after all.

The 379s were more expensive to lease than their replacement. In a leasing system, there is no obligation on GA or anyone else to use the displaced stock. Going from a massively diverse fleet that was too small, GA went down to 3 types of trains, 2 of which are very similar (745s and 755s) - it's a massive improvement for everyone.

Of course, both the 360s and the 379s found new homes at EMR and GTR respectively - so it's not an issue at all.

 

[bramling]

you are aware that GA had three classes (317,321,322) of MkIII EMUs, numbering 153 units, so that that was the vast majority of their EMU stock? There's only 30 379s and 21 360s after all.

The 379s were more expensive to lease than their replacement. In a leasing system, there is no obligation on GA or anyone else to use the displaced stock. Going from a massively diverse fleet that was too small, GA went down to 3 types of trains, 2 of which are very similar (745s and 755s) - it's a massive improvement for everyone.

Of course, both the 360s and the 379s found new homes at EMR and GTR respectively - so it's not an issue at all.

On the latter point, it may be an issue if it turns out that three years of storage has caused the 379s to suffer from reliability issues. Time will tell on that, but if it happens then it will certainly be an issue for GN users.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I'm not sure whether this can even be discussed on a forum* but I've been told that there's a Section NN (???24) for re-franchising which obliges the new TOC to take on rolling stock leases, and this applied to the 350/1 s but not to the 350/2s, which might have a bearing on what happened - possibly the leases for both were too high compared to ones available when WMT took over.

*Odd how the taxpayer stumps up an enormous amount of money (not saying that's wrong!) but any discussion about how it's used is verboten due to 'commercial confidence', or just withheld.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm not sure whether this can even be discussed on a forum* but I've been told that there's a Section NN (???24) for re-franchising which obliges the new TOC to take on rolling stock leases, and this applied to the 350/1 s but not to the 350/2s, which might have a bearing on what happened - possibly the leases for both were too high compared to ones available when WMT took over.

Section 54 - see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/roscos-how-do-train-orders-work-in-practice.76758/#post-1308734

 

[778]

It's not awful insomuch as it is very similar to the 3+2 seating in use in many other areas and which will also feature in the replacement LNWR rolling stock

The LNWR 730s will have 2+2 seating.