Future of the 350/2s

[Merle Haggard]

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

Thanks, interesting.

It does beg the question (if my 'mole' is correct) - why the 350/2 s were not section 54 - ed? (and presumably the 350/1, /3 and /4s were)

 

[Energy]

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.

AFAIK post 197 (by @Merle Haggard ) is correct about the low lease but high usage charges. Leaving 350/2s on London - MK / Tring, decoupling after peak times, having WMR 730s on a Birmingham - Crewe/Liverpool, and 350/1,3,4 on London - Birmingham/Crewe all day would make the most sense to me.

Thanks, interesting.

It does beg the question (if my 'mole' is correct) - why the 350/2 s were not section 54 - ed? (and presumably the 350/1, /3 and /4s were)

Section 54 are sparingly used for when ROSCOs are unwilling without more guarantee they asset will continue to be used after the franchise.

Most of them are early franchises when the leasing market wasn’t as developed, a recent one was the Scotrail HSTs as they needed a lot of work doing.

 

[43096]

Most of them are early franchises when the leasing market wasn’t as developed, a recent one was the Scotrail HSTs as they needed a lot of work doing.

Scotland seem to use them more - as well as the HSTs aren't the 380s and 385s also covered by Section 54s?

 

[Wolfie]

The LNWR 730s will have 2+2 seating.

Has that changed? It certainly wasn't the original plan.

 

[778]

Has that changed? It certainly wasn't the original plan.

The original plan was for 29 730/1s with 3+2 seating and 16 730/2s with 2+2 seating. That has been changed to 36 730/2s. There will not be any 730/1s, and no 730s with 3+2 seating.

 

[Wolfie]

The original plan was for 29 730/1s with 3+2 seating and 16 730/2s with 2+2 seating. That has been changed to 36 730/2s. There will not be any 730/1s, and no 730s with 3+2 seating.

TY. I'd missed that. Appreciated.

I'm assuming that the other 9 are destined for EW rail or have they been cancelled?

 

[778]

TY. I'd missed that. Appreciated.

I'm assuming that the other 9 are destined for EW rail or have they been cancelled?

There will only be 36 5 car 730s insted of 45. The order for the 3 car 730s was increased from 36 to 48.

That works out as 9 less coaches overall, but 6 more coaches with driving cabs.

 

[Wolfie]

There will only be 36 5 car 730s insted of 45. The order for the 3 car 730s was increased from 36 to 48.

That works out as 9 less coaches overall, but 6 more coaches with driving cabs.

Ok. TY. Let me guess, cost neutral.

 

[Energy]

There will only be 36 5 car 730s insted of 45. The order for the 3 car 730s was increased from 36 to 48.

That works out as 9 less coaches overall, but 6 more coaches with driving cabs.

Originally London - Crewe would have been purely 730s, LNWR would have excess 350s so some were planned to work WMR services. The 730 order rebalance means WMR electric services are all 730s, and LNWR doesn't need to share 350s.

 

[Wolfie]

Originally London - Crewe would have been purely 730s, LNWR would have excess 350s so some were planned to work WMR services. The 730 order rebalance means WMR electric services are all 730s, and LNWR doesn't need to share 350s.

Sounds sensible.

 

[778]

Originally London - Crewe would have been purely 730s, LNWR would have excess 350s so some were planned to work WMR services. The 730 order rebalance means WMR electric services are all 730s, and LNWR doesn't need to share 350s.

Will London - Crewe and Birmingham - Liverpool be worked by both 350s and 730s?

 

[liamf656]

If we're using crayons for the 350/2 fleet I'd have refurbished them to include 2+2 seating, tables and get them over to EMR to replace the 360s. Ticketless travel will decrease and there might be more chance in 12 car running

 

[Merle Haggard]

If we're using crayons for the 350/2 fleet I'd have refurbished them to include 2+2 seating, tables and get them over to EMR to replace the 360s. Ticketless travel will decrease and there might be more chance in 12 car running

From experience of travelling about once a week since the 360s werevintroduced, the lack of gangways is not the reason that tickets aren't checked ...

 

[stan claire]

Here's my (very delusional) opinion on the matter that certainly won't happen.
They should send them to Northern to work alongside the 323s and 331s in the north west. Refurbish them to a high standard similar to the CAFs and the 158s.

Divert the Scotland TPE via Chat Moss (and maybe the Airport - Cumbria) and use the freed path to introduce an hourly Bolton - Stalybridge local service. I've definitely seen a thread somewhere saying almost all tickets sold at these local stations are either Bolton or Manchester so this shouldn't be much of an inconvenience to these passengers. It would also mean the Wigan to Stalybridge service can run non-stop to Salford and can use double 323s, that way 6 cars can operate through Westhoughton once the wires are up and give an extra commuter service for Bolton to Manchester, which can get rather crowded during the peaks (and demand for Bolton - Manchester rail services seems to be increasing). People going from Bolton to Manchester can cram onto the service starting there without getting onto an already busy service from Blackburn, Wigan or Preston.

They could also bring back the Manchester Victoria - Preston service possibly making it start at Stalybridge to give 2tph to Ashton. That still leaves quite a few units still, which could be used to eliminate 3-car workings on services such as Manchester to Liverpool, Manchester to Hadfield and Liverpool to Wigan/Blackpool.

Convert a few to battery units to use on the Windermere branch. This could also give the option for hourly Manchester to Windermere (via Bolton) and hourly Manchester to Barrow (via Wigan) services, but that one probably wouldn't go down well in Castlefield unless one went to Victoria (maybe even battery to Rochdale?) and the other to the airport. The only potential issue could be a decrease in capacity on the morning diagram. Depending on range, these could also operate to Barrow or Southport, but Barrow services are usually packed as it is and needs more 6-car diagrams rather than 3 or 4.

Increase Manchester Airport - Liverpool to 2tph. This could easily be done with more rolling stock and hiring some extra crew, the main issue would be pathing through Castlefield. Could potentially operate from Victoria or Warrington? The 350s could bring back the EMU Manchester - Hazel Grove service which currently runs fully under the wires. A couple other units could also act as a contingency fleet for the 6-cars, from experience 4 vice 6 at peak on Manchester to Bolton is definitely not as bad as a 3 vice 6 would be

Or in a really fantasy world, select Manchester - Blackpool diagrams could be formed of an 8-car 350 (or even some 8 car 331/1s with 350s on 331/1 routes). Some platforms would need extending, however they could easily avoid having to do every station by only using them on the xx22 Blackpool and xx17 Airport departures and then using SDO in the peaks. Buckshaw should be easy (from what I've heard it was built with the clearance and permission for 8 car extension should it be needed in the future), Chorley could get away with extending to the southern end and Horwich has more than enough clearance at the north end. Other stations will be able to use SDO (or whatever the 350's version is) or ASDO could be fitted if that's possible, Blackrod and Adlington don't really have that high demand anyway off-peak so they should get away with keeping the current lengths. With ASDO it's possible that more services could run as an 8-car formation, freeing up other 6-cars for whoever needs it most

Should every idea actually become a thing (it won't) it'd bring much needed capacity to some northwest commuter services, as well as increasing capacity for others. Some other routes that I've not mentioned could also benefit from extra units. I don't know if these suggestions would use all 30-odd of them, but still an interesting idea regardless.

 

[Northerngirl]

I think northerns routes around Manchester are a very good use, they presumably still have all the equipment at the Siemens Ardwick depot, and 30 is enough to run a frequent service on a couple of the lines, while freeing up 331s for doubleing on other routes.
In a completely fictional world, tgfm could buy and opperate them as a bee network service

 

[anthony263]

I'd fit them.with batteries and 3rd rail shoes and give some to GWR to use on the Reading to Gatwick Airport route that all going to plan.ahould free up a few class 165/166's maybe even the Reading to Newbury service to extend it to Bedwyn as long as. There's enough range on the batteries ti do so and paths allow

 

[brad465]

I'd fit them.with batteries and 3rd rail shoes and give some to GWR to use on the Reading to Gatwick Airport route that all going to plan.ahould free up a few class 165/166's maybe even the Reading to Newbury service to extend it to Bedwyn as long as. There's enough range on the batteries ti do so and paths allow

Ideally OHLE would be extended to Bedwyn (and beyond in time) to allow an all electric service to run from London, while IETs utilise electric for longer.

 

[317 forever]

There may be a glaring reason why this might not be feasible. I had seen a suggestion that they could be converted to 3rd rail and transferred to SWR, but they risk having too many trains once the 701s are finally in service.

So, maybe they could still be converted to 3rd rail and replace 465/66s on South Eastern?

 

[Mikey C]

There may be a glaring reason why this might not be feasible. I had seen a suggestion that they could be converted to 3rd rail and transferred to SWR, but they risk having too many trains once the 701s are finally in service.

So, maybe they could still be converted to 3rd rail and replace 465/66s on South Eastern?

They're not metro trains though. Especially with their really slow doors!

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'd fit them.with batteries and 3rd rail shoes and give some to GWR to use on the Reading to Gatwick Airport route that all going to plan.ahould free up a few class 165/166's maybe even the Reading to Newbury service to extend it to Bedwyn as long as. There's enough range on the batteries ti do so and paths allow

This isn't a bad idea IF Reading to Gatwick was transferred to SWR (and maybe also Reading to Basingstoke). I don't think Porterbrook would necessarily be inclined to work with GWR on a conversion project of this style again, given the 769 fiasco.
It would make a lot of sense if Reading to Gatwick was SWR anyway, as there would be a single operator using the lines east out of Reading towards Wokingham, and SWR already operate some Sunday services from Reading to Basingstoke.

 

[Nym]

/This isn't a bad idea IF Reading to Gatwick was transferred to SWR (and maybe also Reading to Basingstoke). I don't think Porterbrook would necessarily be inclined to work with GWR on a conversion project of this style again, given the 769 fiasco.
It would make a lot of sense if Reading to Gatwick was SWR anyway, as there would be a single operator using the lines east out of Reading towards Wokingham, and SWR already operate some Sunday services from Reading to Basingstoke.

The 769/9 fiasco was very much exacerbated by the requirements of GWR to have all of the modern features available on what is a 1980s unit, the depth of "Nothing to do with traction" mods done is frankly ridiculous, then take into account the minimum cost bids to design and install this equipment and it's easy to see how it ended up being a complete farce.

If the 350/2s were to be "FLEX'd" then it would likely go much better if it where contracted to Siemens and/or did not try and lump in a mountain of interior mods from low cost companies installed by GRS.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The 769/9 fiasco was very much exacerbated by the requirements of GWR to have all of the modern features available on what is a 1980s unit, the depth of "Nothing to do with traction" mods done is frankly ridiculous, then take into account the minimum cost bids to design and install this equipment and it's easy to see how it ended up being a complete farce.

If the 350/2s were to be "FLEX'd" then it would likely go much better if it where contracted to Siemens and/or did not try and lump in a mountain of interior mods from low cost companies installed by GRS.

Definitely, but frankly the routes I mentioned would work better with SWR anyway (if you were able to fit shoes for the 3rd rail sections and have them as 3rd rail/OHLE/battery tri modes).

 

[JonathanH]

Definitely, but frankly the routes I mentioned would work better with SWR anyway (if you were able to fit shoes for the 3rd rail sections and have them as 3rd rail/OHLE/battery tri modes).

In what way? SWR don't have a traincrew depot at Reading and a relatively limited number of sidings at Guildford. The pattern of services makes sense to have the earliest services start at Reading and latest services end there.

It would be interesting to know how easily the cyclic working to get units into and out of Northam could be made to work with the 350/2s running on the line (or indeed whether conversion of ten 450s displaced by 701s could do the job better).

 

[AlastairFraser]

SWR don't have a traincrew depot

Surely staff could be TUPE'd across?

a relatively limited number of sidings at Guildford

This is only relevant with the Reading to Gatwick services, and in any case, units could be stabled in the platforms at Reading, no?

 

[JonathanH]

So, without going too far into speculative territory, said batteries would fit in the undercroft of a 4 car 350/2?

That seems to be going a long way into speculative territory, particularly as they would also have to be set up for third rail. Would Porterbrook actually make the investment in the 350/2s in a relatively limited battery range on the basis of one route? It would make a lot more sense to go to Angel Trains and see if they will put that battery capacity under a small fleet of SWR's 450s.

Seems to be an opportunity to play the leasing companies off each other.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It would make a lot more sense to go to Angel Trains and see if they will put that battery capacity under a small fleet of SWR's 450s.

Perhaps, but the 450s might be needed for other services. Maybe the initial batch could be converted from 450s and trial it that way.

 

[D365]

From the LNWR Class 350/2 withdrawals thread…

Tis a shame, as you'd assume there'd be a deal somewhere for one leasing company to refurb the 350/2s and sell them to the other firm. Fix the simple things like toilets and there's another 20 years left in those sets.

Are you suggesting that a different ROSCO would have better odds of leasing the 350/2s instead of Porterbrook?

 

[185]

From the LNWR Class 350/2 withdrawals thread…

Are you suggesting that a different ROSCO would have better odds of leasing the 350/2s instead of Porterbrook?

Seems to be a long standing dislike/ spat / war between the operator and them, so yes.

 

[D365]

Seems to be a long standing dislike/ spat / war between the operator and them, so yes.

Notwithstanding the fact that the 172 /2 and /3 subclasses are owned by Porterbrook and did not get replaced by additional Class 196s.

I suspect the off-leasing of the 350/2s is, in part, a bi-product of the 323s replacement. Porterbrook was determined to transfer the Northern 323s to West Mids. Obviously this never happened.

 

[185]

Notwithstanding the fact that the 172 /2 and /3 subclasses are owned by Porterbrook and did not get replaced by additional Class 196s.

I suspect the off-leasing of the 350/2s is, in part, a bi-product of the 323s replacement. Porterbrook was determined to transfer the Northern 323s to West Mids. Obviously this never happened.

All goes down to the original deal done, the price in the 172 contact was probably far better value than the legacy 350 one originally done 15 years ago. It's a pretty fair guess that the operator TUK (was abellio) tried over the years to renegotiate the price and reached the point of frustration with Porterloo.