Future of the 350/2s

[BerkshireRails]

I'm sure you could modify the Cardiff services to be 387s, but what are those units meant to do in the peak and evening, and what do the released 80x units do during the day before they are needed at peak times. The fact is that Cardiff services essentially only operate for part of the day, and there is an 80x depot in Swansea.

Swansea wiring in 2030 still leaves a surplus of 350s not needed for five years.

The now free 5-car IETs could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth fast services to help relieve overcrowding and provide a second service an hour between Cardiff and Portsmouth, which would require 8 5-car IETs. 12-13 IETs would be freed from the 350/2s and 387s reshuffle, with an additional 5 coming from the South West with the 175 introduction. Also, this would allow for the North Cotswolds to continuously operate with 10-car IETs to Oxford and then 5-car to Worcester and another 5-car running to Banbury, which would allow for the withdrawal of the every other hour Didcot to Banbury stopper to be replaced by an hourly service instead which improves frequency and reduces overcrowding on Cross Country.

 

[JonathanH]

The now free 5-car IETs could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth fast services to help relieve overcrowding and provide a second service an hour between Cardiff and Portsmouth, which would require 8 5-car IETs. 12-13 IETs would be freed from the 350/2s and 387s reshuffle, with an additional 5 coming from the South West with the 175 introduction. Also, this would allow for the North Cotswolds to continuously operate with 10-car IETs to Oxford and then 5-car to Worcester and another 5-car running to Banbury, which would allow for the withdrawal of the every other hour Didcot to Banbury stopper to be replaced by an hourly service instead which improves frequency and reduces overcrowding on Cross Country.

That is all well and good, but if the IETs were used on Cardiff to Portsmouth, how would they get to Paddington to operate the half hourly peak flow service to Swansea.

Even if we wait for Swansea wiring in 2030, is there really a scenario where prime Paddington to Wales services use 350s or 387s, and 80x run a regional service from Cardiff to Portsmouth.

 

[BerkshireRails]

That is all well and good, but if the IETs were used on Cardiff to Portsmouth, how would they get to Paddington to operate the half hourly peak flow service to Swansea.

Even if we wait for Swansea wiring in 2030, is there really a scenario where prime Paddington to Wales services use 350s or 387s, and 80x run a regional service from Cardiff to Portsmouth.

Yes, there is a future with the 387s and 350s on the Wales services, and this is because they offer greater capacity than an IET; hence, they are used to replace IETs during major sporting events.

 

[Transilien]

Yes, there is a future with the 387s and 350s on the Wales services, and this is because they offer greater capacity than an IET; hence, they are used to replace IETs during major sporting events.

I can imagine the Welsh Government speaking out against this as this is essentially proposing that the primary route between the two capital cities of Cardiff and London should be ran by commuter/regional trains.

 

[amahy]

I can imagine the Welsh Government speaking out against this as this is essentially proposing that the primary route between the two capital cities of Cardiff and London should be ran by commuter/regional trains.

If you refurbished the 350/2s with a similar interior and seats to that of the other 350 subclasses, it’s not a bad idea. I’d much rather travel on a 350/1 long distance than a 387 or IET. Both GWR IET and 387 seats are pretty back-breaking.

 

[JonathanH]

If you refurbished the 350/2s with a similar interior and seats to that of the other 350 subclasses, it’s not a bad idea. I’d much rather travel on a 350/1 long distance than a 387 or IET. Both GWR IET and 387 seats are pretty back-breaking.

By that view, the 350s might as well be used on fast services from London to Birmingham (with some changes to pathing on the WCML). The route is already electrified, and the units available soon.

What has South Wales done to deserve a change in its rolling stock for London services that the West Midlands hasn't?

 

[Sonik]

By that view, the 350s might as well be used on fast services from London to Birmingham (with some changes to pathing on the WCML). The route is already electrified, and the units available soon.

That fits with a post HS2 scenario, but the 350s will be a bit long in the tooth by then.

Besides, LNW gave them back simply because the leases were too expensive.

 

[BerkshireRails]

By that view, the 350s might as well be used on fast services from London to Birmingham (with some changes to pathing on the WCML). The route is already electrified, and the units available soon.

What has South Wales done to deserve a change in its rolling stock for London services that the West Midlands hasn't?

The 350s are arguably better units than the Hitachi units in some respects.

 

[Nym]

By that view, the 350s might as well be used on fast services from London to Birmingham (with some changes to pathing on the WCML). The route is already electrified, and the units available soon.

What has South Wales done to deserve a change in its rolling stock for London services that the West Midlands hasn't?

Would rather be on a nicely seated Class 350 than any form of 80x any day of the week.

Mid doors aren't always a bad thing for long distance, look at the new Belgian / Dutch long distance trains with mid carriage doors...

 

[swt_passenger]

The now free 5-car IETs could be used on the Cardiff to Portsmouth fast services to help relieve overcrowding and provide a second service an hour between Cardiff and Portsmouth, which would require 8 5-car IETs.

That’s complete overkill for the max line speed on the Portsmouth Cardiff route isn’t it? None of the route allows for fast services, even the 158s don't run at their max for a majority of the route. I’d be very surprised if room for a second ‘GW’ path exists from Southampton to Portsmouth

 

[stevieinselby]

Mid doors aren't always a bad thing for long distance, look at the new Belgian / Dutch long distance trains with mid carriage doors...

For services that only have infrequent stops, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference – if the doors only open once or twice an hour, any negative impact on passengers is far less than if the train is stopping every 5 or 10 minutes!

 

[BerkshireRails]

For services that only have infrequent stops, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference – if the doors only open once or twice an hour, any negative impact on passengers is far less than if the train is stopping every 5 or 10 minutes!

350s and 387s can operate with a shorter dwell time than a IET.

That’s complete overkill for the max line speed on the Portsmouth Cardiff route isn’t it? None of the route allows for fast services, even the 158s don't run at their max for a majority of the route. I’d be very surprised if room for a second ‘GW’ path exists from Southampton to Portsmouth

IETs can at least run at 100mph on the Northern section of the route.

 

[The exile]

350s and 387s can operate with a shorter dwell time than a IET.

IETs can at least run at 100mph on the Northern section of the route.

But I suspect they’d come a cropper at whichever bridge it is that precluded HSTs (or repurposed 442s).

 

[Sonik]

Mid doors aren't always a bad thing for long distance

End doors do allow for more seats, at the expense of standing room and longer dwells.

Both types are optimised to their stopping pattern

 

[Nym]

End doors do allow for more seats, at the expense of standing room and longer dwells.

Both types are optimised to their stopping pattern

The amount of seating space available relates to the length of the vestibules, not the door positions.

 

[Sonik]

The amount of seating space available relates to the length of the vestibules, not the door positions.

Fair point

Most mid door stock though (including 350) has larger vestibules optimised for stoppers.

 

[Peter0124]

TPE ran 350s Glasgow - Manchester which is about 220+ miles
It used to be 185s aswell at one point. How times have changed

 

[The Ham]

That is all well and good, but if the IETs were used on Cardiff to Portsmouth, how would they get to Paddington to operate the half hourly peak flow service to Swansea.

Even if we wait for Swansea wiring in 2030, is there really a scenario where prime Paddington to Wales services use 350s or 387s, and 80x run a regional service from Cardiff to Portsmouth.

The way I would do it would be to run the relevant Portsmouth to Cardiff service to Swansea and then back to Paddington from there.

You could even (depending on the timetable) not have to run so many Paddington to Swansea services by running the Portsmouth services to Swansea instead to maintain the frequency to Swansea. Whilst that would put more pressure on the retained through services from London, there would likely be a bit of a rebalancing between services.

I’d be very surprised if room for a second ‘GW’ path exists from Southampton to Portsmouth

In which case run the extra service to Romsey via Eastleigh instead of the Salisbury 6 services. This would also mean that the net change in services between Salisbury and Southampton was zero.

It would also remove some of the trains terminating at Salisbury (which could allow other services to run), as well as freeing up 158's for use elsewhere.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

I wouldn't think that GWR would have the 350/2s and the 387s. I think that if GWR were to get the 350/2s, which I would doubt they will? I think that they will be giving up on the 387s.

 

[Failed Unit]

I wouldn't think that GWR would have the 350/2s and the 387s. I think that if GWR were to get the 350/2s, which I would doubt they will? I think that they will be giving up on the 387s.

I would agree, what do GWR get out of it? They have to retrain their entire staff. They have to refurbish the units as I can’t see customers wanting 3+2 seating. I could see no reason why they would want to do such a swap. Even in GTR land I understand the 350/2 have little in common with the 700 / 717s that they would have any value in taking them on to send the 387s south of the Thames.

 

[Brubulus]

I would agree, what do GWR get out of it? They have to retrain their entire staff. They have to refurbish the units as I can’t see customers wanting 3+2 seating. I could see no reason why they would want to do such a swap. Even in GTR land I understand the 350/2 have little in common with the 700 / 717s that they would have any value in taking them on to send the 387s south of the Thames.

The key factor will be the lease rates that can be secured for 350/2 compared to new units for Southeastern. How much the TOCs want the trains doesn't really matter at all, the DfT will be the driving force

 

[brad465]

The key factor will be the lease rates that can be secured for 350/2 compared to new units for Southeastern. How much the TOCs want the trains doesn't really matter at all, the DfT will be the driving force

Is the rough negotiated lease rate reduction (as a %) for 379s publicly disclosable, given they were very high beforehand?

If 350/2s do initiate yet another multi-stage cascade of units to Southeastern, perhaps alongside surplus 701s going there directly, at least it won't just be Northerners who bear the brunt of "redundant scraps" being sent to them to replace even older stuff. Speaking of Northern, they are after a massive new fleet too, so if 350/2s could reduce the size of a costly new fleet at Southeastern, they could just as easily do the same in the north instead.

 

[D365]

Speaking of Northern, they are after a massive new fleet too, so if 350/2s could reduce the size of a costly new fleet at Southeastern, they could just as easily do the same in the north instead.

Class 350/2s - be it through fitment of traction batteries or otherwise - won’t have the desired outcome of replacing Class 15x DMUs.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I wouldn't think that GWR would have the 350/2s and the 387s. I think that if GWR were to get the 350/2s, which I would doubt they will? I think that they will be giving up on the 387s.

It would allow them to better handle the sporting crowds as well as freeing up IETs and Turbos off the London to Oxfords and London to Bedwyn's services. This would allow GWR to increase frequency of some services as well. You could have a new half hourly London to Nwebury/Swindon/Oxford stopper which would split at Reading and Didcot Parkway and run as a 12 car between London and Reading, then an 8 car to Didcot and then 4 cars beyond. Also this would allow for the 387s to be used on Metro West once electrified which would allow for a better service.

Class 350/2s - be it through fitment of traction batteries or otherwise - won’t have the desired outcome of replacing Class 15x DMUs.

Considering Northern are already tendering the replacement of the 150s, 155s and 156s already I feel the 350/2s are just two late for Northern.

I would agree, what do GWR get out of it? They have to retrain their entire staff. They have to refurbish the units as I can’t see customers wanting 3+2 seating. I could see no reason why they would want to do such a swap. Even in GTR land I understand the 350/2 have little in common with the 700 / 717s that they would have any value in taking them on to send the 387s south of the Thames.

You would only retrain some of the London Thames Valley links which will sign the 350/2s, for example only Paddington links sign the Greenford Branch so your not training Penzance Links on the Class 230 for Greenford. It might make sense for Southern to take the 350/2s for the West Coast services and some London Suburban services, since a 5 car 377 is rather uncomfortable in rush hour on the West London Line and the 350/2s would allow for the restoration of 8 car West London services.

 

[465fan]

The reasons in favour of the 350s being taken to GWML, would need to be balanced.

During the course of the day, you need 12 units for the Didcot Parkway to Paddington services, assuming 8 coaches.

You also need 3 units for the Newbury to Paddington, which runs as a 4 car but has a 62 minute turnround at Paddington.

A further 2 units for the Newbury to Reading shuttle.

Unless I am missing anything, that's only 17 units. Even bolstering capacity at peak, and adding in any odds and sods, that's all there is. I doubt the Cardiff diagram is absolutely mandatory, but if Swindon drivers are the ones who are doing it, then they'd be signing 350s anyway as they already do Didcot to Paddington work?

Electrification to Oxford is not happening soon. Nor is Reading to Basingstoke, or anything like Newbury to Bedwyn, or the branches. So you're actually net gain, with the option of an increased use of 110mph 350s on other services as required (perhaps some Cardiff diagrams, perhaps in that way), to release more 80x fleet back for longer, better services between Cardiff and Bristol, or out West.

Quite bluntly, Heathrow Express is also not important. If you have to retain a microfleet of 387s for a short period for that service, then so be it. They will undoubtedly get replaced in due time, and the service may even fold.

So, all this in the round, this seems fine to me. And in return, you are sending a small heap of 387s with DC shoes off to be able to partially reshape the Southern route, homogenising the 387 fleet in Sussex. Or, you end up simultaneously replacing the Southeastern fleet in totality, which gives Southern plenty of units to choose from e.g. 377s, 387s and you can then start considering battery fitment if that's a serious idea for the Marshlink and the Uckfield, and possibly even the North Downs if you switch operators.

I don't have a view either way, but I don't think there's much reason to keep all those 387s on the Western, when you could potentially use them on all sorts of other services south of London.

 

[brad465]

Class 350/2s - be it through fitment of traction batteries or otherwise - won’t have the desired outcome of replacing Class 15x DMUs.

I was thinking more about their older EMU fleets, like 323s and/or 333s, and/or to have more EMUs as the TPU progresses.

 

[D365]

From the Class 350/2 withdrawal thread...

Unofficially, replacing 323s with some reformed to 3 cars. Nothing is true until it actually happens though.

Strange decision if that is true, considering they bought the ex-WMR 323's last year.

The Class 323 and Class 350/2 fleets are both Porterbrook owned. Unless Porterbrook and/or Northern specifically wants to redeploy the Class 350/2s, the only specific benefit I can think of is that it would make more economic sense to fit the 350/2s with ETCS, rather than the 323s. But even then, the Northern tender for new rolling stock will provide new build ETCS equipped EMUs.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

How possible even is refitting them to 3 carriages?

 

[D365]

How possible even is refitting them to 3 carriages?

It has been investigated. It's not impossible.

 

[E B]

Would the surplus of centre carriages form 5 car units for LNWR, if this would go ahead