Future of the 350/2s

[43096]

Well. I would say that Clinnock has connections with TOC and ROSCO, and they have told him that? If you don't want to believe in what Richard Clinnock has to say in that? Then, I would very much advise all of you to write to ROSCO, the TOCs, Northern, and last but not least, Porterbrook, and see what their response is. It could be the same thing, after all.

Have you actually read what has been written above? Do you understand how commercial confidentiality works?

Clinnick is a journalist - he is not going to be told about commercially confidential items. End of.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Well. I would say that Clinnock has connections with TOC and ROSCO, and they have told him that? If you don't want to believe in what Richard Clinnock has to say in that? Then, I would very much advise all of you to write to ROSCO, the TOCs, Northern, and last but not least, Porterbrook, and see what their response is. It could be the same thing, after all.

They are probably saying nope to prevent creating hope for the 350/2s with Northern until they have worked out they will be able to operate with Northern. They probably don't want to have GWR 769 style situation with the 350/2s, so it is easier to say nope until they have got everything ready then they will say publicly yes unless the Bee Network will be operationally separate then that might explain it as they will work for the Bee network and not Northern.

 

[bluenoxid]

‘they are not going to Northern’ is completely true until the ink dries on the documentation.

 

[Nym]

Well. I would say that Clinnock has connections with TOC and ROSCO, and they have told him that? If you don't want to believe in what Richard Clinnock has to say in that? Then, I would very much advise all of you to write to ROSCO, the TOCs, Northern, and last but not least, Porterbrook, and see what their response is. It could be the same thing, after all.

NDAs exist, and some people take them seriously.

If members of the press have previously been leaky, such as this one seems to have been, then it's very likely they won't be told.

 

[Clarence Yard]

There are clauses in every TOCs NRC that effectively states that the DfT has the power to dictate what a TOC can and cannot say about anything.

They are now particularly paranoid about rolling stock deployment, particularly sensitive about newer stock standing spare and every “new” deployment has to be a possible PR opportunity for the Department, so nothing is said until they are entirely happy.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

As I've said earlier here, this is a political issue, and is being pushed by the Mayors and local politicians. The wider government is on board with anything that improves the optics of the North receiving enhancements of all description, including trains. It is simply a question of timing - they need this to generate a good bit of spin, probably at a future time when they need a boost or diversion.

Nobody is confirming anything because financials and viability assessments are still in progress. They can't announce something if it never comes to fruition because of costs etc. They are viable on some routes, others are proving less so, but still lots to consider.

I can't believe people on this forum genuinely believe a railway journalist somehow has the "real" intel. It's akin to asking the man on the ticket barrier to tell you what the latest railway rumours are!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't believe people on this forum genuinely believe a railway journalist somehow has the "real" intel.

They might well do, but if they do then it's going to be subject to a non-disclosure agreement. So they can't tell us either way - either because they don't know or they've been told not to.

Stuff does leak but it generally won't be from journalists, it'll be from staff.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Nobody is confirming anything because financials and viability assessments are still in progress. They can't announce something if it never comes to fruition because of costs etc. They are viable on some routes, others are proving less so, but still lots to consider.

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if they are more cautious on new rolling stock to the TOC because of the GWR 769s, and they never entered service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if they are more cautious on new rolling stock to the TOC because of the GWR 769s, and they never entered service.

Solid, reliable 350/2s and rotting scrap 769s that never really worked are rather different propositions.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

NDAs exist, and some people take them seriously.

If members of the press have previously been leaky, such as this one seems to have been, then it's very likely they won't be told.

I've never seen Richard Clinnick break an embargo; he has a high standard of integrity. However if a member of staff anywhere leaks something to a journalist and that something isn't already in an embargoed press release, it's fair game for the journalist to report it if they can do so without dropping their source in it - that's their job.

 

[sh24]

They could easily be going to Manchester suburban routes but not Northern if some form of Bee Network/TfL type structure is being cooked up. The trials could be a way for the ROSCO to signal a decent commercial deal for stock that represents a material upgrade on the 323 fleet, and in ride quality an upgrade on the 331's.

 

[D365]

I can't believe people on this forum genuinely believe a railway journalist somehow has the "real" intel. It's akin to asking the man on the ticket barrier to tell you what the latest railway rumours are!

Stuff does leak but it generally won't be from journalists, it'll be from staff.

Bear in mind that there are people on this forum that work [directly and indirectly] for Porterbrook and for Northern

 

[Anonymous10]

Northern are being persuaded to take 350s over 323s.

There isn't any more 323s to take?

 

[BerkshireRails]

There isn't any more 323s to take?

There is more 323s in store however how many are actually usable for services rather than spare donors.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

Have you actually read what has been written above? Do you understand how commercial confidentiality works?

Clinnick is a journalist - he is not going to be told about commercially confidential items. End of.

If you do not want to believe me or Clinnick? Then that is fine. If there were rumblings about Northern Railway getting the 350/2s, and it was confirmed by everyone who works in the Rail Industry? Then, yes. I would have said something that 350/2s are going to Northern so, before you start chewing my head off. I just think that your words were heavy-handed.

 

[tfw756rider]

Northern (or the Northern region train operation) might take on 350/2s, or it might not. Which, we don't yet know.

But what we have learned is that we can't take a definite statement (they will or they won't) as what definitely will or won't happen.

 

[skyhigh]

If there were rumblings about Northern Railway getting the 350/2s

There are.

and it was confirmed by everyone who works in the Rail Industry?

They are obviously not going to publicly confirm it when a) it's not confirmed and b) it's not public and discussions still confidential.

 

[The_Train]

I am very surprised to see a rumour mill of the 350s somehow ending the life of 323s with Northern. Haven't Northern just committed to a lease of more 323s and also gone through a process of training more drivers/guards on them for the additional routes they now operate on? Surely that is enough for people to see that even if Northern do get the 350/2s, it won't be to replace the 323s.

And for all the talk of "how old" the 323s are, I might be wrong here, but I believe that the time between the final 323 to be built and the first 350 to be built is less than 10 years.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I am very surprised to see a rumour mill of the 350s somehow ending the life of 323s with Northern. Haven't Northern just committed to a lease of more 323s and also gone through a process of training more drivers/guards on them for the additional routes they now operate on? Surely that is enough for people to see that even if Northern do get the 350/2s, it won't be to replace the 323s.

And for all the talk of "how old" the 323s are, I might be wrong here, but I believe that the time between the final 323 to be built and the first 350 to be built is less than 10 years.

The extra 323s were brought in to replace the 319s.

 

[Transilien]

And for all the talk of "how old" the 323s are, I might be wrong here, but I believe that the time between the final 323 to be built and the first 350 to be built is less than 10 years.

But they were built in THE NINETIES and ordered PRE PRIVATISATION . Only third world countries would still have trains running from that long ago!

 

[BerkshireRails]

I am very surprised to see a rumour mill of the 350s somehow ending the life of 323s with Northern. Haven't Northern just committed to a lease of more 323s and also gone through a process of training more drivers/guards on them for the additional routes they now operate on? Surely that is enough for people to see that even if Northern do get the 350/2s, it won't be to replace the 323s.

And for all the talk of "how old" the 323s are, I might be wrong here, but I believe that the time between the final 323 to be built and the first 350 to be built is less than 10 years.

That is correct for the 350/1s which are 2004-2005 however the subject of this thread is the 350/2s which are 2008-2009 built and the 323s are 1992-1995 built, which means the 350/2s are between 13-17 years younger than the 323s.

 

[tfw756rider]

And for all the talk of "how old" the 323s are, I might be wrong here, but I believe that the time between the final 323 to be built and the first 350 to be built is less than 10 years.

You're right for the youngest 323s vs. the oldest 350/1s or 350s in general (1995-2004, 9 years), but not for the youngest 323s vs. the oldest 350/2s (1995-2008, 13 years).

But there are also the oldest 323s and the youngest 350/2s (which would also be included in any replacement of the 323s with the 350/2s), and that would be 1992-2009, an age difference of 17 years.

Also, it's not just the age difference. 350s are more modern trains with air conditioning and decently intelligable Public Address systems etc.

 

[Trainbike46]

The extra 323s were brought in to replace the 319s.

Wikipedia reports that Northern have 34 323s, and that 9 are stored (and presumably off-lease)

Is that not correct then?

 

[The_Train]

The extra 323s were brought in to replace the 319s.

But the fact is they have been brought in and are therefore on lease with contractual obligations. Northern can't just drop them back to the ROSCO and tell them they have changed their mind. This is why I am so surprised the discussion is even being had!

 

[tfw756rider]

Wikipedia reports that Northern have 34 323s, and that 9 are stored (and presumably off-lease)

Is that not correct then?

"Extra 323s" as in the ones that were already transferred from West Midlands Trains to Northern.

 

[Trainbike46]

But the fact is they have been brought in and are therefore on lease with contractual obligations. Northern can't just drop them back to the ROSCO and tell them they have changed their mind. This is why I am so surprised the discussion is even being had!

They can be returned at the lease end point without problems though, and I suspect that's not too long into the future.

 

[bramling]

But they were built in THE NINETIES and ordered PRE PRIVATISATION . Only third world countries would still have trains running from that long ago!

From a passenger point of view, the main difference between the two is air conditioning. The seating is essentially similar and probably boils down to personal preference.

Operationally the 350 is less technologically obsolete, though may have issues with each unit being about 10 metres longer. I guess there’s also a slight operational benefit in that they have end gangways.

There’s also the costs of implementing a change, in particular staff training, and if any infrastructure alterations are required.

 

[The_Train]

They can be returned at the lease end point without problems though, and I suspect that's not too long into the future.

That will depend on how you view "not too long into the future"

 

[61653 HTAFC]

From a passenger point of view, the main difference between the two is air conditioning. The seating is essentially similar and probably boils down to personal preference.

Operationally the 350 is less technologically obsolete, though may have issues with each unit being about 10 metres longer. I guess there’s also a slight operational benefit in that they have end gangways.

There’s also the costs of implementing a change, in particular staff training, and if any infrastructure alterations are required.

Any advantage from end gangways is purely theoretical, as the chances of Northern running any 8-car formations is somewhere between zero and zilch.

 

[BerkshireRails]

But the fact is they have been brought in and are therefore on lease with contractual obligations. Northern can't just drop them back to the ROSCO and tell them they have changed their mind. This is why I am so surprised the discussion is even being had!

That depends on the contract they signed as they might be an early return clause in the contract which allows Northern to lets say give 1 month notice on the withdrawal of the units.