Future of the 350/2s

[Mamorin]

I would have thought that after the 769 issues Porterbrook would not want to go anywhere near upcycling old trains.

Last mention of Porterbrook converting 350/2s to batteries was 2018, and back then Porterbrook was only considering doing that there was no commitment.

Porterbrook has said nothing about battery 350/2s since 2018 afaik.

 

[AlastairFraser]

There's an extremely long list of reasons why a 350/2 could, but shouldn't be converted to a Battery-Electric multiple unit. Mostly around the configuration of the existing dual voltage equipment, and the lack of underframe space available in giant blocks.
It would be rather challenging to make the changes to build it.

Although the 769 was a rather large challenge that was to a degree overcome, the work needed to do so was very much under-estimated at the time.

If you want batteries on an MU, just buy one built for it in the first place.

Would BEMUs 350/2s need to keep dual voltage equipment (unless used as part of the charging equipment setup, but then you'd only need some of the dual voltage setup).

 

[Nym]

Would BEMUs 350/2s need to keep dual voltage equipment (unless used as part of the charging equipment setup, but then you'd only need some of the dual voltage setup).

You’d basically be starting again with all of the 750V wiring and changeover control. Hence it really isn’t worth it. Especially when you’ll only get around 11m of battery packs on the underframe of the +400 (TCOL) car.
The 750V traction buses don’t “stop off” anywhere on the +400 running direct end to end. And there’s nothing in the +300 (PTOSL(W)) car to feed anything “back” into that bus for cross feeding into any form of battery charger while on AC.

Before someone asks, the DMS cars wouldn’t have any underframe space once you fit line contactors, unless you’d like to count the space used by the compressor one one but not the other.

 

[D365]

You’d basically be starting again with all of the 750V wiring and changeover control. Hence it really isn’t worth it. Especially when you’ll only get around 11m of battery packs on the underframe of the +400 (TCOL) car.
The 750V traction buses don’t “stop off” anywhere on the +400 running direct end to end. And there’s nothing in the +300 (PTOSL(W)) car to feed anything “back” into that bus for cross feeding into any form of battery charger while on AC.

Before someone asks, the DMS cars wouldn’t have any underframe space once you fit line contactors, unless you’d like to count the space used by the compressor one one but not the other.

In a very similar vein, it’s quite telling that the proposal for battery conversion of Class 450s came from SWR (First Group) senior leadership rather than from any of their engineering or fleet teams.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Since this is speculative discussion, what stops the batteries being placed in a "power pack" form somewhere that is currently seating. Yes, we all want more seats, but if a 4-car 350/2 becomes 3.5 car, it is still more than a 3-car 195 or a 3-car 323.

My understanding is that class 350 carriages are shorter than class 323 carriages and as such a 4-car 350/2 already has fewer seats than a 3-car 323.

Concept wise though, that is something I've wondered myself, whilst wondering if cramming all the new equipment below the solebar is part of the problem with the existing conversions (230, 769...). The "purpose built" bi-modes seem to locate equipment elsewhere - Stadler units in the "power pack" vehicles and IIRC the Hitachi bi-modes seem to have quite large "cupboards" in the vestibules? Bi-modes I've seen in France (Alston units, I think) seem to have a lot of roof mounted equipment, but they obviously benefit from a more generous loading guage.

 

[BerkshireRails]

My understanding is that class 350 carriages are shorter than class 323 carriages and as such a 4-car 350/2 already has fewer seats than a 3-car 323.

That is correct the 350s have 20m carriages and the 323s have 23m carriages.

 

[Mamorin]

My understanding is that class 350 carriages are shorter than class 323 carriages and as such a 4-car 350/2 already has fewer seats than a 3-car 323.

Yes 350/2s do have less seating than a 323.

323s have 277 seats where as 350/2s have 246 standard class seats and 24 first class seats.

 

[YorksLad12]

Yes 350/2s do have less seating than a 323.

323s have 277 seats where as 350/2s have 246 standard class seats and 24 first class seats.

If the first class seats are 2+1, converting them to 2+2 would give you 32; plus 246 gives you 278. Is 4x20m better or worse than 3x23m?

 

[BerkshireRails]

If the first class seats are 2+1, converting them to 2+2 would give you 32; plus 246 gives you 278. Is 4x20m better or worse than 3x23m?

I have a feeling it is 2+2 on the 350/2s.

 

[YSTrains]

ScotRail have a tender out for new trains which will replace the 318s and 320s as well as other older stock.

Hmm... 55 3 car 318s and 320s vs 37 4 car 350/2s. But for some reason, the 350/2s make sense for ScotRail as other operators dont need these trains.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I have a feeling it is 2+2 on the 350/2s.

Correct, the former first class area on 350/2s is 2+2 seating

 

[Mamorin]

If you take into account standing passenger numbers a 350/2 does have a better total capacity than the a 323.

However I feel that any future operator for the 350/2s would only care about the seating capacity.

With no way to increase the seating capacity to match that of a 323 I can't see Northern taking the 350/2s.

GTR could still take them, as don't a lot of GTR trains have First Class?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seating or standee capacity? Removing the third seat to create more standing capacity may be better.

 

[Mamorin]

A 350/2 has a higher standing capacity than a 323, and a 350/2 has a higher total capacity standing + seating than a 323.

 

[bramling]

If you take into account standing passenger numbers a 350/2 does have a better total capacity than the a 323.

However I feel that any future operator for the 350/2s would only care about the seating capacity.

With no way to increase the seating capacity to match that of a 323 I can't see Northern taking the 350/2s.

GTR could still take them, as don't a lot of GTR trains have First Class?

I can’t see GTR being interested. The numbers don’t really match up for replacing the GN Electrostars, and even if they did all they would do is introduce a load of inflexibility should requirements change in the future. Also, the last thing GN needs is any more changes, just bringing in the similar 379s has been painful enough.

What would, on paper, work involving GTR would be replacing the GWR 387s and concentrating the 387 fleet on GTR. But this is still something of a solution looking for a problem, until such time as GTR needs a big increase in rolling stock. Plus it’s possible a total Metro fleet replacement on Southeastern might well release the 707s, at which point GTR would be the only place they could realistically go, to take over selected Southern metro services.

The whole thing is another mess which traces back to the DFT’s scoring franchise bids on quality, resulting in too many EMUs being procured. The logical place for the 350/2s was the WCML where they came from. Another option might have been conversion to DC and used to bolster the SWR fleet, but they too many new trains too.

 

[BerkshireRails]

In a very similar vein, it’s quite telling that the proposal for battery conversion of Class 450s came from SWR (First Group) senior leadership rather than from any of their engineering or fleet teams.

I think the 450 Battery idea isn't going to happen as it will just be easier to get a new fleet of units. This probably also means West of England won't get third rail.

I also imagine as SWR only had a few months left they just did what they liked in suggesting how it could be operated in the future.

 

[AlastairFraser]

You’d basically be starting again with all of the 750V wiring and changeover control. Hence it really isn’t worth it. Especially when you’ll only get around 11m of battery packs on the underframe of the +400 (TCOL) car.
The 750V traction buses don’t “stop off” anywhere on the +400 running direct end to end. And there’s nothing in the +300 (PTOSL(W)) car to feed anything “back” into that bus for cross feeding into any form of battery charger while on AC.

Before someone asks, the DMS cars wouldn’t have any underframe space once you fit line contactors, unless you’d like to count the space used by the compressor one one but not the other.

Ah OK, so you'd have to rip out a lot of the existing power electronics and replace it. Fair enough.

 

[YorksLad12]

I have a feeling it is 2+2 on the 350/2s.

Correct, the former first class area on 350/2s is 2+2 seating

Ah. Is it 3+2 in Standard? Either way you’d still be adding 25% more seats into the former First Class area (assuming it’s declassified!) but instead of one seat more you have one seat less as you'd be adding six, not eight.

Mind you, I have an intense dislike of 3+2 seating, especially in bays, so we’d need to reform them into 5-car sets with 2+2 seating before I'd board one

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mind you, I have an intense dislike of 3+2 seating, especially in bays, so we’d need to reform them into 5-car sets with 2+2 seating before I'd board one

The bay seating on the /2s is quite good - it is window aligned and at first class spacing. It's also great for families.

 

[deltic08]

I can’t see GTR being interested. The numbers don’t really match up for replacing the GN Electrostars, and even if they did all they would do is introduce a load of inflexibility should requirements change in the future. Also, the last thing GN needs is any more changes, just bringing in the similar 379s has been painful enough.

What would, on paper, work involving GTR would be replacing the GWR 387s and concentrating the 387 fleet on GTR. But this is still something of a solution looking for a problem, until such time as GTR needs a big increase in rolling stock. Plus it’s possible a total Metro fleet replacement on Southeastern might well release the 707s, at which point GTR would be the only place they could realistically go, to take over selected Southern metro services.

The whole thing is another mess which traces back to the DFT’s scoring franchise bids on quality, resulting in too many EMUs being procured. The logical place for the 350/2s was the WCML where they came from. Another option might have been conversion to DC and used to bolster the SWR fleet, but they too many new trains too.

If conversion of 350/2s to BEMUs is successful, then a home is waiting for them on GWR on the Paddington-Didcot-Oxford and Paddington/Reading-Newbury-Bedwyn services. This would release some 387s that could be cascaded to GTR, some badly needed turbos for elsewhere on GWR and the odd 800/X.

 

[tfw756rider]

Ah. Is it 3+2 in Standard? Either way you’d still be adding 25% more seats into the former First Class area (assuming it’s declassified!) but instead of one seat more you have one seat less as you'd be adding six, not eight.

Mind you, I have an intense dislike of 3+2 seating, especially in bays, so we’d need to reform them into 5-car sets with 2+2 seating before I'd board one

Yes, 350/2s are 3+2 in Standard and 2+2 in declassified First. The 350/2s are the only 350 subclass to have 3+2 seating, which (along with their higher mileage charges) was part of them originally being intended for normally shorter-distance commuter-type use.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Concept wise though, that is something I've wondered myself, whilst wondering if cramming all the new equipment below the solebar is part of the problem with the existing conversions (230, 769...). The "purpose built" bi-modes seem to locate equipment elsewhere - Stadler units in the "power pack" vehicles and IIRC the Hitachi bi-modes seem to have quite large "cupboards" in the vestibules? Bi-modes I've seen in France (Alston units, I think) seem to have a lot of roof mounted equipment, but they obviously benefit from a more generous loading guage.

Some people on here get very het up at the idea of any "wasted" space, even being critical of the "power pod" on the Stadler bi-mode units.

Having a power unit above the solebar was good enough for the Thumpers and the class 210 prototypes, so that idea maybe could have served the 769 project better- though IIRC someone knowledgeable mentioned way back when that project was first announced, that the 20m MK3 vehicles weren't designed to support the weight of a diesel engine so it would be a complex task making it work.

 

[Nym]

Some people on here get very het up at the idea of any "wasted" space, even being critical of the "power pod" on the Stadler bi-mode units.

Having a power unit above the solebar was good enough for the Thumpers and the class 210 prototypes, so that idea maybe could have served the 769 project better- though IIRC someone knowledgeable mentioned way back when that project was first announced, that the 20m MK3 vehicles weren't designed to support the weight of a diesel engine so it would be a complex task making it work.

The 20m Mk.3 can support it just fine, but it needed a fair few changes to the suspension and packers due to the extra weight, since the PMS (Pantograph Motor Standard) car is around the same mass, but on different bogies.

I also strongly suspect that those getting het up about wasted space on things like the Stadler units, also adore HSTs and loco hauled LDPE (Long Distance Passenger Express) stock?

 

[BerkshireRails]

I have read this and Northern Railway have confirmed that they are not interested in taking on the 350/2s. You are talking about commercially confidential items.

That doesn't look to be strictly true as they have run a 3rd test run post the posting of that article.

Credit = Piddly Stations Guy

The third test run was on the night of 2/3 of September 2025.

 

[87015]

That doesn't look to be strictly true as they have run a 3rd test run post the posting of that article.
Credit = Piddly Stations Guy

But none of these are Northern operated, do you have a source of their involvement rather than third parties PR purposes?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

But none of these are Northern operated, do you have a source of their involvement rather than third parties PR purposes?

I am at a loss as to how people are still spouting nonsense like this.

It's Northern staff on board doing the measurements and compliance checks, it's Northern routes, it's Northern procurement/contracts, project and commercial managers. They're being tested on Northern routes with a view as to how to operate them on Northern services. The Mayoral regions want Northern to operate them.

But no, the driver isn't from Northern.

Why on earth would it be for PR purposes, given allegedly respectable journalists seem to know nothing about this work!? Some people on this forum need to be a bit more grounded in reality. I'm at a loss as to why people seem so against this!

 

[BerkshireRails]

But none of these are Northern operated, do you have a source of their involvement rather than third parties PR purposes?

If northern/(Bee Network) aren't interested they won't be operating them on test runs, because there would be no business case to operate them on the Glossop Line.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

If northern/(Bee Network) aren't interested they won't be operating them on test runs, because there would be no business case to operate them on the Glossop Line.

There isn't a business case to operate them on the Glossop line in particular - it's just part of the overall testing and feasibility tasks. They're unlikely to operate to Glossop on a frequent basis if they do end up taking them on. It's more around the various services on the Crewe-Manchester-Liverpool/Wigan/Blackpool corridor.

But to run those more premium routes effectively, it's important the rolling stock can fit in with other secondary routes like Glossop.

 

[Mamorin]

That doesn't look to be strictly true as they have run a 3rd test run post the posting of that article.

Credit = Piddly Stations Guy

I remember those overnight tests that night.

The unit had some issue/issues I think as a lot of the tests runs that night did not happen.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I remember those overnight tests that night.

The unit had some issue/issues I think as a lot of the tests runs that night did not happen.

This photo is from the testing which happened last night? Are you referring to those tests or testing on a different night?