Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's less cramped than the 323 - the sidewalls are quite thin and vertical.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Future of the 350/2s
- Thread starter Intercity110
- Start date
- Status
It's less cramped than the 323 - the sidewalls are quite thin and vertical.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Even so, the idea of being sat in between two people might make people not want to take the third seat on the 350/2s.
If the 350/2s were to go to Northern then we will see whether commuters on Northern will use the third seat in the bays at Peak Times.
Northern may in the end decide that after having considered taking the 350/2s not to take them, and right now Northern have said they have no commitment to take on the 350/2s.
The trials for services in North West England could just he that trials and that Northern was in the best position to help with the trials.
If the 350/2s were to go to Northern then we will see whether commuters on Northern will use the third seat in the bays at Peak Times.
Northern may in the end decide that after having considered taking the 350/2s not to take them, and right now Northern have said they have no commitment to take on the 350/2s.
The trials for services in North West England could just he that trials and that Northern was in the best position to help with the trials.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They do on e.g. 150s.
BerkshireRails
On Moderation
It would probably be the same people who use the 3rd seat on a 323. Plus it seems to be a bolted on third seat on the 350/450s from having crawled under them to pick up an item I dropped.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Removing it to create a wide aisle and lots of walk-through standing space might be a good plan then!
That is some good future proofing by Siemens, making it so the train's seating can be changed to at least 2+2 if needed.
Last edited:
sprinterguy
Veteran Member
4 roads each 350m in length could accommodate a total of 16 class 350s, or alternately 20 class 323s with no room for manoeuvre.
There are plenty of reasons why the refresh may have been pushed back, e.g. questions over funding, quotes being higher than expected, issues with sourcing materials, decisions over the specification.
It's not necessarily anything to do with the 350s.
In what ways will Crewe change
At the moment its hourly via Manchester Airport and hourly via Stockport
From December 2026, LNWR want to serve Manchester Airport, could this replace the Northern service. Ideally it would be complementary and quicker
Bee Network plan to take over local services in 2028 with those operating to Alderley Edge likely to be under this umbrella as well as Manchester Airport stoppers - which could impact the Crewe local services?
Lewisham2221
Established Member
There were rumours about the Stoke service being extended to Stafford and the Crewe services extended to Stoke at some point, but I'm not aware of them being anything other than rumours at the moment.
I assume to replace LNWR Crewe - Stoke - Stafford and not complement?
Not sure if there's track capacity on the single 3mile track between Crewe and Alsager for 2 more trains an hour
I can see Crewe to Stoke happening, all it would take is drivers being trained on the route from Crewe to Kidsgrove and then it's all fine from there.
Well assuming there is pathing space that is.
Stoke stoppers being extended to Stafford would be tricky, given Northern drivers would need a lot more route training.
As I've said before extending Stoke Stoppers to Stafford would be better served by Northern using 350/2s instead of 323s.
Given the 350/2s are already cleared to Stafford and can run at 110mph.
323s only having a top speed of 90mph might become an issue south of Stoke.
Several Northern drivers already sign that route which should also make it easier.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Stoke-Stone Jn is 90mph PS max, Stone station itself is 25mph, the Norton Bridge flyover is 100mph, so I reckon 323s might be ok.
Last edited:
Tazi Hupefi
On Moderation
Northern already sign Crewe to Stoke via Alsager and run 2 x trains that way each day, 5K45 and 5H46. They may also sign a short distance beyond Stoke for shunts. Northern also sign routes like Liverpool-Runcorn-Crewe and possibly Crewe-Warrington-Wigan.
"Northern" signing Stoke to Stafford/Rugeley wouldn't take too long, and there's plenty of traincrew available who already sign it. That is one of the benefits of GBR, you don't create artificial boundaries or problems. West Midlands Trains staff will work for the same organisation as Northern staff. It won't be a Northern service, it will be a GBR (North West and Central region) service.
Either way route and traction knowledge won't be an issue, there will be staff available who sign both.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
I don't know about Crewe-Warrington but I do see the occasional ECS from Warrington - Wigan
I was unaware that some Northern drivers already singed Crewe to Stoke.
323s possibly only just being ok may not be good enough for Network Rail given how busy the West Coast Mainline is.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This post was made by Alex Hornby today.
It mentions " Bigger trains on selected journeys in the North West" in December.
This is ether 350/2s, or some routes getting 4 car sprinters.
More information will be made public later this month.
Last edited:
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,187
The use of the word ’bigger’ could imply something different altogether
(although the bigger trains that I am insinuating would be entirely off-topic).We will just have to see what Northern announces later this month.
Though I will admit I don't expect Northern to annonce they are taking on the 350/2s in December.
This announcement will most likely be more sprinters or more 769s, but only Northern and perhaps a ROSCO know.
Though I will admit I don't expect Northern to annonce they are taking on the 350/2s in December.
This announcement will most likely be more sprinters or more 769s, but only Northern and perhaps a ROSCO know.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I can't imagine them getting them into service in less than a year given the training etc required.
Kite159
Veteran Member
..
Or a 3 coach 331 getting replaced with a 4 coach 331, hence bigger.
It will probably be a service which is certainly a single 331 being made into a double 323.
Or a 3 coach 331 getting replaced with a 4 coach 331, hence bigger.
Stupid me for forgetting how long the 350/2 training would take.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That would be a bit under whelming for a big announcement, but it would make sense.
Trainbike46
Established Member
I figured the 769s would be heading for retirement fairly soon, and where would they be getting more sprinters from?
769s won't be retiring until phase 2 of Northern's new trains tender I would have thought.
More than enough 769s sat in storage to get spare parts from if needed for a good while.
In terms of Sprinters I was thinking Northern would just use some sets they have that are unused each day to from double units.
I don't follow full unit allocations, so I have no idea how many of Northern's sprinters are in use each day, I just know its a lot.
Anyway I feel we are getting a bit off topic.
Described in the internal brief as "small but meaningful tweaks to allocations to better match available rolling stock to passenger demand" - i.e. just using existing stock better.
It's a tweet about the wider December timetable change, not a "big announcement" about longer trains, so not sure where you got that idea from.
Thanks for that information.
I just thought that it was underwhelming in a way given how big some of the other December timetable changes mentioned in the tweet are.
Anyway its now completely off topic given that tweet now has nothing to do with the 350/2s.
Southern Dvr
Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 991
Will run out of room at Wembley before much longer. The units there are all still ‘pan up’ and cut in. However if there’s not any encouraging news soon I suspect they’ll be be headed to Sims soon enough.
That prospect seems so wasteful, but here we are...
Was there anything stopping the ROSCO from lowering the leasing costs on these a few years ago for WMR, rather than them ordering new 730s? It looks, from the outside, to be a rather expensive error of judgement from the ROSCO.
Southern Dvr
Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 991
I’m
When Silverlink did themselves of the 508/3s the ROSCO sent them to Donngington (I think) and thought that Merseyrail would pay an extortionate leasing cost. End result was they just went to scrap some 15 years before the rest of the 507/508 units did.
I don’t believe there is a future redeployment for these units, I’d like to be wrong but they’re looking destined for Sims.
When Silverlink did themselves of the 508/3s the ROSCO sent them to Donngington (I think) and thought that Merseyrail would pay an extortionate leasing cost. End result was they just went to scrap some 15 years before the rest of the 507/508 units did.
I don’t believe there is a future redeployment for these units, I’d like to be wrong but they’re looking destined for Sims.
tfw756rider
On Moderation
I'm going to "ruin" my post count (to 757) for this.
It would be absolutely awful if the 350/2s were scrapped, as we should be getting rid of ex-British Rail units before we get rid of relatively modern "post-privatisation" units like 350s (yes, I know the 332s and two of the 360/2s were scrapped, but they were non-standard).
Hopefully, with the testing with Northern, something can be sorted out, and Porterbrook could surely afford to adjust the 350/2s' "higher leasing costs" (actually higher mileage charges from what I understand) if it meant that these assets of theirs would continue to be used.
It would be absolutely awful if the 350/2s were scrapped, as we should be getting rid of ex-British Rail units before we get rid of relatively modern "post-privatisation" units like 350s (yes, I know the 332s and two of the 360/2s were scrapped, but they were non-standard).
Hopefully, with the testing with Northern, something can be sorted out, and Porterbrook could surely afford to adjust the 350/2s' "higher leasing costs" (actually higher mileage charges from what I understand) if it meant that these assets of theirs would continue to be used.
99009
Member
+1 with the above, totally agree. I think they will (and should) end up at Northern to replace the 323's, or work alongside them given the service expansion previously discussed. If they don't end up at Northern then the only other solution I can think of is to send them to GWR so the 387's can go to Southern, so more 377's can go to Southeastern. Whatever happens, they shouldn't be scrapped, that would be awful.
- Status