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!
Most Northern Guards would never have seen the interior of a 350
A 350/1 or 350/3 are ok but the 350/2 is quite cramped walking thru and not much different to a 323 with 2+3 seating
It's considerably different - because of the square profile it feels much less cramped, plus there is aircon. The 323 is really quite an old design now.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sorry, I meant the branch platform. I suppose it could be used for a terminating service while the train was up the other end (subject to possible signalling changes?), but that would mean poor connections. Adding another platform would be major work, and terminating services in the WCML platforms really wouldn't be viable.
Better seats than the new 730's though, with their 90' seat backs and a the interior is a million times more pleasant than a 323, especially in Northern's hideous colour scheme!
I don't mind the 730 seats apart from that they're too close together. Very much a matter of opinion there.
350/2 ones are decent, though, certainly better than 323s which seem to have a collapse problem (almost since new) similar to the 80x, with the frame clearly possible to feel through the far-too-thin foam.
Northern Piccadilly guards park side by side with 350s at Crewe, Stoke and Liverpool. Many Liverpool guards also go home on them.
It's nothing to do with seating interior - it's the well designed door controls, which are vastly superior to all Northern stock. Despite no ASDO, they've been around for 20 years and if staff don't want to come in to work their day off due to the rolling stock, this is a fair compromise. The fly doors at the front are also a bonus.
That said, I've heard there's other technical aspects which the company and Aslef raised which Im assuming may kibosh this idea.
Trouble with Oxenholme is it only has one bay so an EMU to Oxenholme would not work very well. Perhaps that would suggest the 350/2s should be tarted up with new 2+2 seating and sent to TPE to increase capacity on the Manchester Airport service (including adding a later last train) thus increasing capacity on those services from the present inadequate 5 car services? 8.350 was definitely a better match to demand than 5.397 is.
Not wiring to Windermere when the WCML was done was just nuts. It would have cost next to nothing and would have no doubt established a two hourly Manchester-Windermere service with a shuttle in between (connecting at Lancaster to Carlisle with most or all trains running through), which would have better dealt with demand than the present mess.
All three platforms at Oxenholme are through platforms and all are wired. Running EMUs from Manchester to Oxenholme with a DMU shuttle from there to Windermere is perfectly feasible. The Windermere platform can take a 4-car EMU and 2-car DMU at the same time for same platform interchange if 4-car is enough capacity, otherwise 2x3-car 331s would have to substitute freeing up 2x3-car DMUs for use elsewhere. If this is the case, the EMUs would have to back out so far when empty to allow the DMU in.
I agree that it was a stupid decision not to electrify the branch in 1973 and even more stupid to cancel electrification in 2017 by failing Grayling. Almost as stupid as cancelling MML electrification when the next stage is 80% complete.
If completely closed, the branch could be wired in 3-4 months as it is single track all the way with no bridges to raise if the track is in the middle of the solum.
My only guess would be fitting the 350/2s into some of the tight bay platforms on the Northern network, for example Stoke.
Having door control panels are all doors would be an improvement for guards compared to 323s.
Then again a lot of Northern guards in the North West barely leave the cabs on 323s at off peak times as is and I would guess the same would apply with 350/2s.
If the 350/2s went to Northern in 1-2 years' time, how much of the Trans Pennine electrification will have been complete? If are some DMU services that run entirely under electrified and soon to be electrified stretches (such as York-Leeds via Micklefield), that could see some older DMUs binned off and 195s cascaded, as well as some older EMUs.
Not enough to facilitate the use of anything bar bi-mode trains. The completion of electrification from Leeds to York and Huddersfield depends on the completion of the sizeable civil engineering works at Neville Hill depot and between Dewsbury and Huddersfield, which isn’t expected to be done until 2028 if I remember correctly.
All three platforms at Oxenholme are through platforms and all are wired. Running EMUs from Manchester to Oxenholme with a DMU shuttle from there to Windermere is perfectly feasible. The Windermere platform can take a 4-car EMU and 2-car DMU at the same time for same platform interchange if 4-car is enough capacity, otherwise 2x3-car 331s would have to substitute freeing up 2x3-car DMUs for use elsewhere. If this is the case, the EMUs would have to back out so far when empty to allow the DMU in.
Platform 3 at Oxenholme is not set up for multiple trains.
If the Dmu comes in from Windermere what happens to it to allow the Emu from Manchester to arrive?
There is only the one loop on the Down side before the station
Platform 3 at Oxenholme is not set up for multiple trains.
If the Dmu comes in from Windermere what happens to it to allow the Emu from Manchester to arrive?
There is only the one loop on the Down side before the station
Continuing a side discussion on whether the through Barrow/Windermere services could be split into EMU and DMU services to free up 195s... Platform 3 at Oxenholme is not set up for multiple trains. If the Dmu comes in from Windermere what happens to it to allow the Emu from Manchester to...
Maybe you don't remember that the Northern CAF order was forced through by DfT SoS Patrick McLoughlin, overruling his civil servants, to ensure the removal of the hated Pacers - a political decision.
There was still a limit on how many new trains were affordable (and there still is).
To be fair to.him he was one of the best transport ministers this country has had. I think if he was still in his position Mr sunat wouldn't have had such an easy time cutting back hs2
Not enough to facilitate the use of anything bar bi-mode trains. The completion of electrification from Leeds to York and Huddersfield depends on the completion of the sizeable civil engineering works at Neville Hill depot and between Dewsbury and Huddersfield, which isn’t expected to be done until 2028 if I remember correctly.
It’s not a ’micro tender’. Although Northern might award the three Lots (EMU, MMU, BEMU) to individual rolling stock manufacturers, there is a strong weighting towards multiple working capability between the three types of unit.
There's no point of a renatus style refurb of old EMU's when a large order of new EMU's are on the Horizon , the 321's proved this themselves as they got replaced quite quickly after the extensive refurb.
Its better just to keep 323s clattering around in their current state instead of subjecting them to for only a short few years in service with nowhere viable to send them off too after replacement other than the scrapyard.
There's no point of a renatus style refurb of old EMU's when a large order of new EMU's are on the Horizon , the 321's proved this themselves as they got replaced quite quickly after the extensive refurb.
The Renatus 321s were scrapped because leasing costs for new trains were cheap at the time and the 720s could be used as a common fleet. Leasing costs for new trains have risen considerably since then.
Those were fitted for "good" reasons though - 170s to be able to still work in multi nowadays with 15x I believe? (although has that actually happened, and ScotRail did the reverse - 158s to BTROS) and 333s to replace the magnetic tape system. I can't think of any reason that Northern would want or "need" to "TrainFX" the 350s if they acquired them?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The same @Transilien that said that the Class 197 is an outdated design (!) is implying that it would be OK for 1992-1995 323s to not be replaced by 2008-2009 350/2s in 2026.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That would mean the 323s would start being withdrawn in 2032 or so. Which I wouldn't actually mind if there wasn't anything newer available to replace them, but there is, so...
By comparison, the 350/2s wouldn't start being withdrawn until 2048. And I'd much rather have 350/2s until 2048 than 323s until even 2032.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, yes, I understand that. But still, it utterly baffles me that anyone (whether operators or enthusiasts) can look at pre-1997 units and think "yes, these are perfectly acceptable to still be used in the second half of the 2020s and into the early 2030s, I don't see what the problem is"... and I'm saying that as someone who has childhood nostalgia for 1990 158s.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm well aware that modern trains have ride quality / suspension issues, and other issues (I'm not one of those people who pretend that they don't). In an ideal world, they wouldn't. And it's much less of a difference when comparing the 323s to the 350/2s, rather than the 331s.
But modern trains also don't look old-fashioned or out-of-place in modern times, don't sound old-fashioned (although we will of course miss the epic pull-away sounds of the 323s in particular), and don't feel old-fashioned either. Again, everyone's entitled to their own opinion - you think the 323s are better and I think the 350/2s are better.
Peter749 said: When the train stops because of lack of power you can Open The Windows unlike the modern units where you are stuck without any fresh air
Exactly! Retrofitted! When something's so old that it has to be retrofitted with some modern equipment to remain legal to continue to operate, you know it's too old...
When Northern got the 319s everyone was moaning about how slow they were. The Renatus refurbishment didn't do anything for the performance of the units, and although 321s weren't quite as sluggish as the 319s they were still old technology. Performance wise they wouldn't have been able to keep to the timetable written for 323s, even reduced to 3 cars.
Besides, when we're discussing the feasibility of replacing 323s with newer 350s I can't see the logic in instead replacing the 323s with 321s. The 321s were only a few years older than the 323s but a whole generation older technology-wise. It would be like replacing 315s with 312s.
You might not be aware, but DfT updated its procurement spreadsheet 11th September, and there are two entries for Northern. One replacing oldest 15x (line 11) and the one with 3 lots consisting of EMUs, BEMUs and MMUs (line 12). Clearly the 350/2 could be part of the first of the two Northern entries
You will also notice the entry about replacing oldest 15x seems to have a very precise value, (rather than a round number) and earlier complettion date than other row which suggests more is decided.
Exactly! Retrofitted! When something's so old that it has to be retrofitted with some modern equipment to remain legal to continue to operate, you know it's too old...
You will also notice the entry about replacing oldest 15x seems to have a very precise value, (rather than a round number) and earlier complettion date than other row which suggests more is decided.
It's no longer an estimate or ballpark figure.
Rather suggests the £value has come from an advanced negotiation or an offer from a lease co, which is close to final (even if not announced yet)
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
