Future of the 350/2s

[Snow1964]

No other franchise seems to need any additional electrics, and all the above have issues in terms of actually doing it.

GWR are short of bimodes of sufficient length on some busy north Cotswold and London-Devon services.

Meanwhile they are using some bimodes on the now fully electrified Paddington-Cardiff service, that could easily switch to full electric trains, if they had extra electric trains.

 

[tfw756rider]

Though I suppose to be fair the Heathrow 360s were I think scrapped in the end and were of similar vintage?

Comparatively tiny, tiny fleet though, and only two got scrapped.

Just to be clear, yes, there were only 5 360/2s and only two got scrapped (360204 and 360205).

The remaining 3 (360201, 360202 and 360203) are at the Global Centre for Rail Excellence, Onllwyn, Neath Port Talbot, South Wales.

 

[Bletchleyite]

GWR are short of bimodes of sufficient length on some busy north Cotswold and London-Devon services.

Meanwhile they are using some bimodes on the now fully electrified Paddington-Cardiff service, that could easily switch to full electric trains, if they had extra electric trains.

Isn't this being resolved by way of replacing the ones used on the Cornish local services with 175s?

 

[Mamorin]

Thats what I thought the 175s were doing along binning of the Castle sets.

 

[Snow1964]

Isn't this being resolved by way of replacing the ones used on the Cornish local services with 175s?

Partly yes, but GWR have also at times indicated they will introduce an hourly service to Newquay, lengthen busy trains to Barnstaple and Oakhampton to 5cars, increase many of the Portsmouth-Cardiff services from 3car turbos to 5car 158s, and lengthen some busy Bristol area services from 2car to 3car.

So about 30 vehicles of the 175s are tied up releasing stock for the above, about 12 vehicles are for 3 sets of Castle HSTs replacement, they want to do a rolling programme of corrosion repairs of 150s (which ties up some as temporary float).

So that only leaves about 30 class 175 vehicles to replace IETs. But if you assume the 175s will only be diagrammed at about 90-93% to allow maintenance spares, then nearer 23 vehicles to replace IETs, which is only 4-5 sets.

to me every commitment and all shorter busy IETs getting lengthened doesn't mathematically work, so I suspect something is not happening fully, unless another (currently unannounced) service is being pared back.

 

[JonathanH]

GWR are short of bimodes of sufficient length on some busy north Cotswold and London-Devon services.

Meanwhile they are using some bimodes on the now fully electrified Paddington-Cardiff service, that could easily switch to full electric trains, if they had extra electric trains.

London to Cardiff is not, and will never be, self contained until such time as the service between Cardiff and Swansea is cut back to hourly at the times it currently runs 2tph. The half hourly service from London to Swansea runs right through the times when the need for IETs is at the maximum level.

 

[bramling]

Though I suppose to be fair the Heathrow 360s were I think scrapped in the end and were of similar vintage?

Only a very small fleet, and arguably not a “national” asset as they were owned by HAL I believe. Also depending on who you listen to, they weren’t maintained to the best condition, along with the 332s.

The 365s on the other hand had none of these characteristics. Fairly large fleet, recently refurbished, and perfectly serviceable.

 

[Mamorin]

Didn't the 365s have gauging issues though which limited where they could operate?


You are correct in the 360/2s being owned by HAL (Well full name is Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited).

360/2s must have been in better shape than the 332s given ROG bought the 360/2s for parcels use not long after the 360/2s were withdrawn.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 365s on the other hand had none of these characteristics. Fairly large fleet, recently refurbished, and perfectly serviceable.

They did however have rather outdated technology on board, and that "recent refurbishment" had ruined them as "high quality" commuter trains. They basically had all the same problems that several posts on here have said about the 323s.

Back to the 350/2s: It isn't ideal to be scrapping units which are only around 20 years old, but perhaps something like that needs to happen to rein in the ROSCOs a little.

 

[43096]

360/2s must have been in better shape than the 332s given ROG bought the 360/2s for parcels use not long after the 360/2s were withdrawn.

The 360/2s had the advantage of being TPWS fitted (the 332s weren't, being AWS and ATP only) and having commonality with a much bigger fleet of Desiros in terms of support and parts availability from Siemens.

 

[Nym]

They did however have rather outdated technology on board, and that "recent refurbishment" had ruined them as "high quality" commuter trains. They basically had all the same problems that several posts on here have said about the 323s.

Back to the 350/2s: It isn't ideal to be scrapping units which are only around 20 years old, but perhaps something like that needs to happen to rein in the ROSCOs a little.

Isn’t the issue there also the DfTs scoring of “new trains” so highly in ToC bids over the years making it always worth taking the hit/risk of a new fleet rather then reusing an existing fleet, combined with low cost of finance in the recent tranches of refranchises resulting in this…?

 

[Mamorin]

It isn't ideal to be scrapping units which are only around 20 years old, but perhaps something like that needs to happen to rein in the ROSCOs a little.

As sad as it is, that is what needs to happen with the 350/2s.

The management at the ROSCOs have to learn that they can't just charge whatever they want for trains and that there is no new home for trains with overpriced leasing costs.

 

[Snow1964]

Siemens issued a press release yesterday about building a new battery factory for rail vehicles.

It suggests they will be building the battery management and conditioning, and using others batteries eg Toshiba

• New state-of-the-art production facility for battery systems for rail vehicles
• Investment of around €35 million to create up to 200 new jobs
• Clear contribution to the transport transition and competitiveness of the rail industry in Germany and Europe

Siemens Mobility today celebrated the groundbreaking ceremony for a new production facility for rail vehicle battery systems in Luhe-Wildenau. On a state-of-the-art facility covering around 20,000 square meters, up to 200 employees will manufacture battery systems for Siemens regional trains, locomotives, and external customers. The project involves a total investment of around €35 million, of which approximately €22 million will be provided by Siemens Mobility. €2.7 million comes as a subsidy from Bavarian funding programs. With this project, Siemens Mobility underscores its commitment to Germany as a production and innovation hub, makes an important contribution to the transport transition, and at the same time delivers on a promise of its “Made for Germany” initiative to drive growth and competitiveness in Germany. Completion of the buildings is scheduled for spring 2027, with series production set to start in October 2027. A particular highlight of the event was the official handover of the funding notice by Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs Hubert Aiwanger.

Of course doesn't mean the 350/2s will get batteries, and become BEMUs, but seems a bit of a coincidence that the trains manufacturer, sees a need to produce rail battery systems.

Sustainable mobility: Siemens Mobility to build new battery system production in Bavaria | Press | Company | Siemens

Siemens Mobility today celebrated the groundbreaking ceremony for a new production facility for rail vehicle battery systems in Luhe-Wildenau. On a sta ...

press.siemens.com

 

[Mamorin]

low cost of finance in the recent tranches of refranchises resulting in this…?

The cheep cost of finance has also played a part in the 350/2s having no new home.

It also played a part in the 365s having no new home and going for scrap.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2025 ==

Siemens issued a press release yesterday about building a new battery factory for rail vehicles.

It suggests they will be building the battery management and conditioning, and using others batteries eg Toshiba


Of course doesn't mean the 350/2s will get batteries, and become BEMUs, but seems a bit of a coincidence that the trains manufacturer, sees a need to produce rail battery systems.

Sustainable mobility: Siemens Mobility to build new battery system production in Bavaria | Press | Company | Siemens

Siemens Mobility today celebrated the groundbreaking ceremony for a new production facility for rail vehicle battery systems in Luhe-Wildenau. On a sta ...

press.siemens.com

Well they are one of the shortlisted bidders for Northern's new fleet, part of which will be BEMUs.

So a new battery factor for trains would be a good idea to build now, as we don't know many BEMU orders Siemens are bidding for.

 

[Snow1964]

The cheep cost of finance has also played a part in the 350/2s having no new home.

It also played a part in the 365s having no new home and going for scrap.

Porterbrook will have covered majority (maybe all) of the cost in collecting lease rentals to date.

They are at a commercial decision stage : either lease them out cheaply and get some income now; or leave them stored hoping can get more at later date.

The other side of the commercial appraisal is how much is it worth to not get something else generating higher rentals handed back early instead, and they even have to be cautious of other LeaseCos because don't want to start race to the bottom, with them all undercutting each other dumping surplus stock.

Although 350s are fairly universal (could operate on just about any electric line, even adding third rail if required) there are many fleets which would be much harder to find a home for if they were returned. Quite a balancing act overall.

 

[43096]

The management at the ROSCOs have to learn that they can't just charge whatever they want for trains and that there is no new home for trains with overpriced leasing costs.

The ROSCOs do not charge "whatever they want". So much utter garbage spoken on this subject!

 

[Wolfie]

As sad as it is, that is what needs to happen with the 350/2s.

The management at the ROSCOs have to learn that they can't just charge whatever they want for trains and that there is no new home for trains with overpriced leasing costs.

Genius... and of course the increased risk won't be factored in to the cost of the bids for all future rolling stock.....

 

[Brubulus]

Genius... and of course the increased risk won't be factored in to the cost of the bids for all future rolling stock.....

There's always the choice between ROSCOs and government borrowing, especially with GBR. ROSCO is almost certainly cheaper (right now), and they should learn ensure that their services will always be cheaper and that they won't be bailed out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Genius... and of course the increased risk won't be factored in to the cost of the bids for all future rolling stock.....

GBR of course has other options open to it such as outright purchase and other forms of borrowing, so the ROSCO gravy train may terminate short of its destination in any case.

 

[JonathanH]

GBR of course has other options open to it such as outright purchase and other forms of borrowing

I'm not sure it does. What is GBR going to be able to sell to fund outright purchase of rolling stock? (Tickets obviously, but the Treasury will want that income to reduce subsidy.) Ultimately, its only funding source is passengers and subsidy. Likewise, is it going to be able to borrow cheaper than the ROSCOs can? Does any borrowing simply feed through to the Government's overall debt?

 

[Nym]

One also needs to consider the disbenefits that have been seen recently with the mini-ROSCOs set up for new fleets, with long term support being potentially questionable once the "Maintenance Contracts" run out. Of course that's not a problem beyond the initial lease. Compared with the initial three ROSCOs that seem to have retained some level of engineering and maintenance competency in house.

 

[Wolfie]

There's always the choice between ROSCOs and government borrowing, especially with GBR. ROSCO is almost certainly cheaper (right now), and they should learn ensure that their services will always be cheaper and that they won't be bailed out.

Of course there is.... But Government borrowing goes straight into the national debt figures which last time l looked were far from healthy....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2025 ==

One also needs to consider the disbenefits that have been seen recently with the mini-ROSCOs set up for new fleets, with long term support being potentially questionable once the "Maintenance Contracts" run out. Of course that's not a problem beyond the initial lease. Compared with the initial three ROSCOs that seem to have retained some level of engineering and maintenance competency in house.

The newer setups are pure short-term financial structures. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[bramling]

As sad as it is, that is what needs to happen with the 350/2s.

The management at the ROSCOs have to learn that they can't just charge whatever they want for trains and that there is no new home for trains with overpriced leasing costs.

I don’t think that is what would end up happening though. If we end up with a situation where the leasing companies dispose of their assets as a result of governments favouring new, it will just drive up leasing costs, which simply results in a cost inflation borne by the wider industry.

As a by-product, the passenger suffers as they keep having to bear the upheaval (and cost) associated with the introduction of new fleets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2025 ==

Genius... and of course the increased risk won't be factored in to the cost of the bids for all future rolling stock.....

Exactly. One thing that seems to have been fairly obvious over the last few years is that the ROSCOs aren’t particularly afraid to scrap trains, the idea of leasing costs being driven down only works if there’s a surplus of relatively go-anywhere trains which can be easily dropped into a fleet somewhere.

Reality doesn’t seem to work like this, it’s rarely possible to change fleets at the drop of a hat, and the ROSCOs know this. Even the relatively simply shuffle at GTR exchanging 387s for the very similar 379s has run into a load of issues.

 

[Russel]

First two for Northern in due course.

Is this a guess, rumour or some kind of inside knowledge?

 

[Southern Dvr]

I'm sorry but that's really not true. How long did it take Chiltern to agree the Mk5s? We must have been talking about it for well over a year beforehand with rumours no more credible than these.

I’m afraid it is.

Chiltern were always mooted to take the Mark 5s. Great Northern were always mooted to take the 379s. Those were some of the worst kept secrets on the railway.

The only potential certain taker for the 350/2s was Northern and it appears they have ruled themselves out.

Nobody wants to see relatively young trains for scrap. However, an alternative needs to appear in around the next 6-12 months I think.

 

[QSK19]

Isn’t the issue there also the DfTs scoring of “new trains” so highly in ToC bids over the years making it always worth taking the hit/risk of a new fleet rather then reusing an existing fleet, combined with low cost of finance in the recent tranches of refranchises resulting in this…?

Tell EMR that with their non-IC operations.

Six years of pain dealing with worn out stock cascaded from many TOCs (with many cancellations & shortformed services whilst beholden to said TOCs’ own stock issues) and only now is this being rectified as the refurbishment progresses.

The 350/2s would have been better for the Connect services (principally due to the gangways); but the timing was wrong and the choice was either 360s or 379s. The latter were never an option due to leasing costs, so we’re lumbered with the 360s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only potential certain taker for the 350/2s was Northern and it appears they have ruled themselves out.

Northern have not made any public statement that they are not taking them. It's all rumour and conjecture.

 

[InTheEastMids]

That deal won't happen unless Northern's fleet of 382s gets delayed.

Northern's an obvious non-starter then because there's absolutely no chance that the introduction of a new train in GB will run several years late

Tell EMR that with their non-IC operations.

Six years of pain dealing with worn out stock cascaded from many TOCs (with many cancellations & shortformed services whilst beholden to said TOCs’ own stock issues) and only now is this being rectified as the refurbishment progresses.

Taking 170s was probably sensible as back then as nobody wanted to finance new DMU. The rural Lincs routes probably have a combination of amongst the worst economic cases for electrification combined with the more challenging cases for batterification (especially if you're doing this calculation in 2018 or 2019).
Once DfT took over in 2020, a couple of years of dither and delay before awarding the refurb contracts is not surprising.

The 350/2s would have been better for the Connect services (principally due to the gangways); but the timing was wrong and the choice was either 360s or 379s. The latter were never an option due to leasing costs, so we’re lumbered with the 360s.

EMR would presumably have only taken part of the fleet, so then there'd be 2 small fleets of 21 360/1 and 16(?) 350/2 looking for homes instead of one larger one.
Would that change the risks of 37 reasonably modern EMU being scrapped?

 

[QSK19]

EMR would presumably have only taken part of the fleet, so then there'd be 2 small fleets of 21 360/1 and 16(?) 350/2 looking for homes instead of one larger one.
Would that change the risks of 37 reasonably modern EMU being scrapped?

Maybe if electrification went as far as Derby/Nottingham (and that was committed to when the tender was done), then the extra units could have been used to run all-stopper MML services to Leicester and/or beyond (dependent on paths, of course) and fully-electrified Regional routes (eg the Leicester-Nottingham shuttle). But even EMR did take just 21, that’s a decent chunk of revenue for Porterbrook instead of all of them being sat there doing nothing.

 

[43074]

Tell EMR that with their non-IC operations.

Six years of pain dealing with worn out stock cascaded from many TOCs (with many cancellations & shortformed services whilst beholden to said TOCs’ own stock issues) and only now is this being rectified as the refurbishment progresses.

The 350/2s would have been better for the Connect services (principally due to the gangways); but the timing was wrong and the choice was either 360s or 379s. The latter were never an option due to leasing costs, so we’re lumbered with the 360s.

One of the other franchise bids for EMR (after First pulled out it was a competition between Arriva, Stagecoach and Abellio) did propose 379s for the Corby service so that could have been an outcome if they had won.

The 350/2 fleet is also massively oversized for what EMR would need, even if they ran 12-cars on some Corby services and used electrics on the Leicester - Nottingham service