Future of the 350/2s

[Mamorin]

They had a structural defect issue that was discovered in 2016, this was fixed however.

When the 332s were withdrawn they were in a very poor state in general.

 

[Southern Dvr]

They had a structural defect issue that was discovered in 2016, this was fixed however.

When the 332s were withdrawn they were in a very poor state in general.

Wasn’t aware the 332s were in poor shape.

The 350/2s aren’t in the best condition with numerous reports from those who’ve recently travelled on them that they are showing neglect internally before withdrawal.

The point remains, if they are being stored away from the OHLE at Long Marston the outlook for them is pretty bleak. If Northern wanted to do anything else with them then they were considerably easier to get to at Wembley. Whereas now they need hauling to wherever.

The problem may not lie with the trains themselves at present, but it will once they’ve been left in a field in Long Marston to rot for a while.

 

[Nym]

Wasn’t aware the 332s were in poor shape.

The 350/2s aren’t in the best condition with numerous reports from those who’ve recently travelled on them that they are showing neglect internally before withdrawal.

The point remains, if they are being stored away from the OHLE at Long Marston the outlook for them is pretty bleak. If Northern wanted to do anything else with them then they were considerably easier to get to at Wembley. Whereas now they need hauling to wherever.

The problem may not lie with the trains themselves at present, but it will once they’ve been left in a field in Long Marston to rot for a while.

Long Marston is currently in the process of commissioning OLE.

One should also consider there are two maintenance facilities run by Porterbrook at Long Marston, plus Chrysalis on site.

 

[amahy]

I find it baffling that people are saying that the 17 year old 350/2s are in a bad way, when Northern's entire sprinter fleet, as well as the 769s, are basically on their last legs, yet there will be no replacement for them in this decade. Insert rant about fleet replacement priorities being all wrong here.

 

[The exile]

The 350/2s aren’t in the best condition with numerous reports from those who’ve recently travelled on them that they are showing neglect internally before withdrawal.

Internal neglect, though possibly symptomatic of other ills, is unlikely to be a major killer though - its neglect elsewhere that matters.

 

[Russel]

Internal neglect, though possibly symptomatic of other ills, is unlikely to be a major killer though - its neglect elsewhere that matters.

Good point, it does make me wonder how much neglect there has been on the parts of the train the passengers don't see, given the state of the parts they do see...

 

[Charlie978]

I find it baffling that people are saying that the 17 year old 350/2s are in a bad way, when Northern's entire sprinter fleet, as well as the 769s, are basically on their last legs, yet there will be no replacement for them in this decade. Insert rant about fleet replacement priorities being all wrong here.

But unless you whack a couple of diesel engines or batteries underneath each set, they’re no use to northern really. Even then Northern (along with many other suitable TOCs) are procuring sprinter replacements for entry into service in early 2030s so by the time conversion and training is complete they’d be lucky to do more than 4 years.

We’ve all seen how the 769s turned out so I’d doubt that someone will take the gamble with the current circumstances.

 

[skyhigh]

Good point, it does make me wonder how much neglect there has been on the parts of the train the passengers don't see, given the state of the parts they do see...

It might make you wonder, but there are very strict safety standards on the important bits you can't see, so they will always be up to standard. Threadbare seat covers and dirty carpets don't affect safety so are way down the list of priorities to spend money on.

 

[Russel]

It might make you wonder, but there are very strict safety standards on the important bits you can't see, so they will always be up to standard. Threadbare seat covers and dirty carpets don't affect safety so are way down the list of priorities to spend money on.

I wasn't suggesting safety was being compromised...

 

[amahy]

But unless you whack a couple of diesel engines or batteries underneath each set, they’re no use to northern really. Even then Northern (along with many other suitable TOCs) are procuring sprinter replacements for entry into service in early 2030s so by the time conversion and training is complete they’d be lucky to do more than 4 years.

We’ve all seen how the 769s turned out so I’d doubt that someone will take the gamble with the current circumstances.

What should've happened, is that the 730/2s should've never been ordered to replace the 350/2s, and the 350/2s receive a full refurbishment. Instead, Northern should've had a new fleet to replace the 150s, 156s, and 769s (and possibly the 158s). Unfortunately, greedy ROSCOs exist which now means that we have a perfectly good fleet of trains in working order sitting around in a field with no work. In the meantime, Northern has a fleet of clapped out trains that barely work, and many are already in poor condition after a full refurbishment around 5 years ago.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't think GBR would want the negative headlines they would get for scrapping perfectly good trains that are only 15 years old.

The risk lies entirely with the Rosco which owns the trains, not with GBR.
But it does mean that future leasing costs will have that risk priced in.

 

[43096]

The fact that the 350s owned by one ROSCO were kept, and the ones owned by another were replaced makes quite clear where the issue lies, and it's not the trains.

But the 172s, ordered at the same time, financed by the same ROSCO, have been kept. They could have taken more 196s instead, but didn’t.

 

[Russel]

But the 172s, ordered at the same time, financed by the same ROSCO, have been kept. They could have taken more 196s instead, but didn’t.

Interesting point, maybe some of the experts will be able to elaborate on why this is.

 

[Energy]

But the 172s, ordered at the same time, financed by the same ROSCO, have been kept. They could have taken more 196s instead, but didn’t.

Assuming a 5-car 730 is equivalent to a 6-car class 350, LNWR has an equivalent of 68 additional class 350 vehicles, or 17 4-car sets.

An explanation that fits would be that Abellio couldn't make a small fleet work with their proposed timetable. The London-Crewe is most obvious for the new fleet in terms of required unit numbers, but doesn't have an obvious 730 depot aside from Crewe. Cutting some 350s makes the new 730-only depot at Bletchley much more feasible, and the 350/2s were probably the most expensive 350s.

Had it been done today, the London - Birmingham - Liverpool thru service has been abandoned; so switching the Birmingham - Liverpool to 730s, maintaining with the WMR units at Soho, and keeping all 350s would make sense. Or taking some 450s off SWR given their excess.

 

[Starmill]

But the 172s, ordered at the same time, financed by the same ROSCO, have been kept. They could have taken more 196s instead, but didn’t.

That could easily be explained by the delivery dates available for 196s and the relative cost of replacing DMUs being higher.

 

[tfw756rider]

I find it baffling that people are saying that the 17 year old 350/2s are in a bad way, when Northern's entire sprinter fleet, as well as the 769s, are basically on their last legs, yet there will be no replacement for them in this decade. Insert rant about fleet replacement priorities being all wrong here.

Some of them are only 16!

 

[Chiltern006]

Could they find a use with Bee Network (or is that going to be run by Northern?)

 

[Mamorin]

Based on the promotional livery 323239 has, I think Bee Network service will be operated by Northern.

The doors on 323239 do say "Service brought to you by Northern".

 

[Anvil1984]

Based on the promotional livery 323239 has, I think Bee Network service will be operated by Northern.

The doors on 323239 do say "Service brought to you by Northern".

On internal documents it states that the Bee Network will be operated by Northern using Northern Trains and Staff

In reality it’s just going back to when 323s wore GMPTE colours with more influence influence / control of ticketing by TfGM

 

[Mamorin]

Thanks for the confirmation of my thoughts on how trains on the Bee Network will be operated.

Speaking of GMPTE, the GMPTE livery looked rather good on the 323s.

Anyway lets not lets this get on topic.

 

[amahy]

I know ScotRail was ruled out as a potential taker for the 350/2s as they need 3 car units, not 4. A potential solution would be to use the 350/2s alongside 380/1s on services out of Glasgow Central to Wemyss Bay, Gourock, Largs, Ayr, and Ardrossan Harbour, as well as possibly Cathcart Circle services, running all services as 4 or 8 coaches (4 on Cathcart Circle). The 380/0s could then be cascaded to replace some of the 318s and 320s that currently operate on North Clyde and Argyle line services?

 

[N1]

I know ScotRail was ruled out as a potential taker for the 350/2s as they need 3 car units, not 4. A potential solution would be to use the 350/2s alongside 380/1s on services out of Glasgow Central to Wemyss Bay, Gourock, Largs, Ayr, and Ardrossan Harbour, as well as possibly Cathcart Circle services, running all services as 4 or 8 coaches (4 on Cathcart Circle). The 380/0s could then be cascaded to replace some of the 318s and 320s that currently operate on North Clyde and Argyle line services?

As always there are complications. North Clyde and Argyle lines are setup for 120m trains. 318s and 320s are 20m, 380s are 23m, so can't run 6-car 380s without selective door opening, which would be a pain for North Clyde and Argyle Lines. Could just do some moving about and use say 4-car 380s which would be halfway between a 3 and 6-car 20m set, and keep 350/2s as 4-car, but none are really very likely.

 

[Snow1964]

The 350s have relatively slow door opening/closing cycles so are more suited to semi-fast workings than stopping trains.

A while ago did suggest adding batteries, but reply came there is no room. However elsewhere it had been suggested a sub fleet of 450s could get batteries for services to Salisbury etc as there will be excess quantity (once all 701s in service). As the 350 and 450 are same basic train, with this mixed view, not sure if battery is complete non starter, or possible, but in limited size/capacity.

I can still see Scotrail being interested, even it does mean a shuffle around of fleets between routes as some lines need 6car trains.

I guess there is balancing act between low long 318s and 320s can be maintained economically, when the in service date of (currently not ordered) new stock can take over, and if interim fleet of 350s is better value.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A while ago did suggest adding batteries, but reply came there is no room. However elsewhere it had been suggested a sub fleet of 450s could get batteries for services to Salisbury etc as there will be excess (once all 701s in service). As the 350 and 450 are same basic train, not sure if battery is complete non starter, or possible in limited amounts.

One assumes that there's just a concrete block where the transformer would be, and batteries could go there - but whether it would be enough batteries for the proposed use is for debate I guess.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I know ScotRail was ruled out as a potential taker for the 350/2s as they need 3 car units, not 4. A potential solution would be to use the 350/2s alongside 380/1s on services out of Glasgow Central to Wemyss Bay, Gourock, Largs, Ayr, and Ardrossan Harbour, as well as possibly Cathcart Circle services, running all services as 4 or 8 coaches (4 on Cathcart Circle). The 380/0s could then be cascaded to replace some of the 318s and 320s that currently operate on North Clyde and Argyle line services?

As always there are complications. North Clyde and Argyle lines are setup for 120m trains. 318s and 320s are 20m, 380s are 23m, so can't run 6-car 380s without selective door opening, which would be a pain for North Clyde and Argyle Lines. Could just do some moving about and use say 4-car 380s which would be halfway between a 3 and 6-car 20m set, and keep 350/2s as 4-car, but none are really very likely.

However, what those 380/0s could be used for is East Kilbride services to replace the remaining 156s, and also the odd 318/320 that still work Wemyss Bay and Gourock.

 

[Chiltern006]

How dissimilar are 350 and 450 carriages, could they be reformed with 3/4 going to Scotrail as 3-car sets and the other going to SWR to extend some 450s?

 

[amahy]

As always there are complications. North Clyde and Argyle lines are setup for 120m trains. 318s and 320s are 20m, 380s are 23m, so can't run 6-car 380s without selective door opening, which would be a pain for North Clyde and Argyle Lines. Could just do some moving about and use say 4-car 380s which would be halfway between a 3 and 6-car 20m set, and keep 350/2s as 4-car, but none are really very likely.

Going to go slightly off topic here and say that North Clyde and Argyle lines don’t work as a 3/6 car railway. In my experience, 3 cars are often too busy, and 6 cars are sparsely used outside peak times. Whats even more annoying is that on many routes, 3 and 6 car diagrams seem very random. So 4 cars being used could bring a happy medium.

 

[Snow1964]

How dissimilar are 350 and 450 carriages, could they be reformed with 3/4 going to Scotrail as 3-car sets and the other going to SWR to extend some 450s?

In theory very similar, and if they are due a sort of refurb would be easy to make a spare 4th car from a 350 into a 5th car on a 450

However if different owners and users are involved, then administratively might to be harder than the practical

 

[Mamorin]

However if different owners and users are involved, then administratively might to be harder than the practical

Different owners are involved, as the 450s are owned by Angel Trains, whereas the 350/2s are owned by Porterbrook.

 

[Stephen42]

In theory very similar, and if they are due a sort of refurb would be easy to make a spare 4th car from a 350 into a 5th car on a 450

However if different owners and users are involved, then administratively might to be harder than the practical

There's also the question of where equipment is located and whether anything needs to relocated on the removed car.

The 5 car 450s would also be underpowered compared to the 4 car ones or 5 car 444s which won't help matters. They also wouldn't be able to join up to create max length formations, would need separate diagramming and possibly reduce available sets due to losing economy of scale for maintenance. I can't see SWR being interested even if it was a possibility.