Future of the 350/2s

[Russel]

The crayonista in me says 350/2s to EMR to get through gangways on Corby services, cascading the 360s to ScotRail to take over fixed 4 car Strathclyde services (East Kilbride, Barrhead, Newton, Neilston), freeing up 3 car 380s to replace 318s on Argyle Line and 156s from EK, potentially to allow Northern to escape their 769 misery.

I like that idea in theory!

But, I can already see the "Scotland receives more English cast-offs" headlines.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I like that idea in theory!

But, I can already see the "Scotland receives more English cast-offs" headlines.

Rejecting the far more modern 350s and clinging onto the ageing 318s for longer, purely from a England vs Scotland / pride standpoint, would be ridiculous. The biggest example of cutting ones nose off to spite ones face seen on the railway to date, perhaps.

 

[Russel]

Rejecting the far more modern 350s and clinging onto the ageing 318s for longer, purely from a England vs Scotland / pride standpoint, would be ridiculous. The biggest example of cutting ones nose off to spite ones face seen on the railway to date, perhaps.

Oh I agree, but never underestimate how petty the England V Scotland political scene can be!

I'm not suggesting the Scottish would turn them down, just that I can already predict the politically motivated statements that would arise.

 

[Snow1964]

I like that idea in theory!

But, I can already see the "Scotland receives more English cast-offs" headlines.

I'm not suggesting the Scottish would turn them down, just that I can already predict the politically motivated statements that would arise.

I get where you are coming from regarding 350s

But wouldn't same logic apply to potentially using 222s to replace HSTs

Will they go to Scotland ? neo-choltach as they say in Scotland

 

[Russel]

I get where you are coming from regarding 350s

But wouldn't same logic apply to potentially using 222s to replace HSTs

Will they go to Scotland ? neo-choltach as they say in Scotland

Maybe, maybe not, who knows...

What we do know is how polarized and political things like this can be.

 

[Bill57p9]

ScotRail has a long history of cascades from England, often sweating the last out of an old fleet with no work south of the border:

• 47/7s replacing 27s on flagship Edinburgh Glasgow Queen Street
• 101s for Whifflet & Paisley Canal reopening
• 305s then 90s for North Berwick
• 33s in Aberdeen (ok, so not exactly a fleet)
• 365s as a stop gap until the 385s were ready
• HSTs
• 73s (ok, CS rather than SR)
• 321/4s (converted to 320/4s)
• Coming soon: 222s

Whilst there is plenty of political point scoring made in Scotland, especially the “look how hard done to we are by the British government” narrative, I cannot recall it ever being highlighted around stock cascades, even when the “cast offs” are older (HSTs, 73/9s, 365s) and/or retrograde in some way (365s lacking the air con offered by the 158s & 170s).

Desiro electrics replacing 156s and/or 318/320s would definitely be an upgrade, mostly common with an existing fleet and could be framed as a medium term stopgap until the ScotRail EMU fleet replacement delivers.

ScotRail’s 156s are very tired.

 

[Silverlinky]

No use at Southeastern - the door cycles are too slow and they already have too many small fleets. Southern don't want the 377/5s.

A long stay at Long Marston is the most likely future for the 350/2s.

2 1/2 years ago.... good shout!

 

[Mgameing123]

That is more software, they are electronically limited, and 4car has lower rating than 5car units because 5cars units do not work as part of triple sets in a train. As far as I am aware the 444s and 450 have interchangeable components and bogies, (and as initially ordered were going to be 5car suburban 450 versions, but was altered to 4car standard versions during the build.)

But I agree I don't think SWR would want some 4car extended to 5car.

If it didn't damage performance, EMR could possibly extend its 360s to 5car if it needed extra capacity, using spare vehicles if some 350s were reduced to 3car. Although I think chances of it happening are also very low.

I mean you could get take one car from the 350’s that do the Abbey Line.

 

[skyhigh]

I mean you could get take one car from the 350’s that do the Abbey Line.

For several reasons, no, you couldn't.

 

[deltic08]

Is there anybody on here in the know to tell us how much conversion to BEMU, conversion to 2+2 seating and internal refresh would cost per unit? I assume adding an engine, alternator, fuel pump and fuel tank costs more than batteries and alternator to cover conversion and a little more they would lose less capital cost than they would get in scrappage now.
Probably like others on this site I have identified 16 services on Northern Rail alone that could use BEMUs on 25kv for drive and charging with battery drive as part of the service off wires. The majority of services are less than 30 miles off wires between charging. One example is Leeds to Sheffield via Doncaster and Moorthorpe where BEMUs would allow cascade of Adwick-Sheffield and Leeds-Sheffield DMUs to other places desperately needing more DMUs and class 333 pure EMUs to Leeds-York services when TRU electrification is fully energised here in 2027/8.
Manchester Airport to Windermere/Barrow is another example where Oxenholme-Windermere return is only 23 miles between charges and Carnforth-Barrow return is only 36 miles between charges. If forming a shuttle service between Oxenholme and Windermere between Manchester services the unit can always recharge in the Windermere platform even if 8 carriages as both pantographs, one on each set can be on the same platform.
Sadly there are more services that could use them but only 37 are available

 

[Silverlinky]

For several reasons, no, you couldn't.

Like for example that any of the remaining 50 class 350 units could end up on the Abbey...do they all get reduced to 3 cars?

 

[Snow1964]

Is there anybody on here in the know to tell us how much conversion to BEMU, conversion to 2+2 seating and internal refresh would cost per unit? I assume adding an engine, alternator, fuel pump and fuel tank costs more than batteries and alternator to cover conversion and a little more they would lose less capital cost than they would get in scrappage now.

A conversion could cost anything from £0.3m to £1.5m per unit depending on range you need, obviously not being originally designed for batteries, need to spread the racks around in whatever space is available, and also spread the extra weight.

There would need to be development costs and software modifications which would cost a lot to write and test, and certify. But this is more a one off lump sum (the more units that are converted the lower the average cost per unit). Time might be more a factor for this as could take many months (even year or two) for first unit to be modified and proven.

Refurbishment is needed anyway, so if any operator wants them for next 20 years, going to have to do it anyway. A full midlife refurbishment with new seats is probably going to cost at least £1.5m per unit (although will vary lot depending on work done and the quality of finishes) and could easily be nearer £3m per unit if lots of enhancements were added too. A basic light refresh would be much cheaper.

It might sound a lot of money, but ordering new units would probably be in region of £12-14m for a 4car electric unit nowadays. (Having to base it on European orders price because hasn't been any non high speed UK train orders for over 6 years).

Buying 37 x 4car units brand new is going to cost in region of £400m, so by comparison spending say £100m to enhance 17-18 year old units and using them for another 20-23 years is much better value economically.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One example is Leeds to Sheffield via Doncaster

No such service exists currently, are you proposing that one should?

If forming a shuttle service between Oxenholme and Windermere between Manchester services the unit can always recharge in the Windermere platform even if 8 carriages as both pantographs, one on each set can be on the same platform

If you've got the budget to install fast charging (along with the associated high voltage grid connection) at the Windermere end of the branch and to fit batteries to the 350/2s, you're probably not far off having the budget to wire the whole branch- then you can just use 331s instead of faffing about with batteries and 350s. Windermere is a popular destination in summer, but not 8-cars popular.

Sadly there are more services that could use them but only 37 are available

I doubt there are enough sensible uses to find a home for all 37. In any case Northern want to reduce the number of different types they operate, not increase it.

 

[D365]

I shall remind you of the following:

It's been discussed many a time.

The underframe layout of the Class 350/2 does not lend itself well to adding batteries so the amount one would be able to fit would be highly unlikely to meet the requirements of an operator in the real world.
Combine this with how Flex has reduced the appetite of UK ROSCOs for doing conversions, and it is just highly unlikely to ever happen.

Northern, of all TOCs, is not interested in more ’Flex’ style conversions. Especially with the Class 781 BEMUs in the making.

 

[warwickshire]

The crayonista in me says 350/2s to EMR to get through gangways on Corby services, cascading the 360s to ScotRail to take over fixed 4 car Strathclyde services (East Kilbride, Barrhead, Newton, Neilston), freeing up 3 car 380s to replace 318s on Argyle Line and 156s from EK, potentially to allow Northern to escape their 769 misery.

Will never happen though

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2025 ==

If they were a bit more reliable, 769s would be a reasonable answer to Glasgow - Kilmarnock - Girvan. But they aren’t.

I, am thinking something similar to this, 3502s to Emr, even if only Class 3502s to Emr, it would give extra unit capacity to them.

Means:
1. Corby to London services can become 12 cars
2. Emr can run extra Market Harbourgh, to London services, calling at all the usual Emr stops, maybe taking the pressure of some Corby to London Emr Services.

 

[JCO1406]

I, am thinking something similar to this, 3502s to Emr, even if only Class 3502s to Emr, it would give extra unit capacity to them.

Means:
1. Corby to London services can become 12 cars
2. Emr can run extra Market Harbourgh, to London services, calling at all the usual Emr stops, maybe taking the pressure of some Corby to London Emr Services.

Good luck finding space in the timetable for more services. Unless Thameslink stops using the fast lines, there’s no more space on the fasts for more services. Platforms at STP is quite limited aswell, so it would be quite tight there.

 

[Olivine]

I’m sure there a semi good reason already explained but GWRs 387 x30 could be replaced by 350/2, and they can be shunted down towards Southern to displace further for their stock increases in Southeastern I.e Networkers. Training costs would increase at GWR but can chop off some older stock at the same time. And both 110mph units, albeit slower for door releases at station.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I, am thinking something similar to this, 3502s to Emr, even if only Class 3502s to Emr, it would give extra unit capacity to them.

Means:
1. Corby to London services can become 12 cars
2. Emr can run extra Market Harbourgh, to London services, calling at all the usual Emr stops, maybe taking the pressure of some Corby to London Emr Services.

The 360 fleets size is said to be large enough to support all day 12-car workings Corby - St. Pancras.
I say 'said to be' because it seems to be not always possible to provide enough working sets to support the present 8 car service. This morning didn't have a good start although I'm not sure this was down to 360 problems.


edit for minor typo

 

[brad465]

I’m sure there a semi good reason already explained but GWRs 387 x30 could be replaced by 350/2, and they can be shunted down towards Southern to displace further for their stock increases in Southeastern I.e Networkers. Training costs would increase at GWR but can chop off some older stock at the same time. And both 110mph units, albeit slower for door releases at station.

Probably a hard sell to GWR passengers, and unless all the HEx 387s are replaced in such a move, creates more fleet variety.

 

[Stephen42]

Probably a hard sell to GWR passengers, and unless all the HEx 387s are replaced in such a move, creates more fleet variety.

They don't need to be sold to GWR passengers. While fleet variety isn't ideal, in some situations it's worthwhile. However 350/2s don't look to have bodyside cameras for DOO and many of the Class 387 schedules are marked as driver only operated which could be an issue. There aren't enough 350/2s to cover both the HEx and GWR 387s, they could cover the GWRs ones providing a small fleet increase. Southeastern couldn't make use of another 30 377s as they'd run out of mainline work and the metro drivers can't cover them and unclear Thameslink/Southern/Great Northern have enough drivers to make use of them either.

There's also the question of whether the GWR EMU requirement might reduce once the DMUs are replaced. The most convenient routes for battery operation would be joining together a DMU and class 387 worked service. Speculation at this stage of course, but it seems foolish to replace the EMUs until that is definitely sorted and clear what the long term EMU requirement would be.

 

[Olivine]

They don't need to be sold to GWR passengers. While fleet variety isn't ideal, in some situations it's worthwhile. However 350/2s don't look to have bodyside cameras for DOO and many of the Class 387 schedules are marked as driver only operated which could be an issue. There aren't enough 350/2s to cover both the HEx and GWR 387s, they could cover the GWRs ones providing a small fleet increase. Southeastern couldn't make use of another 30 377s as they'd run out of mainline work and the metro drivers can't cover them and unclear Thameslink/Southern/Great Northern have enough drivers to make use of them either.

There's also the question of whether the GWR EMU requirement might reduce once the DMUs are replaced. The most convenient routes for battery operation would be joining together a DMU and class 387 worked service. Speculation at this stage of course, but it seems foolish to replace the EMUs until that is definitely sorted and clear what the long term EMU requirement would be.

I would agree it’s got nothing to do with GWR passengers.

Arguably the HEX contract has got nothing to do with the wider fleet strategy. If GWR wish to run the contract with 387s, that’s on them. Not sure what you mean about SE running out of mainline work?

TSGN may need them here or there for frequency increases but 30 (possibly +12) is quite a lot to take in.

DMU replacement doesn’t appear to have a huge amount to do with it. The 350s are ready now (body side cameras excluding), the replacement stock is a theoretical possibility in the next five to ten years.

 

[tfw756rider]

I’m sure there a semi good reason already explained but GWRs 387 x30 could be replaced by 350/2, and they can be shunted down towards Southern to displace further for their stock increases in Southeastern I.e Networkers. Training costs would increase at GWR but can chop off some older stock at the same time. And both 110mph units, albeit slower for door releases at station.

I actually like the sound of this. The Class 387-operated services in and out of Cardiff would become Class 350/2-operated services?

 

[Stephen42]

I would agree it’s got nothing to do with GWR passengers.

Arguably the HEX contract has got nothing to do with the wider fleet strategy. If GWR wish to run the contract with 387s, that’s on them.

GWR or in future GBR will want to run their operations and any contracted HEX services in the most cost effective way. GWR won't get additional funding for a more expensive fleet strategy unless it comes with additional benefits worth that cost.

Not sure what you mean about SE running out of mainline work?

The previous move of the class 377s from Southern to Southeastern were targeted at particular routes and drivers who sign 377s already. Southeastern can't repeat the trick with a significant number of units as there are so few Networkers on those routes anymore.

DMU replacement doesn’t appear to have a huge amount to do with it. The 350s are ready now (body side cameras excluding), the replacement stock is a theoretical possibility in the next five to ten years.

Even if a deal was signed tomorrow, look at the time taken for the 175s to get into service. The 350s will take a similar time or maybe longer if they need a new system fitted, the platform train interface tested across their route, maintenance and drivers trained on the new stock. That will also be a fair bit of expense ignoring any additional lease costs. If in five or ten years time GWR only wants to lease a subset of the fleet they will struggle to achieve that. It's much better to work out what the preferred fleet strategy is and then make sure any interim deals fit with that plan.

 

[deltic08]

A conversion could cost anything from £0.3m to £1.5m per unit depending on range you need, obviously not being originally designed for batteries, need to spread the racks around in whatever space is available, and also spread the extra weight.

There would need to be development costs and software modifications which would cost a lot to write and test, and certify. But this is more a one off lump sum (the more units that are converted the lower the average cost per unit). Time might be more a factor for this as could take many months (even year or two) for first unit to be modified and proven.

Refurbishment is needed anyway, so if any operator wants them for next 20 years, going to have to do it anyway. A full midlife refurbishment with new seats is probably going to cost at least £1.5m per unit (although will vary lot depending on work done and the quality of finishes) and could easily be nearer £3m per unit if lots of enhancements were added too. A basic light refresh would be much cheaper.

It might sound a lot of money, but ordering new units would probably be in region of £12-14m for a 4car electric unit nowadays. (Having to base it on European orders price because hasn't been any non high speed UK train orders for over 6 years).

Buying 37 x 4car units brand new is going to cost in region of £400m, so by comparison spending say £100m to enhance 17-18 year old units and using them for another 20-23 years is much better value economically.

Thank you. I knew someone would know. So, a total per unit of £3m spread over 20-25 years purely for conversion work on top of leasing costs.. As you say cheaper than building new BEMUs.

No such service exists currently, are you proposing that one should?

If you've got the budget to install fast charging (along with the associated high voltage grid connection) at the Windermere end of the branch and to fit batteries to the 350/2s, you're probably not far off having the budget to wire the whole branch- then you can just use 331s instead of faffing about with batteries and 350s. Windermere is a popular destination in summer, but not 8-cars popular.

I doubt there are enough sensible uses to find a home for all 37. In any case Northern want to reduce the number of different types they operate, not increase it.

Yes it does. It would be an amalgamation of current Leeds-Doncaster stopper and Adwick-Sheffield stopper.

I thought new build BEMUs were coming to Northern so infrastructure will be ready for those. The Windermere branch should be electrified.

Alright, 4-cars to Windermere and Barrow

I found over 40 applications for BEMU class 350/2s all in Northernland

 

[Russel]

They don't need to be sold to GWR passengers. While fleet variety isn't ideal, in some situations it's worthwhile. However 350/2s don't look to have bodyside cameras for DOO and many of the Class 387 schedules are marked as driver only operated which could be an issue.

I can't imagine fitting DOO cameras would be a deal breaker, it would certainly be more realistic than some of the ideas around fitting batteries!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes it does. It would be an amalgamation of current Leeds-Doncaster stopper and Adwick-Sheffield stopper.

If you're amalgamating two current services, then by definition the joined service does not exist. If it did you wouldn't need to amalgamate them. By joining them you're effectively reducing the frequency between Adwick and Doncaster because they currently run as separate services. Leeds to Doncaster is currently a pure EMU, it makes no sense to replace a fully electric service with one that needs a more complicated bi-mode or battery unit to create a service that provides no tangible benefit to passengers. At a stretch you're benefitting South Elmsall by giving a direct service to Meadowhall and Sheffield, but they realistically already have that from Moorthorpe which is nearby.
The via Moorthorpe service absolutely should get bi-modes or BEMUs, if we aren't going to do the sensible thing and stick wires up.

But if those "self-powered" units are modified 350/2s I'll eat my hat and yours too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't imagine fitting DOO cameras would be a deal breaker, it would certainly be more realistic than some of the ideas around fitting batteries!

Other 350s have been fitted so there is an off the shelf solution.

 

[778]

Thank you. I knew someone would know. So, a total per unit of £3m spread over 20-25 years purely for conversion work on top of leasing costs.. As you say cheaper than building new BEMUs.

Why not just fit batteries to one of the units and use it as a testbed just like the 230 unit on the Greenford branch? If the testing goes well then the TOCs would be more likely to take them on as battery trains.

 

[tfw756rider]

Why not just fit batteries to one of the units and use it as a testbed just like the 230 unit on the Greenford branch? If the testing goes well then the TOCs would be more likely to take them on as battery trains.

I like the sound of this. Then, if it does go well, a lot more uses for them could be opened up.

 

[deltic08]

If you're amalgamating two current services, then by definition the joined service does not exist. If it did you wouldn't need to amalgamate them. By joining them you're effectively reducing the frequency between Adwick and Doncaster because they currently run as separate services. Leeds to Doncaster is currently a pure EMU, it makes no sense to replace a fully electric service with one that needs a more complicated bi-mode or battery unit to create a service that provides no tangible benefit to passengers. At a stretch you're benefitting South Elmsall by giving a direct service to Meadowhall and Sheffield, but they realistically already have that from Moorthorpe which is nearby.
The via Moorthorpe service absolutely should get bi-modes or BEMUs, if we aren't going to do the sensible thing and stick wires up.

But if those "self-powered" units are modified 350/2s I'll eat my hat and yours too.

Don't argue for the sake of arguing. In my mind it does exist just by changing at stations Adwick to Doncaster but will be a through service if BEMUs are introduced. In your mind it is not. We just disagree.
Frequency is not a problem. Only you see it as one. Leeds-Doncaster is hourly and will Leeds-Doncaster-Sheffield would be hourly with Adwick-Sheffield being half hourly in between Leeds-Doncaster-Sheffield services but still operated by BEMUs.
I totally agree both Moorthorpe-Sheffield and Doncaster-Swinton should be wired. With the original plan to wire from St. Pancras to Sheffield via Derby, now paused again, Cross Country would have been capable of operating BEMUs from Aberdeen to Birmingham with 220/221s operating Sheffield-Penzance with overlap being the busiest part.