Future of the 350/2s

[Nym]

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

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.

Because then you have the millions and years of development costs with questionable benifits

 

[778]

Because then you have the millions and years of development costs with questionable benifits

Would you say that about the 230 battery trial as well?

 

[Nym]

Would you say that about the 230 battery trial as well?

Yes.

 

[185]

There's a lot of people seemingly focussed on the doors being a little slower to open and close
This is a red herring, given that compared to other units, the door vestibules are a little wider, people get off and on quicker, making station dwell times much shorter.than on other stock, often down to 30 seconds.

Compared to 158s, Voyagers and Pendolinos which 350s work alongside - it's often three times as fast.

 

[D365]

Would you say that about the 230 battery trial as well?

Class 230 was/is making use of otherwise redundant vehicles to demonstrate novel approaches to self powered technology. Well, whilst the funding was there.

I'm still not sure what is driving the fascination behind prospective re-engineering of Class 350/2 or Class 450 fleets.

 

[james_the_xv]

This is a red herring, given that compared to other units, the door vestibules are a little wider, people get off and on quicker, making station dwell times much shorter.than on other stock, often down to 30 seconds.

Maybe during the off peak with a SC that's on the ball. Even at 6am with 5 passengers getting on I'd bet the average dwell for a 350 is more like 45-50s.

There's a reason 350s pick up so much sub-threshold delay on the Coventry corridor with nothing in front of them, and most of those dwells are planned to a minute.

 

[deltic08]

Class 230 was/is making use of otherwise redundant vehicles to demonstrate novel approaches to self powered technology. Well, whilst the funding was there.

I'm still not sure what is driving the fascination behind prospective re-engineering of Class 350/2 or Class 450 fleets.

Because there appears to be no future for 37 4-car 350/2 units as EMUs except scrap which is purely down to stupid decisions over the last 30 years to procrastinate or pause electrification schemes such as Oxenholme-Windermere, Chippenham-Bristol TM-Bristol Parkway.
BEMUs could be used as soon as thy are converted and tested on Manchester-Windermere/Barrow, Manchester-Buxton, Huddersfield-Leeds-York services before electrification is complete, Leeds-Harrogate-York, Leeds-Wakefield W-Featherstone, Leeds-Skipton-Morecambe and Leeds-Mirfield-Hebden Bridge providing lease charges are reasonable.

 

[D365]

BEMUs could be used as soon as thy are converted and tested on Manchester-Windermere/Barrow, Manchester-Buxton, Huddersfield-Leeds-York services before electrification is complete, Leeds-Harrogate-York, Leeds-Wakefield W-Featherstone, Leeds-Skipton-Morecambe and Leeds-Mirfield-Hebden Bridge providing lease charges are reasonable.

And on how many of these routes will the Class 780s be deployed?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

And on how many of these routes will the Class 780s be deployed?

Many, Buxton indicated for 781s (battery trains), and several of the others discussed on

Northern New Fleet and Cascade allocations (speculation).

I’d reckon the Hope Valley could do with some BEMUs. The problem is the current Northern services on the Hope Valley all run via Romiley and Marple so the only electrified line is between Ashburys and Manchester Piccadilly. In the best case, assuming pan up/down on the move at Ashburys, we are...

www.railforums.co.uk

The count of carriages of phase 1 for just the 780s is equal to all the Sprinters Northern have at the moment.

 

[D365]

And thus we come back to the point of why the 350/2s would be at all necessary at Northern.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

And thus we come back to the point of why the 350/2s would be at all necessary at Northern.

The only potential use case would be in the short term, and given how long modifications and agreements would take, it's likely they'd only be around for a few years before the new trains start arriving.

 

[Charlie978]

The only potential use case would be in the short term, and given how long modifications and agreements would take, it's likely they'd only be around for a few years before the new trains start arriving.

But then either the new trains to converted 350s could be redeployed to strengthen services / free up 170s to be cascaded to EMR seen as their fleet order has gone quiet. I’m sure there would be a home for them if successfully converted.

 

[tfw756rider]

Maybe during the off peak with a SC that's on the ball. Even at 6am with 5 passengers getting on I'd bet the average dwell for a 350 is more like 45-50s.

There's a reason 350s pick up so much sub-threshold delay on the Coventry corridor with nothing in front of them, and most of those dwells are planned to a minute.

What's an SC?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

What's an SC?

I'll hazard a guess at Senior Conductor?

 

[Kite159]

And thus we come back to the point of why the 350/2s would be at all necessary at Northern.

To replace the 323s when the replacement new stock order gets cut back to be focused on the older diesels, assuming Labour doesn't even decide those old 150s can last another 10 years and cancel that order as well.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

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.

I'm not "arguing for the sake of arguing". It's either a through service or it isn't, and if you have to change trains then it isn't. Words have meanings and if we can't agree on definitions then any discussion is pointless.
As for saying that frequency is unimportant, let's just run everything in the country hourly then- much easier to implement this forum's favourite concept- the "Takt" that way... [/S]

I appreciate that we're in the speculative discussion section, but some of the mental gymnastics being performed to find a home for these units is remarkable. Your idea for linking those two services could have legs with battery EMUs but those battery EMUs won't be modified 350/2s. There are a number of downsides to your suggestion besides that, such as putting additional pressure on the through platforms at Doncaster rather than using the bays as the current Leeds EMU does- that would likely have knock-on effects on the ECML.

 

[daodao]

The continuing overcrowding on XC suggests to me that the best use for the redundant 350/2s would be to replace the Voyagers on the fully electrified sections of the XC network. This would release Voyagers to lengthen trains on non-electrified parts of this network.

I am thinking particularly of these 2 areas of operation:

• Manchester to Birmingham/Coventry, to be transferred to LNWR, who already operate class 350 trains
• Doncaster/York to Edinburgh - Northern would probably be the best operator, and local services from Newcastle to Morpeth/Chatham could be included

 

[Bill57p9]

The continuing overcrowding on XC suggests to me that the best use for the redundant 350/2s would be to replace the Voyagers on the fully electrified sections of the XC network. This would release Voyagers to lengthen trains on non-electrified parts of this network.

I am thinking particularly of these 2 areas of operation:

• Manchester to Birmingham/Coventry, to be transferred to LNWR, who already operate class 350 trains
• Doncaster/York to Edinburgh - Northern would probably be the best operator, and local services from Newcastle to Morpeth/Chatham could be included

Interesting idea and a lot of common sense, though I do believe 125mph is a requirement for the ECML paths.

 

[Russel]

Because there appears to be no future for 37 4-car 350/2 units as EMUs except scrap which is purely down to stupid decisions over the last 30 years to procrastinate or pause electrification schemes such as Oxenholme-Windermere, Chippenham-Bristol TM-Bristol Parkway.
BEMUs could be used as soon as thy are converted and tested on Manchester-Windermere/Barrow, Manchester-Buxton, Huddersfield-Leeds-York services before electrification is complete, Leeds-Harrogate-York, Leeds-Wakefield W-Featherstone, Leeds-Skipton-Morecambe and Leeds-Mirfield-Hebden Bridge providing lease charges are reasonable.

There was me thinking this situation was down to the ROSCO charging high leasing costs, making a brand new fleet of substantially better trains, a more attractive option.

 

[Snow1964]

Of course if there is no room to fit batteries, then the alternative is some sort of battery car added to the formation.

OK, I realise this might sound a bit like South London line electrification milk van power cars (which having driving positions were virtually mini electric locos).

But if you think about it could do lot worse than building and adding a part seated, part above floor power source, extra vehicle (much like old DEMUs did), even if only have a 25 year life. The economics must look favourable against writing off 130 vehicles third of way through lifespan. Those 350 are probably only depreciated 40% of cost price and if go for scrap the owner has to take an accounting write off in one go of around 60% of their cost.

Flirts operate with a diesel electric power car (although that is short wider articulated vehicle), so idea of an extra intermediate vehicle for power is not totally far fetched.

 

[stevieinselby]

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.

You seem to be confused.

At the moment, we have two separate services, each running hourly, which combine to give 2tph between Adwick and Doncaster:
Leeds to Doncaster, calling at Adwick, using EMUs
Adwick to Sheffield, calling at Doncaster, using DMUs.

First, you said that we could combine them to make a single service running from Leeds to Sheffield via Doncaster.
Now you seem to be saying that we should extend the Leeds to Doncaster service through to Sheffield as well as continuing to run the Adwick to Sheffield service, meaning that we're adding an extra hourly service between Doncaster and Sheffield, along a line that already has 4tph and several bottlenecks, not combining two existing services.

 

[Russel]

Of course if there is no room to fit batteries, then the alternative is some sort of battery car added to the formation.

OK, I realise this might sound a bit like South London line electrification milk van power cars (which having driving positions were virtually mini electric locos).

But if you think about it could do lot worse than building and adding a part seated, part above floor power source, extra vehicle (much like old DEMUs did), even if only have a 25 year life. The economics must look favourable against writing off 130 vehicles third of way through lifespan. Those 350 are probably only depreciated 40% of cost price and if go for scrap the owner has to take an accounting write off in one go of around 60% of their cost.

Flirts operate with a diesel electric power car (although that is short wider articulated vehicle), so idea of an extra intermediate vehicle for power is not totally far fetched.

A small power pod as in the Flirts wouldn't be a bad idea.

But realistically, it'll never happen.

 

[stevieinselby]

The continuing overcrowding on XC suggests to me that the best use for the redundant 350/2s would be to replace the Voyagers on the fully electrified sections of the XC network. This would release Voyagers to lengthen trains on non-electrified parts of this network.

I am thinking particularly of these 2 areas of operation:

• Manchester to Birmingham/Coventry, to be transferred to LNWR, who already operate class 350 trains
• Doncaster/York to Edinburgh - Northern would probably be the best operator, and local services from Newcastle to Morpeth/Chatham could be included

A couple of issues with that plan:

• The 350/2s are currently configured for suburban use with 3+2 seating, which would be unsuitable for long-distance services to replace XCountry. While they could be refurbished with 2+2 seating, this has a cost associated with it.
• Voyagers don't run either on electrified or non-electrified lines – most journeys use both. If you are proposing cutting through journeys so that Manchester no longer gets any XCountry services but just trains to Birmingham, and Edinburgh and Newcastle no longer get any XCountry services but just trains to York/Doncaster, then you're going to annoy a lot of passengers who now find that they have to change trains (and if they have to change trains at New Street, that is easily enough to put them off using the train completely).

 

[Kite159]

Now you seem to be saying that we should extend the Leeds to Doncaster service through to Sheffield as well as continuing to run the Adwick to Sheffield service, meaning that we're adding an extra hourly service between Doncaster and Sheffield, along a line that already has 4tph and several bottlenecks, not combining two existing services.

4tph, of which only one of those trains is the stopper. Compared to Pre Covid when the stoppers were 2tph (1tph to Adwick the other 1tph terminating in P5 at Doncaster). The line coped before Covid with having 5tph between Swinton & Doncaster.

Although extending the Leeds - Doncaster stopper to Sheffield, using the all magical battery powered train is a bonkers idea.

 

[Magdalia]

The continuing overcrowding on XC suggests to me that the best use for the redundant 350/2s would be to replace the Voyagers on the fully electrified sections of the XC network. This would release Voyagers to lengthen trains on non-electrified parts of this network.

I am thinking particularly of these 2 areas of operation:

• Manchester to Birmingham/Coventry, to be transferred to LNWR, who already operate class 350 trains
• Doncaster/York to Edinburgh - Northern would probably be the best operator, and local services from Newcastle to Morpeth/Chatham could be included

I fully agree on Manchester-Birmingham but I'm much less convinced on ECML.

Manchester-Birmingham's prime function is as an interurban route between England's 2 biggest cities outside London, and to serve some important places in between: Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford and Wolverhampton.

The 2024/25 origin destination matrix has these one way numbers:

Manchester-Birmingham 236k
Manchester-Stafford 103k
Stafford-Wolverhampton 94k
Stoke-Stafford 87k
Manchester-Wolverhampton 85k

The trains also make a substantial contribution to Manchester-Stoke and Macclesfield, which are 355k and 335k. Manchester-Stockport and Birmingham-Wolverhampton are even bigger.

Compared to these numbers the long distance cross country traffic is secondary, for example Manchester-Bristol is 46k and Manchester-Oxford is 29k.

A couple of issues with that plan:

• The 350/2s are currently configured for suburban use with 3+2 seating, which would be unsuitable for long-distance services to replace XCountry. While they could be refurbished with 2+2 seating, this has a cost associated with it.

And a suburban railway is how Manchester-Birmingham needs to be operated, because that is its primary function. The class 350/2s are well suited to the task, whereas the Voyagers are not.

If you are proposing cutting through journeys so that Manchester no longer gets any XCountry services but just trains to Birmingham, and Edinburgh and Newcastle no longer get any XCountry services but just trains to York/Doncaster, then you're going to annoy a lot of passengers who now find that they have to change trains

The much larger numbers of people travelling between Manchester and Birmingham, and stations in between, will be pleased.

And of course Liverpool-Birmingham has been served this way for many years now.

I'm much less convinced that class 350/2s are suited to the north end of the ECML because it isn't an interurban/suburban railway, apart from the big Durham-Newcastle flow.

 

[Russel]

A couple of issues with that plan:

• The 350/2s are currently configured for suburban use with 3+2 seating, which would be unsuitable for long-distance services to replace XCountry. While they could be refurbished with 2+2 seating, this has a cost associated with it.

The 350/2s need will need a full refurbishment where ever they end up and XC are currently replacing all seating on their Voyagers and 170s, so this point wouldn't really be relevant here.

• Voyagers don't run either on electrified or non-electrified lines – most journeys use both. If you are proposing cutting through journeys so that Manchester no longer gets any XCountry services but just trains to Birmingham, and Edinburgh and Newcastle no longer get any XCountry services but just trains to York/Doncaster, then you're going to annoy a lot of passengers who now find that they have to change trains (and if they have to change trains at New Street, that is easily enough to put them off using the train completely).

Not convinced cutting journeys in half at New Street is a massive issue, the trains tend to empty out and refill at New Street so the number of through passengers isn't going to be big in comparison, but also, if splitting the service at New Street results in higher capacity and more chance of a seat, then it's better for those making through journeys anyway.

The benefits far outweigh the negatives.

 

[Olivine]

The continuing overcrowding on XC suggests to me that the best use for the redundant 350/2s would be to replace the Voyagers on the fully electrified sections of the XC network. This would release Voyagers to lengthen trains on non-electrified parts of this network.

I am thinking particularly of these 2 areas of operation:

• Manchester to Birmingham/Coventry, to be transferred to LNWR, who already operate class 350 trains
• Doncaster/York to Edinburgh - Northern would probably be the best operator, and local services from Newcastle to Morpeth/Chatham could be included

Not really ‘CrossCountry’ then is it - you’d be better to junk the whole XC service instead if that’s the idea.

 

[Russel]

Not really ‘CrossCountry’ then is it - you’d be better to junk the whole XC service instead if that’s the idea.

It would be the same as Birmingham to Nottingham or Birmingham to Leicester which as been branded as CrossCountry for almost 20 years, I'm not sure I understand what issue you're trying to raise?

 

[td97]

I fully agree on Manchester-Birmingham

This comes up quite frequently, and the stated difficulty is splitting the Manchester - Bournemouth route and pathing 2 terminating services at Birmingham New St (or elsewhere - Coventry or Birmingham International).
But the newly added Camp Hill and Birmingham - Manchester Airport services (and Shrewsbury stopper in 2024) don't really reinforce the position that BHM is fully at capacity.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The continuing overcrowding on XC suggests to me that the best use for the redundant 350/2s would be to replace the Voyagers on the fully electrified sections of the XC network. This would release Voyagers to lengthen trains on non-electrified parts of this network.

I am thinking particularly of these 2 areas of operation:

• Manchester to Birmingham/Coventry, to be transferred to LNWR, who already operate class 350 trains
• Doncaster/York to Edinburgh - Northern would probably be the best operator, and local services from Newcastle to Morpeth/Chatham could be included

How do you fit the resulting Birmingham - Bournemouth trains into New Street with their paths taken up by this service?