Future of the 350/2s

[daodao]

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

I would run this service as 1tph with 2x 4 coach Voyagers and extend it to Leeds, and withdraw the existing Reading to York/Newcastle service.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I would run this service as 1tph with 2x 4 coach Voyagers and extend it to Leeds, and withdraw the existing Reading to York/Newcastle service.

But - I can tell you this because I use the Birmingham Reading axis a lot for commuting to Coventry, Oxford and Reading as a freelancer living in Manchester - the 2tph Birmingham Reading is badly needed.

 

[43096]

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.


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.


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.

I think there is some seriously flawed logic in that. If you do that for Manchester-Birmingham, why not for Leeds-Birmingham or Birmingham-Plymouth? I reckon you would come up with a similar result. So by your logic you split the entire XC network at Birmingham - which is going to cause one heck of a lot of pathing, pletforming and crew issues.

 

[Russel]

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

They have found space for the Camp Hill trains...

We're talking years away if anything did happen, by which point the Midlands Rail Hub project could provide capacity in some way.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They have found space for the Camp Hill trains...

We're talking years away if anything did happen, by which point the Midlands Rail Hub project could provide capacity in some way.

Fair enough. The longer we wait though, the less useful it is to invest in the renovation of the 350s as opposed to ordering new, particularly as anything ordered new could also include bi-mode capability to work the routes in full.

 

[Russel]

Fair enough. The longer we wait though, the less useful it is to invest in the renovation of the 350s as opposed to ordering new, particularly as anything ordered new could also include bi-mode capability to work the routes in full.

I struggle to believe there isn't the capacity at the moment to be fair...

There is also the potential to extend the service to Wolverhampton and terminate there rather than New Street to free up platform space.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I struggle to believe there isn't the capacity at the moment to be fair...

There is also the potential to extend the service to Wolverhampton and terminate there rather than New Street to free up platform space.

Oh really? Calling @The Planner, pathing expert and speculative ideas dream crusher He'll put you right there

As I'm sure he will back me up on, Birmingham New Street is already suffering for platform space badly. Otherwise, I'd be advocating for a split of the traumatic Cardiff Nottingham service.

 

[Russel]

Oh really? Calling @The Planner, pathing expert and speculative ideas dream crusher He'll put you right there

As I'm sure he will back me up on, Birmingham New Street is already suffering for platform space badly. Otherwise, I'd be advocating for a split of the traumatic Cardiff Nottingham service.

This is looking at things as they stand now though....

Another possible option, route the Bournemouth/Reading services into Moor Street or Snow Hill if there service was to be split? Not an ideal solution, but better than just admitting defeat and doing nothing.

There is a disused platform at Snow Hill crying out for trains!

 

[The Planner]

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.

Those Camp Hill services make it very difficult to go back to 6tph Cross City at the Northern side

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2026 ==

This is looking at things as they stand now though....

Another possible option, route the Bournemouth/Reading services into Moor Street or Snow Hill if there service was to be split? Not an ideal solution, but better than just admitting defeat and doing nothing.

There is a disused platform at Snow Hill crying out for trains!

Bournemouth trains won't be going to Moor St.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2026 ==

I struggle to believe there isn't the capacity at the moment to be fair...

There is also the potential to extend the service to Wolverhampton and terminate there rather than New Street to free up platform space.

The Camp Hill services arrive at xx.44. The next path out is xx.48 after the Rugeley. That has the Shrewsbury right behind it at xx.52, so it would have to be fast to Wolves and have a platform to terminate in. It doesn't really deliver anything. The next one arrives at xx.11. To run that onwards you would have to retime the Rugeley or run behind it again whereupon the Aberystwth/Holyhead is behind you.

 

[Magdalia]

But - I can tell you this because I use the Birmingham Reading axis a lot for commuting to Coventry, Oxford and Reading as a freelancer living in Manchester - the 2tph Birmingham Reading is badly needed.

As this discussion demonstrates, track capacity is a major constraint. If more on train capacity is needed between Birmingham and Reading, then the way to achieve it is by running longer trains not more short trains.

There is also the potential to extend the service to Wolverhampton and terminate there rather than New Street to free up platform space.

And Birmingham International has 5 platforms.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

As this discussion demonstrates, track capacity is a major constraint. If more on train capacity is needed between Birmingham and Reading, then the way to achieve it is by running longer trains not more short trains.

But it’s not “more” short trains. The service is not 1tph now, it is 1.5tph, and was 2tph until COVID hit. So I’m not in favour of more trains, I’m in favour of there not being less!

 

[Russel]

Bournemouth trains won't be going to Moor St.

Why not though?

If more Reading/Bournemouth services are needed and there isn't the capacity at New Street while other city centre stations have capacity, it would seem an odd move to rule it out. You'd also have the benefit of taking a diesel train out of New Street, bearing in mind it's underground nature...

Sometimes problems need creative solutions.

 

[Shotton]

Probably many a reason why this would not work, but, if a high capacity Birmingham -> Manchester service was to be desired, perhaps TfW services which currently run to Birmingham International could be curtailed to run to Wolverhampton only.

These trains are low capacity in comparison to most that run to Birmingham, and could terminate in platform 6 at Wolverhampton. Local services Shrewsbury <-> Birmingham would still provide a direct, albeit slower service, and passengers could change for the many trains available at Wolverhampton to Birmingham.

Then, the service to Manchester could hopefully operate as an 8-car set of 350/2's run in the TfWs path both northbound and southbound and terminate at Birmingham International (arriving XX:52, departing XX:08).

The northbound Bournemouth<->Manchester currently arrives at Birmingham International at around XX:40, and the next Southbound departs at XX:13. There appears to be nothing through platform 5 during this time, so perhaps it could terminate in platform 5 with the northbound forming the next Southbound service running Birmingham International<->Bournemouth.

Hopefully, if this change was made it would (if adequate train crew was recruited) allow for the Bournemouth<->Birmingham International service to run consistently as double voyagers, with the 350/2s providing increased Birmingham<->Manchester capacity.

 

[Olivine]

Is there even a link from the North into Birmingham Moor Street? Let alone the south?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Is there even a link from the North into Birmingham Moor Street? Let alone the south?

From the North, not really, from the South, several XC trains already go via Dorridge and run on the line to Moor Street (but divert away via Bordesley Junction to get to the WCML for New St).

 

[The Planner]

And Birmingham International has 5 platforms.

New St to International is effectively full and has 3tph terminating there already.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2026 ==

Why not though?

If more Reading/Bournemouth services are needed and there isn't the capacity at New Street while other city centre stations have capacity, it would seem an odd move to rule it out. You'd also have the benefit of taking a diesel train out of New Street, bearing in mind it's underground nature...

Sometimes problems need creative solutions.

Moor St will be full of Midland Rail Hub extras from the East Mids and Bristol.

 

[Magdalia]

Probably many a reason why this would not work, but, if a high capacity Birmingham -> Manchester service was to be desired, perhaps TfW services which currently run to Birmingham International could be curtailed to run to Wolverhampton only.

I have another suggestion, though there may be reasons why it wouldn't work.

Coming south trains ex Manchester usually arrive New Street at xx33/xx56.
The stopping service to Euston departs at xx06/xx36.

Going north trains to Manchester usually depart New Street at xx01/xx30.
The stopping service from Euston arrives at xx14/xx44.

Join these up and the logical alternative place to split the service is at Northampton, where there is spare capacity in the schedules and platforms. It is a shame that the north end bays at Rugby have gone!

The bit that looks possibly most difficult is the long dwell at New Street for northbound trains.

New St to International is effectively full and has 3tph terminating there already.

3 platforms available for terminating trains and 3tph terminating can't described as full, that's 1tph for each platform. There are many stations that have 2tph per terminating platform.

 

[hux385]

I have another suggestion, though there may be reasons why it wouldn't work.

Coming south trains ex Manchester usually arrive New Street at xx33/xx56.
The stopping service to Euston departs at xx06/xx36.

Going north trains to Manchester usually depart New Street at xx01/xx30.
The stopping service from Euston arrives at xx14/xx44.

Join these up and the logical alternative place to split the service is at Northampton, where there is spare capacity in the schedules and platforms. It is a shame that the north end bays at Rugby have gone!

I was literally halfway through writing a post suggesting exactly the same thing! I think this would be the most logical, if the 3 minute dwell going southbound isn't too tight at New Street.

 

[The Planner]

Probably many a reason why this would not work, but, if a high capacity Birmingham -> Manchester service was to be desired, perhaps TfW services which currently run to Birmingham International could be curtailed to run to Wolverhampton only.

These trains are low capacity in comparison to most that run to Birmingham, and could terminate in platform 6 at Wolverhampton. Local services Shrewsbury <-> Birmingham would still provide a direct, albeit slower service, and passengers could change for the many trains available at Wolverhampton to Birmingham.

Then, the service to Manchester could hopefully operate as an 8-car set of 350/2's run in the TfWs path both northbound and southbound and terminate at Birmingham International (arriving XX:52, departing XX:08).

The northbound Bournemouth<->Manchester currently arrives at Birmingham International at around XX:40, and the next Southbound departs at XX:13. There appears to be nothing through platform 5 during this time, so perhaps it could terminate in platform 5 with the northbound forming the next Southbound service running Birmingham International<->Bournemouth.

Hopefully, if this change was made it would (if adequate train crew was recruited) allow for the Bournemouth<->Birmingham International service to run consistently as double voyagers, with the 350/2s providing increased Birmingham<->Manchester capacity.

Politically unlikely to cut the TfW back. They are normally 4 car 158 and you cannot access P6 from the north at Wolves. You would need to find a platform for half an hour or more. Southbound you would have to retime the existing XC path by 1 minute later to provide the connection. The other way the Wales service would have to depart 5 minute later, that might work to Holyhead depending on how the trains are split at Shrewsbury but it would cause problems on the Cambrian as you will hit the crossing points too late. Surely passengers from the south are now waiting for 28 minutes at International for a train northwards, or is the expectation that the through traffic is the loser in this?

 

[Mgameing123]

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

And with GBR being the only operator anyways. We can mix around the diagrams more to make best use of the trains we already have.

But honestly if the Cross Country line to Reading and Bristol were electrified then it could bring a lot of great possibilities!

 

[The Planner]

I have another suggestion, though there may be reasons why it wouldn't work.

Coming south trains ex Manchester usually arrive New Street at xx33/xx56.
The stopping service to Euston departs at xx06/xx36.

Going north trains to Manchester usually depart New Street at xx01/xx30.
The stopping service from Euston arrives at xx14/xx44.

Join these up and the logical alternative place to split the service is at Northampton, where there is spare capacity in the schedules and platforms. It is a shame that the north end bays at Rugby have gone!

The bit that looks possibly most difficult is the long dwell at New Street for northbound trains.

That is fine for joining the paths up, but what are you doing with the sets at New St that are no longer going through as you note? Northbound Bournemouth XCs arrive at xx.56 and go back at xx.03 if they don't interwork as they do now. 7 minutes is too short to turnaround a train having come from Bournemouth, or it sits there for 46 minutes to form a Bristol (which would also likely fix it to going via the Camp Hills as now). Bristol services arrive at xx.24 with a xx.42 if they don't interwork, that is probably more manageable, otherwise they sit for 39 minutes to form the Bournemouth.

3 platforms available for terminating trains and 3tph terminating can't described as full, that's 1tph for each platform. There are many stations that have 2tph per terminating platform.

Yes, but you have 9tph along that corridor between New St and International, 10tph when the freight path runs. You cannot add extensions etc along that section with the view to them sitting there. The stoppers take 18 minutes of the hour along there, hence nothing leaves New St in that direction from xx.50 to xx.03 and xx.24 to xx.36.

 

[Topological]

I have another suggestion, though there may be reasons why it wouldn't work.

Coming south trains ex Manchester usually arrive New Street at xx33/xx56.
The stopping service to Euston departs at xx06/xx36.

Going north trains to Manchester usually depart New Street at xx01/xx30.
The stopping service from Euston arrives at xx14/xx44.

Join these up and the logical alternative place to split the service is at Northampton, where there is spare capacity in the schedules and platforms. It is a shame that the north end bays at Rugby have gone!

The bit that looks possibly most difficult is the long dwell at New Street for northbound trains.


3 platforms available for terminating trains and 3tph terminating can't described as full, that's 1tph for each platform. There are many stations that have 2tph per terminating platform.

Now that looks to be a good suggestion.

Plus Liverpool can point out they get 730s while Manchester gets 350s...

Although I do use Manchester to Bristol whenever the Marches falls over, the idea of extra capacity on Manchester to Birmingham New Street should trump all else.

The bit that is missing though is you now have voyagers from Bristol and Reading terminating at New Street and clogging up platforms

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There is a way the suggestion of Birmingham to Manchester with 350/2s would work without disrupting through journey options, but I have strong doubts about whether there would be enough paths available.

Run the existing Cross Country through to Manchester, as at present, but non stop between New Street and Piccadilly. Use the 350/2s, with a suitable internal refit, to provide a connecting service calling at the intermediate stations that currently get the Cross Country calls between the two.

This would also allow a reduced journey time between Birmingham and Manchester on the through services - although that in itself would probably come up against more pathing issues, so doing anything like this might well require a full recast of the timetables which would of course also affect a number of local services. It could at least be worth looking in to; if it could be made to work it would release at least one pair of Voyagers - possibly two pairs - by means of the reduced running time which could be used to provide more double formations elsewhere ( admittedly that would be a moot point unless the actually open both halves of the rakes!! ).

 

[Shotton]

Politically unlikely to cut the TfW back. They are normally 4 car 158 and you cannot access P6 from the north at Wolves. You would need to find a platform for half an hour or more. Southbound you would have to retime the existing XC path by 1 minute later to provide the connection. The other way the Wales service would have to depart 5 minute later, that might work to Holyhead depending on how the trains are split at Shrewsbury but it would cause problems on the Cambrian as you will hit the crossing points too late. Surely passengers from the south are now waiting for 28 minutes at International for a train northwards, or is the expectation that the through traffic is the loser in this?

I was under the impression that platform 6 was a north facing bay at Wolverhampton (with P5 being a South facing one) - but if that is not the case I can see that would be a significant hurdle. A 4 car 158 set has about half the capacity of 8x 350/2.

I agree that through traffic is negatively impacted by this change, but the increased capacity could be a worthwhile trade off.

Though, I think @Magdalias solution is much less flawed.

I do not think running services non-stop Birmingham <-> Manchester should be how we do things, as the capacity could be used at intermediate stations if it is running anyway.

 

[Magdalia]

Northbound Bournemouth XCs arrive at xx.56 and go back at xx.03 if they don't interwork as they do now. 7 minutes is too short to turnaround a train having come from Bournemouth

I have most of the Bournemouth arrivals being at xx51?

A possible option here would be to run Bournemouth trains through to/from Shrewsbury (echoes of the GWR) in the paths of the trains that depart New Street at xx52 and arrive at xx00. There isn't much dwell time so it might be necessary to sacrifice the Smethwick Galton Bridge stops.

But that gets complicated too, with unit turnrounds at both Shrewsbury and New Street!

 

[JonathanH]

A possible option here would be to run Bournemouth trains through to/from Shrewsbury (echoes of the GWR) in the paths of the trains that depart New Street at xx52 and arrive at xx00. There isn't much dwell time so it might be necessary to sacrifice the Smethwick Galton Bridge stops.

But that gets complicated too, with unit turnrounds at both Shrewsbury and New Street!

Not sure people on this forum would like the idea of CrossCountry long distance services from the South Coast morphing into local stopping services from Birmingham to Shrewsbury, even if it were an efficient operation. The consensus view appears to be that CrossCountry should only operate services which call at principal stations and have 'full length' formations.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I have another suggestion, though there may be reasons why it wouldn't work.

Coming south trains ex Manchester usually arrive New Street at xx33/xx56.
The stopping service to Euston departs at xx06/xx36.

Going north trains to Manchester usually depart New Street at xx01/xx30.
The stopping service from Euston arrives at xx14/xx44.

Join these up and the logical alternative place to split the service is at Northampton, where there is spare capacity in the schedules and platforms. It is a shame that the north end bays at Rugby have gone!

The bit that looks possibly most difficult is the long dwell at New Street for northbound trains.


3 platforms available for terminating trains and 3tph terminating can't described as full, that's 1tph for each platform. There are many stations that have 2tph per terminating platform.

You presumably don't remember the London - Liverpool service produced by joining Euston - Northampton - Birmingham services to Birmingham - Liverpool ones.
I think that that experience will not result in your suggestion receiving wide acclaim...

 

[Bletchleyite]

You presumably don't remember the London - Liverpool service produced by joining Euston - Northampton - Birmingham services to Birmingham - Liverpool ones.
I think that that experience will not result in your suggestion receiving wide acclaim...

Indeed.

Absolutely do not do this. It caused a total collapse of the service south of Northampton, day after day. The only WMT service that can sensibly be extended from what it is is the Crewe as it's relatively standalone.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Indeed.

Absolutely do not do this. It caused a total collapse of the service south of Northampton, day after day. The only WMT service that can sensibly be extended from what it is is the Crewe as it's relatively standalone.

In my small way, I did warn them!
One evening there was a 'manager' at Northampton handing out leaflets about the 'New Service to Liverpool' I got talking him - he quickly told me he was from 'Outside the Industry', everything is simple when you have a fresh mind (or. alternatively, you naively can't foresee the problems due to lack of experience!).
At that time, there was a display at the station listing delays elsewhere on the network. It showed all the Euston trains running on time, but all lines blocked at Penkridge due 'emergency services dealing with an incident'. I pointed that out to him, and said that, by making the route longer, you increased your chance of problems; for example, that incident would result in the whole service going to Euston going down the pan. He just looked at me in a condescending way and smiled.

But, on the bright side, when the Liverpool trains also included a Walsall portion, the announcements were epic!

 

[hux385]

But if the trains ran as seperate Euston-Northampton and Northampton-Manchester services, would that be a bit more reliable?