Future of the 350/2s

[Bletchleyite]

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

Why on earth would you want to do that when the established semifast Euston-Birmingham service is well used and reliable? You would be making my services worse and giving me nothing useful in return.

 

[Russel]

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

Through traffic shouldn't be a consideration, the numbers of people making a through journey and the numbers making a small journey that will actually mind making a change will be tiny compared to how many people will benefit from the upgrade in capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Through traffic shouldn't be a consideration, the numbers of people making a through journey and the numbers making a small journey that will actually mind making a change will be tiny compared to how many people will benefit from the upgrade in capacity.

The majority of users of the TfW service are making a through journey to Birmingham or continuing, via one change, to London. Lopping that at Wolves is like terminating Manchester services at Milton Keynes Central, it makes no sense whatsoever.

When these services become Class 197 the large door areas will mean they can take a crush load easily.

 

[Russel]

The majority of users of the TfW service are making a through journey to Birmingham or continuing, via one change, to London. Lopping that at Wolves is like terminating Manchester services at Milton Keynes Central, it makes no sense whatsoever.

When these services become Class 197 the large door areas will mean they can take a crush load easily.

Ah my bad, I didn't read the post properly, I thought it was in reference to splitting XC services, not the TFW service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah my bad, I didn't read the post properly, I thought it was in reference to splitting XC services, not the TFW service.

Terminating XC services at Wolves makes no sense either. People want to go to Birmingham, not an adjacent smaller city.

 

[778]

Could it have been possible to run 2x 5 car 730s on the Birmingham - Liverpool service but with the trains splitting at Crewe with 5 cars going to Manchester and the other 5 to Liverpool? The 350/2s would have stayed on the Tring/MK services and the 730/2s would have been used for London - Crewe and Birmingham - Manchester/Liverpool? Will not happen now though.

 

[Russel]

Terminating XC services at Wolves makes no sense either. People want to go to Birmingham, not an adjacent smaller city.

As I said, I didn't read the post properly, I thought it was in reference to splitting XC services which I assumed meant Birmingham, as it's been brought up a few times in this thread.

 

[daodao]

As I said, I didn't read the post properly, I thought it was in reference to splitting XC services which I assumed meant Birmingham, as it's been brought up a few times in this thread.

The comment was in relation to splitting services that currently run via Northampton at that station, to create separate services from Manchester to Northampton via Birmingham (which could be operated by class 350/2 trains) and from Northampton to London Euston. This would keep the London commuter services separate from services further north and reduce the number of terminating trains at Birmingham New Street. There would still be fast trains from Watford Junction and Milton Keynes direct to the West Midlands bypassing Northampton. What's not to like?

 

[43074]

The comment was in relation to splitting services that currently run via Northampton at that station, to create separate services from Manchester to Northampton via Birmingham (which could be operated by class 350/2 trains) and from Northampton to London Euston. This would keep the London commuter services separate from services further north and reduce the number of terminating trains at Birmingham New Street. There would still be fast trains from Watford Junction and Milton Keynes direct to the West Midlands bypassing Northampton. What's not to like?

Pretty much everything!

It doesn't reduce the number of trains terminating at New Street though, as what do you do with the Birmingham to Bournemouth and Birmingham to Bristol legs? You can't just scrap them as they are busy in their own right.

Splitting the London to Birmingham services at Northampton doesn't solve anything, from a platforming point of view they actually work quite well at New Street as in most hours they platform share with the Birmingham to Liverpool service (usually 4 cars so can use the north end of a platform whilst an 8 car from Euston uses the south end)

They also carry a lot of end to end traffic through Northampton as any surplus off peak capacity is used to sell cheap advance fares between London and the West Midlands

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

Sometimes problems need creative solutions.

CrossCountry doesn't need a "creative" solution, they just need longer trains!

 

[daodao]

It doesn't reduce the number of trains terminating at New Street though, as what do you do with the Birmingham to Bournemouth and Birmingham to Bristol legs? You can't just scrap them as they are busy in their own right.

I would run the Bournemouth to Birmingham service using a double Voyager train and extend it to Leeds (and remove the occasional Reading to Newcastle trains). I would join the Bristol to Birmingham service with that from Birmingham to Nottingham (or Leicester). I accept that the timetable would need to be recast to accommodate these changes, but there are advantages in keeping rhe ex-LNWR and ex-Midland Railway services operationally separate at New Street Station.

They also carry a lot of end to end traffic through Northampton as any surplus off peak capacity is used to sell cheap advance fares between London and the West Midlands.

There are adequate fast train services from London, Watford Junction and Milton Keynes to Rugby and the West Midlands, avoiding the Northampton detour. Once GBR is established, there shouldn't be any special discounted fares via Northampton.

 

[43074]

I accept that the timetable would need to be recast to accommodate these changes, but there are advantages in keeping rhe ex-LNWR and ex-Midland Railway services operationally separate at New Street Station.

Recast is doing a lot of heavy lifting there!

The only service which links the West Coast and "Midland" sides of New Street is the Bristol to Manchester, but the planners have already figured that one out as they use the Camp Hill lines in many cases which allows them to stay on the lower numbered platforms at New Street.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

There are adequate fast train services from London, Watford Junction and Milton Keynes to Rugby and the West Midlands, avoiding the Northampton detour. Once GBR is established, there shouldn't be any special discounted fares via Northampton.

Why not? They are essentially, as you describe them, commuter services and the advances fill seats on them off peak at very marginal extra cost.

Those customers would otherwise take Flixbus or National Express, therefore losing the industry much more in revenue than it costs to cater for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The comment was in relation to splitting services that currently run via Northampton at that station, to create separate services from Manchester to Northampton via Birmingham (which could be operated by class 350/2 trains) and from Northampton to London Euston. This would keep the London commuter services separate from services further north and reduce the number of terminating trains at Birmingham New Street. There would still be fast trains from Watford Junction and Milton Keynes direct to the West Midlands bypassing Northampton. What's not to like?

The loss of direct services to Birmingham from places south of MKC and the reduction in direct services to Birmingham from MKC itself from three to one train per hour. The pattern that operates now has existed (with a bit of a gap around the West Coast Route Modernisation work where it was split for a few years) since the 1990s and is popular and reliable. Why do people like to meddle with established services that are popular and workable to create something entirely theoretical like direct Northampton to Manchester services?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

There are adequate fast train services from London, Watford Junction and Milton Keynes to Rugby and the West Midlands, avoiding the Northampton detour.

There is one train per hour on Avanti. I think it would be rather debatable as to whether that actually is adequate - I'd personally say it's not, particularly given that south WCML timekeeping can be a bit iffy (not because of imported delay from Birmingham, but rather because it's all so busy south of MKC) and so connections are very often missed. If it was increased to two so the longest you would wait at MKC if it missed is 29 minutes rather than 59, then I might be less put out by your idea. This is planned post HS2 but not yet.

Once GBR is established, there shouldn't be any special discounted fares via Northampton.

It's likely there will be, though in the form of Advances (at low prices right up to departure as per Northern and TfW so it's still flexible, you just buy when you know which train you'll use) rather than walk up fares. It is not competition, it is market segmentation, which is practiced by state railways all over Europe and the rest of the world. See also the Crewe service which is unlikely to go away either.

 

[Magdalia]

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

This is what I was suggesting, sorry if that wasn't clear.

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...

I do remember, and that's why I wasn't suggesting through running Manchester-Euston. It has to have a break somewhere for reslience reasons, and Northampton is most convenient from an operational perspective. Northampton is almost the least inconvenient from a passenger perspective too, where I think that Rugby would be more suitable, but the north end bays there have gone so there is nowhere to terminate at that end.

Why on earth would you want to do that when the established semifast Euston-Birmingham service is well used and reliable? You would be making my services worse and giving me nothing useful in return.

Breaking the service at Northampton would make the service south of Northampton more reliable. I have your interests in mind too!

The comment was in relation to splitting services that currently run via Northampton at that station, to create separate services from Manchester to Northampton via Birmingham (which could be operated by class 350/2 trains) and from Northampton to London Euston. This would keep the London commuter services separate from services further north and reduce the number of terminating trains at Birmingham New Street. There would still be fast trains from Watford Junction and Milton Keynes direct to the West Midlands bypassing Northampton. What's not to like?

A few people would be inconvenienced, but there is a lot to gain for a lot of people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Breaking the service at Northampton would make the service south of Northampton more reliable. I have your interests in mind too!

It's in my interest to lose my direct Birmingham service, is it?

The service isn't particularly unreliable. It often loses a few minutes on the southern section but the problem is the southern section, not Birmingham - that is, there are too many trains on the Euston-MKC section (but the only way you fix that is HS2). There was a problem with going north of Birmingham, but that way delay propagation, not New St, that was the problem.

This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist just to find something to do with the 350/2s. The service works fine as it is and is well established and very popular. The problem that does exist, XC overcrowding, could be resolved easily by giving XC the remaining Avanti 221s.

 

[Kite159]

It's likely there will be, though in the form of Advances (at low prices right up to departure as per Northern and TfW so it's still flexible, you just buy when you know which train you'll use) rather than walk up fares

Or even better, do away with advance fares for anything under 50 miles and have reasonably priced walk up fares. Rather than relying on advance fares being available and people buying tickets for future trains as they are cheaper due to a cut-off.

Next up will be more schemes like LNER doing away with cheaper flexible tickets as they are confusing and set price caps on what they could charge on days where demand was expected to be high. London to Newcastle on a cup final day, that will be £200 each please.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or even better, do away with advance fares for anything under 50 miles

Birmingham to London is quite a bit more than 50 miles (more like 100), and Birmingham to Milton Keynes Central is slightly more (about 60 if I recall).

MKC-Euston will in due course be Ovalised which will indeed mean mostly walk-up and inter available.

Either way, I cannot see the market segmentation provided by these services going away because it genuinely grows the market by providing an affordable option for those who can't afford Avanti's higher fares and thus would drive their old banger, go by coach or not go at all otherwise. As I said, state railways across the world do it in some form.

 

[D365]

Sometimes problems need creative solutions.

CrossCountry doesn't need a "creative" solution, they just need longer trains!

Redeployment of redundant EMU fleets always need creative solutions. This is the speculative subforum, after all

 

[Magdalia]

This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist just to find something to do with the 350/2s.

The problem that definitely exists is Manchester-Birmingham, and use of class 350s is a potential solution to that problem. It is a better solution than more Voyagers because class 350s are more suitable for the large numbers making the journey Manchester-Birmingham and intermediate stations between. It is a far bigger problem than maintaining through journeys between Bletchley and Birmingham, when Milton Keynes would still have a direct service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem that definitely exists is Manchester-Birmingham, and use of class 350s is a potential solution to that problem. It is a better solution than more Voyagers because class 350s are more suitable for the large numbers making the journey Manchester-Birmingham and intermediate stations between.

It is not a better solution than more Voyagers because it removes direct XC services across Birmingham which are well used in favour of direct services to Northampton which hardly anybody wants.

This is the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Magdalia]

It is not a better solution than more Voyagers because it removes direct XC services across Birmingham which are well used in favour of direct services to Northampton which hardly anybody wants.

This is the tail wagging the dog.

The XC direct services across Birmingham are the tail and the Manchester-Birmingham service is the dog. The tail is wagging the dog right now. I remind you of the numbers:

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.

The numbers of people wanting a better Manchester-Birmingham service completely swamp the number of people going to places like Bristol and Oxford.

 

[Class15]

It is not a better solution than more Voyagers because it removes direct XC services across Birmingham which are well used in favour of direct services to Northampton which hardly anybody wants.

This is the tail wagging the dog.

Totally agree with everything said here - that NW-SE connectivity needs to be kept and like you say hardly anyone will use this Northampton service.

 

[43096]

Redeployment of redundant EMU fleets always need creative solutions. This is the speculative subforum, after all

The “creative“ solution is to put more wires up which both uses redundant EMUs and decarbonises the railway.

 

[Magdalia]

Redeployment of redundant EMU fleets always need creative solutions. This is the speculative subforum, after all

The “creative“ solution is to put more wires up which both uses redundant EMUs and decarbonises the railway.

Putting more wires up is very expensive and takes a long time. Creative solutions are making best use of what is already available, which is less expensive and brings quicker results.

 

[biggerisbetter]

The problem that definitely exists is Manchester-Birmingham, and use of class 350s is a potential solution to that problem. It is a better solution than more Voyagers because class 350s are more suitable for the large numbers making the journey Manchester-Birmingham and intermediate stations between.

You also need to conisder the nature of people making the journeys between Manchester and Birmingham and their purpose. If you were proposing to replace one of the crosscountry services to Manchester I (and I imagine a not immaterial number of others) would still use the remaining Crosscountry service due to the potential ability to work at a table (albeit with voyagers being woefully underprovided in this respect in my view) as part of my journey for business purposes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You also need to conisder the nature of people making the journeys between Manchester and Birmingham and their purpose. If you were proposing to replace one of the crosscountry services to Manchester I (and I imagine a not immaterial number of others) would still use the remaining Crosscountry service due to the potential ability to work at a table (albeit with voyagers being woefully underprovided in this respect in my view) as part of my journey for business purposes.

I doubt the 350/2s would be deployed on XC without replacing the interior with one more suitable for longer distance journeys, i.e. 2+2 with tables.

 

[Russel]

I doubt the 350/2s would be deployed on XC without replacing the interior with one more suitable for longer distance journeys, i.e. 2+2 with tables.

Exactly this, they will need a full refurb wherever they go, as I and others have said, any suggestions on future use need to keep that in mind rather than concentrate on their current setup.

 

[Topological]

Could you build a reversing siding near Soho?

If so then the voyagers from Bristol/Bournemouth have somewhere to reverse without clogging the platforms. Because of the reversals at Birmingham they already cross the formation anyway

That leaves you with the Manchester 350s to turn around. Whilst I can see the sense in Northampton, I would see if Rugby could work. It looks like Platforms 1 and 2 can be used, with 1 being the best. There is also platform 6. Coventry could also make sense.

Also looking at a standard hour arrivals:

xx:18 from Reading
xx:24 from Bristol*
xx:27 from Leeds
xx:51 from Bournemouth*

Departures

xx: 03 to Bournemouth*
xx: 28 to Leeds
xx: 33 to Reading
xx: 42 to Bristol Temple Meads*

* denotes a Manchester train.

So match as follows

xx:18 forms xx:33 (15 minutes reversal)
xx:24 form xx:28 to Leeds
xx:27 from Leeds now goes as xx:42 to Bristol
xx:51 from Bournemouth forms xx:03 to Bournemouth (12 minutes reversal)

Or:

xx:18 from Reading forms the xx:28 to Leeds (As now)
xx:24 from Bristol forms xx:42 to Bristol (18 minutes reversal)
xx:27 from Leeds for xx:33 to Reading (As now)
xx:51 from Bournemouth forms xx:03 to Bournemouth (12 minutes reversal)

It reall is just that Bournemouth pair that cause the issues.

Manchester's are:

33 and 56 arrivals
01 and 30 departures

So to run a 350-based Manchester service needs a dedicated platform at New Street, or requires the trains to go further East.

 

[brad465]

Here's my "short term pain for long term gain" idea: send all the 350/2s to scrap immediately. Then make sure rail and general journalists kick up a right stink in outrage about it (such as "15 YEAR OLD TRAINS FOR SOUTHERNERS SCRAPPED WHILE NORTHERNERS SIT ON CROWDED SPRINTERS!") and hammer home the government will lose lots of support from MPs unless they sort the DfT out and fasttrack orders for new fleets in the north and elsewhere.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Could you build a reversing siding near Soho?

If so then the voyagers from Bristol/Bournemouth have somewhere to reverse without clogging the platforms. Because of the reversals at Birmingham they already cross the formation anyway

That leaves you with the Manchester 350s to turn around. Whilst I can see the sense in Northampton, I would see if Rugby could work. It looks like Platforms 1 and 2 can be used, with 1 being the best. There is also platform 6. Coventry could also make sense.

Also looking at a standard hour arrivals:

xx:18 from Reading
xx:24 from Bristol*
xx:27 from Leeds
xx:51 from Bournemouth*

Departures

xx: 03 to Bournemouth*
xx: 28 to Leeds
xx: 33 to Reading
xx: 42 to Bristol Temple Meads*

* denotes a Manchester train.

So match as follows

xx:18 forms xx:33 (15 minutes reversal)
xx:24 form xx:28 to Leeds
xx:27 from Leeds now goes as xx:42 to Bristol
xx:51 from Bournemouth forms xx:03 to Bournemouth (12 minutes reversal)

Or:

xx:18 from Reading forms the xx:28 to Leeds (As now)
xx:24 from Bristol forms xx:42 to Bristol (18 minutes reversal)
xx:27 from Leeds for xx:33 to Reading (As now)
xx:51 from Bournemouth forms xx:03 to Bournemouth (12 minutes reversal)

It reall is just that Bournemouth pair that cause the issues.

Manchester's are:

33 and 56 arrivals
01 and 30 departures

So to run a 350-based Manchester service needs a dedicated platform at New Street, or requires the trains to go further East.

How much capacity is there at Birmingham International to turn services back? AIUI only the TfWs do so at the moment, but could you fit an additional EMU service from Manchester in too? Back in the 1990s (and IIRC up until Operation Princess) there were IC Cross Country turn backs from Manchester which were class 86 hauled, though back then the Cambrian units turned back at New Street.

 

[The Planner]

Could you build a reversing siding near Soho?

You can use Monument Lane now. It was signalled to do that when New St was done a few years back, though not in a particularly easy way.

If so then the voyagers from Bristol/Bournemouth have somewhere to reverse without clogging the platforms. Because of the reversals at Birmingham they already cross the formation anyway

You still need two ECS paths out towards and back from Soho to do that though and one crossing move. There are 8tph to fit those within along there.

That leaves you with the Manchester 350s to turn around. Whilst I can see the sense in Northampton, I would see if Rugby could work. It looks like Platforms 1 and 2 can be used, with 1 being the best. There is also platform 6. Coventry could also make sense.

P1 and 2 at Rugby would require running wrong road from Long Lawford Jn on the Coventry side. Not good. Coventry isn't awash with platform capacity either.

Also looking at a standard hour arrivals:

xx:18 from Reading
xx:24 from Bristol*
xx:27 from Leeds
xx:51 from Bournemouth*

Departures

xx: 03 to Bournemouth*
xx: 28 to Leeds
xx: 33 to Reading
xx: 42 to Bristol Temple Meads*

* denotes a Manchester train.

So match as follows

xx:18 forms xx:33 (15 minutes reversal)
xx:24 form xx:28 to Leeds
xx:27 from Leeds now goes as xx:42 to Bristol
xx:51 from Bournemouth forms xx:03 to Bournemouth (12 minutes reversal)

The xx18 arrivals are Newcastle trains via Solihull, spinning those back and leaving 4 minutes for a Bristol to Leeds dwell is not going to work well. Which also doesn't work as the xx.18 is the Doncaster path, not Leeds. Same applies coming back south, xx.27 is the Doncaster path.
What is forming the Scotland SW services, or are you leaving those as the xx.55 arrivals - xx.03 departure northbound and the xx.04 arrival xx.12 departure southbound?
12 minutes for a Bournemouth reversal doesn't bode well either.

Or:

xx:18 from Reading forms the xx:28 to Leeds (As now)
xx:24 from Bristol forms xx:42 to Bristol (18 minutes reversal)
xx:27 from Leeds for xx:33 to Reading (As now)
xx:51 from Bournemouth forms xx:03 to Bournemouth (12 minutes reversal)

It reall is just that Bournemouth pair that cause the issues.

Manchester's are:

33 and 56 arrivals
01 and 30 departures

So to run a 350-based Manchester service needs a dedicated platform at New Street, or requires the trains to go further East.

See above, the xx.18 arrival is the Doncaster path, not Leeds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2026 ==

How much capacity is there at Birmingham International to turn services back? AIUI only the TfWs do so at the moment, but could you fit an additional EMU service from Manchester in too? Back in the 1990s (and IIRC up until Operation Princess) there were IC Cross Country turn backs from Manchester which were class 86 hauled, though back then the Cambrian units turned back at New Street.

You have the TfW and 2 x Rugeley to International services turning back there. The platforms aren't the biggest issue, the 10tph from Stechford to International is.