Future of the 350/2s

[Topological]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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


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.

Sorry for the Leeds/Doncaster confusion. I got the origins from an hour close to the posting time on RTT.

You are right that I am not touching the SW-NE pairing. From what I can see, that is CrossCountry's premier route pairing and just needs to run with double voyagers on every service (hence freeing voyagers).

For the ECS to Soho, all the talk of Liverpool and Manchester made me wonder whether a 12-car 350 could work with splits at Stafford.

The ECS to Soho could become in service to Wolverhampton or Stafford. That would then mean one or both of the current Manchesters could continue (albeit a few minutes later in the Liverpool path). Presumably, Wolverhampton could handle that with the central island. You then do not need any tight reversals at Birmingham and get the NE trains in their current paths.

 

[The Planner]

Sorry for the Leeds/Doncaster confusion. I got the origins from an hour close to the posting time on RTT.

You are right that I am not touching the SW-NE pairing. From what I can see, that is CrossCountry's premier route pairing and just needs to run with double voyagers on every service (hence freeing voyagers).

For the ECS to Soho, all the talk of Liverpool and Manchester made me wonder whether a 12-car 350 could work with splits at Stafford.

The ECS to Soho could become in service to Wolverhampton or Stafford. That would then mean one or both of the current Manchesters could continue (albeit a few minutes later in the Liverpool path). Presumably, Wolverhampton could handle that with the central island. You then do not need any tight reversals at Birmingham and get the NE trains in their current paths.

Liverpools are also ran by 730s.

 

[Topological]

Liverpools are also ran by 730s.

I think I would get quite a bit of kickback suggesting putting 730s on this joint Liverpool/Manchester and then 350/2s back on something else that 5-car 730s are currently running. A 5-car 730 would be a big capacity uplift from a Voyager on Birmingham to Manchester anyway.

Of course, you could take the 730s off Liverpool.

If that is the only flaw in the splitting/joining plan then it is not too bad. The benefits of additional capacity between Birmingham and Wolverhampton from using 2 paths instead of 4, plus the additional capacity to Manchester seem like quite strong positives to the proposal.

 

[Russel]

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.

It would create a couple of headlines for a few days and then be forgotten about...

 

[43096]

It would create a couple of headlines for a few days and then be forgotten about...

Indeed. Porterbrook put on a press event back in 2004 for journalists to witness a Mark 3 being cut up. It didn't really affect the long term fortunes of them.

 

[The Planner]

I think I would get quite a bit of kickback suggesting putting 730s on this joint Liverpool/Manchester and then 350/2s back on something else that 5-car 730s are currently running. A 5-car 730 would be a big capacity uplift from a Voyager on Birmingham to Manchester anyway.

Of course, you could take the 730s off Liverpool.

If that is the only flaw in the splitting/joining plan then it is not too bad. The benefits of additional capacity between Birmingham and Wolverhampton from using 2 paths instead of 4, plus the additional capacity to Manchester seem like quite strong positives to the proposal.

What path are you expecting the 12 car to take? The current xx.30? Is this train going to stop at Smethwick and Penkridge too? That slows the Manchester journey down in both directions (by 15 odd minutes southbound if you are joining the Liverpool at Stafford) and causes you problems nortbound at Stockport as the Norwich Liverpool will clash. Bear in mind that you would also be unit deselecting 8 cars at Galton Bridge and Penkridge due to the short platforms.

 

[Kite159]

Liverpools are also ran by 730s.

Pretty sure the 730s came off Birmingham - Liverpool services during the last timetable change and those services are back to mostly 4 coach 350s (with the 730s now featuring more heavily on the London - Crewe trains)

 

[Topological]

What path are you expecting the 12 car to take? The current xx.30? Is this train going to stop at Smethwick and Penkridge too? That slows the Manchester journey down in both directions (by 15 odd minutes southbound if you are joining the Liverpool at Stafford) and causes you problems nortbound at Stockport as the Norwich Liverpool will clash. Bear in mind that you would also be unit deselecting 8 cars at Galton Bridge and Penkridge due to the short platforms.

Thank you, useful points.

Yes the xx30 and with the stops of the xx30. That leaves a gap in Smethwick and Penkridge. Smethwick should be easy enough to solve. However, Penkridge is a bit more awkward. As you say there a danger that adding Penkridge then you hit Stockport too late.

The Voyager being extended to Wolverhampton in the Liverpool path could pick up Smethwick.

No idea about what to do with Penkridge though.

 

[Bevan Price]

Pretty sure the 730s came off Birmingham - Liverpool services during the last timetable change and those services are back to mostly 4 coach 350s (with the 730s now featuring more heavily on the London - Crewe trains)

Correct. Looking at RTT, Liverpool / Birmingham has been Class 350 only since the December timetable change. Mostly 4 coaches, but some 8 coach formations mostly at weekends.

 

[The Planner]

Thank you, useful points.

Yes the xx30 and with the stops of the xx30. That leaves a gap in Smethwick and Penkridge. Smethwick should be easy enough to solve. However, Penkridge is a bit more awkward. As you say there a danger that adding Penkridge then you hit Stockport too late.

The Voyager being extended to Wolverhampton in the Liverpool path could pick up Smethwick.

No idea about what to do with Penkridge though.

The journey time implications and revenue loss on the Manchester flow is the bigger problem.

 

[Topological]

The journey time implications and revenue loss on the Manchester flow is the bigger problem.

How much time is a 350 going to lose versus a Voyager?

I appreciate that there will need to be a slightly longer dwell at Stafford than the current timetable, and that may then have knock-on effects at Stone if the train gets there too close to the Avanti. However, I was not under the impression that much of the route allows 125 and the 350 should gain slightly on acceleration (though I also believe the voyagers accelerate well).

Therefore I am wondering what revenue will be lost, versus the extra capacity allowing more comfortable journeys.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

However, I was not under the impression that much of the route allows 125

Much of the section between Wolverhampton and Stafford does.
An ecs timed for 350 at 110mph (today 5W06 05:26 from Wolverhampton) gives a time of 14 minutes with 1 minute patching allowance.
XCs get 13 minutes to get between the two with 1 minute pathkng allowance.

Today a 350 did Wolverhampton - Stafford in 14.5 minutes, and that's with a stop at Penkridge (the delayed 06:53 from Wolverhampton) so 13 minutes is definitely possible

 

[The Planner]

How much time is a 350 going to lose versus a Voyager?

I appreciate that there will need to be a slightly longer dwell at Stafford than the current timetable, and that may then have knock-on effects at Stone if the train gets there too close to the Avanti. However, I was not under the impression that much of the route allows 125 and the 350 should gain slightly on acceleration (though I also believe the voyagers accelerate well).

Therefore I am wondering what revenue will be lost, versus the extra capacity allowing more comfortable journeys.

Its not a slightly longer dwell at Stafford though. If you are joining the Liverpool set then its adding over 10 minutes as I said previously. Thats huge.

 

[Topological]

Its not a slightly longer dwell at Stafford though. If you are joining the Liverpool set then its adding over 10 minutes as I said previously. Thats huge.

Sorry, was thinking of the Northbound.

Will have to wait for HS2 to see any solutions like this then. Once the headline journey time is Piccadilly to Curzon Street, losing time for joining is less of an issue as no one would be doing the full journey anyway.

Even all that said, is the time penalty really more of an inconvenience than the lack of capacity on the other 3 arms of CrossCountry? If the freed voyagers go to the other legs, and the saved paths through Wolverhampton are used well, perhaps the greater good involves a short addition to the Manchester - Birmingham journey time?

 

[Markuk]

Shame the 350/2s aren't bi-mode. Reopen Northampton- Market Harborough and then you can run Reading to Nottingham via Oxford, Bicester, MK, Northampton, Market Harborough, Leicester and Loughborough. I think there are suitable bay platforms at Reading and Notts! And it should be faster than via London.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Shame the 350/2s aren't bi-mode. Reopen Northampton- Market Harborough and then you can run Reading to Nottingham via Oxford, Bicester, MK, Northampton, Market Harborough, Leicester and Loughborough. I think there are suitable bay platforms at Reading and Notts! And it should be faster than via London.

Sadly a lot of the alignment has been built on (especially at the Northampton end).
Something using the middle section of EWR (Marston Vale) to get to Bedford and then upgrading the Sharnbrook freight lines to allow passenger services to reach Nottingham that way would be interesting.
Maybe a route for XC if they ever got spare 222s or extra Voyagers.

 

[Mgameing123]

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.

And I can’t see why we need to split the services at Birmingham. Why can’t Berkshire have direct trains to the north?

 

[Mamorin]

Interesting post from Modern Railways on X.

The post is 350 related by the looks of the photo, will be interesting to see this story will have anything to do the 350/2s.

https://x.com/modern_railways/status/2013916239907750138

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Interesting post from Modern Railways on X here.

The post is 350 related by the looks of the photo, will be interesting to see this story will have anything to do the 350/2s.

Not sure why, but that link isn't working for me.

https://x.com/Modern_Railways/status/2013916239907750138

Keep an eye out on the Modern Railways website and our social feeds over the next couple of days for a major EXCLUSIVE story you won't want to miss - here's a small teaser...

 

[E B]

Not sure why, but that link isn't working for me.

It didn't work for me either

 

[Mamorin]

Strangely the link would not work for me ether after trying it.

Ao I have removed the link, not that it matters since the issue has been dealt with by @pokemonsuper9.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2026 ==

The article is nothing existing, turns out somebody spoiled what Modern Railways is going to cover.

https://x.com/intermodalityuk/status/2013931249404891243

 

[skyhigh]

The article is nothing existing, turns out somebody spoiled what Modern Railways is going to cover.

I think that exchange is what is commonly known as "a joke".......

 

[Mamorin]

I think that exchange is what is commonly known as "a joke".......

Oh right. Sorry did not read the whole exchange so to me it looked serious.

 

[Russel]

Not sure why, but that link isn't working for me.

https://x.com/Modern_Railways/status/2013916239907750138

Being exported to Nigeria and Mexico to be dragged behind HST power cars as Mk3 replacements.

 

[Snow1964]

Strangely the link would not work for me ether after trying it.

Ao I have removed the link, not that it matters since the issue has been dealt with by @pokemonsuper9.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2026 ==

The article is nothing existing, turns out somebody spoiled what Modern Railways is going to cover.

https://x.com/intermodalityuk/status/2013931249404891243

Modern Railways has put out an article on new Siemens desiro verve, an EMU, or BEMU with 23m non articulated vehicles, able to go wherever a 158/159 or mk3 is passed. 3car and 5car versions. Illustration suggests doors are at 40% and 60%, nearer centre than thirds, so possibly lower floor in centre. Some parts come straight from the mireo used in Europe

Clearly pitched at Northern, Scotrail, GWR, Chiltern, SWR etc that have 35+ year old fleets to replace.

Nothing to do with 350/2

Establishing a secure connection ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does look like a between bogie drop, as the windows are lower in that section.

 

[Kite159]

I guess they are gearing up with a proposal for sprinter & Turbo replacements on those routes where battery trains make sense.

 

[Russel]

I guess they are gearing up with a proposal for sprinter & Turbo replacements on those routes where battery trains make sense.

Might not be a bad option, the current crop of Desiros have proven them selves to be decent trains.

 

[TheGrew]

Looks good, I imagine a 750V version might be appealing to South Western Railway to run the West of England Line.
Waterloo-Basingstoke at 750V then BEMU and some discontinuous electrification in a couple of key places on route down to Exeter.
Looking at the Open Infrastructure Map, there is an existing Grid Substation west of Salisbury station and a further intersection with a 132KV line just east of Yeovil, where a feeder could then be built. There is then a further intersection with a 400KV line in Axeminster (though the substation is a fair bit east of the town). Exeter also has fairly abundant power infrastructure.

For the record, I am not saying any of this additional infrastructure would be easy but at least feasible given the right amount of money.

 

[Spekejunction]

Looks good, I imagine a 750V version might be appealing to South Western Railway to run the West of England Line.
Waterloo-Basingstoke at 750V then BEMU and some discontinuous electrification in a couple of key places on route down to Exeter.
Looking at the Open Infrastructure Map, there is an existing Grid Substation west of Salisbury station and a further intersection with a 132KV line just east of Yeovil, where a feeder could then be built. There is then a further intersection with a 400KV line in Axeminster (though the substation is a fair bit east of the town). Exeter also has fairly abundant power infrastructure.

For the record, I am not saying any of this additional infrastructure would be easy but at least feasible given the right amount of money.

I got very enthusiastic about the possibilities with the class 769 and then the class 230.

My pragmatic enthusiasm these days is for the bi mode Stadler that moves reliably from Norwich to Stanstead each and every day. Level boarding and all.
As far as I’m concerned battery fast charge stuff needs prototyping under working railway conditions..