Future of the 350/2s

[TheGrew]

That's completely fair, without going completely off topic, I do think the 755s would also be worthy units to work that line. Albeit ideally a variant with through corridors or a fixed config of more coaches to match at least a pair of 159s.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

I would have this feeling if Porterbrook were to lease out the 350/2s in the near future. I would say that they would need to have new bogies with 3rd rail capacity, but I think this may not happen.

 

[43096]

I would have this feeling if Porterbrook were to lease out the 350/2s in the near future. I would say that they would need to have new bogies with 3rd rail capacity, but I think this may not happen.

They don't need "new bogies" if 3rd rail pick-up shoes are required.

 

[Class450/4DES]

I would have this feeling if Porterbrook were to lease out the 350/2s in the near future. I would say that they would need to have new bogies with 3rd rail capacity, but I think this may not happen.

They would make a very good Class 158/159 replacement with batteries, the only issue is that the 450's are owned by Angel Trains the Class 350/2's are owned by Porterbrook.

 

[D365]

... the only issue is that the 450's are owned by Angel Trains the Class 350/2's are owned by Porterbrook.

Why would that on its own be an issue? Noting that Angel Trains also owns the Class 350 /1, /3, /4 subfleets.

The physical limitations of a prospective battery retrofit on Class 350 / Class 450 have been discussed extensively within this thread.

 

[Class450/4DES]

Why would that on its own be an issue? Noting that Angel Trains also owns the Class 350 /1, /3, /4 subfleets.

The physical limitations of a prospective battery retrofit on Class 350 / Class 450 have been discussed extensively within this thread.

I said a few times before in a few threads that SWR should have the 350/2's as a Sprinter replacement. I recall people saying in the past that SWR wont take the 350/2's as "it's owned by Porterbrook". I still think it's a cheaper and easier alternative to a brand new train. I just wish the DfT will lift the 3rd rail ban so things can be way more easier to electrify lines.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

I said a few times before in a few threads that SWR should have the 350/2's as a Sprinter replacement. I recall people saying in the past that SWR wont take the 350/2's as "it's owned by Porterbrook". I still think it's a cheaper and easier alternative to a brand new train. I just wish the DfT will lift the 3rd rail ban so things can be way more easier to electrify lines.

I find it strange that SWR is having issues with Porterbrook, as it is Porterbrook that owns 458/4s and 458/5s.

 

[172007]

They would make a very good Class 158/159 replacement with batteries, the only issue is that the 450's are owned by Angel Trains the Class 350/2's are owned by Porterbrook.

Should not be an issue. The entire class 172 fleet is at WM Trains and they break down as:
172/0 & /1's = 12 and are Angel Trains
172/2 &/3's = 27 amd are owned by Porterbrook

Come to think, my car is a different leasing company to my wife's and its not an issue.

 

[D365]

I find it strange that SWR is having issues with Porterbrook, as it is Porterbrook that owns 458/4s and 458/5s.

Where has it been written that SWR is having issues with Porterbrook? (They also own the remaining Class 455s in traffic.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2026 ==

Come to think, my car is a different leasing company to my wife's and its not an issue.

I would be very surprised if your two cars have a multiple working capability

 

[Charlie978]

Where has it been written that SWR is having issues with Porterbrook? (They also own the remaining Class 455s in traffic.)

I think this is just a forum thing. People seem to think that because SWR haven’t taken on the 350/2’s that have been magically fitted with batteries, that they must be having issues with the ROSCO.

I would suspect the real reason they haven’t taken them on is something to do with them hoping to procure new battery replacements units along with GWR and Chiltern to replace their sprinters.

 

[CarrotPie]

I would have this feeling if Porterbrook were to lease out the 350/2s in the near future. I would say that they would need to have new bogies with 3rd rail capacity, but I think this may not happen.

What are the chances they could just nick the old shoegear from the 350/1s...or not they not bother keeping it after they took it off many moons ago?

Why would that on its own be an issue? Noting that Angel Trains also owns the Class 350 /1, /3, /4 subfleets.

Indeed, and Southeastern's Networker fleet is owned by two different ROSCOs (Angel Trains and Eversholt Rail).

 

[43096]

Where has it been written that SWR is having issues with Porterbrook? (They also own the remaining Class 455s in traffic.)

Exactly. And more to the point the SWR 158s and 159s are Porterbrook owned, too.

 

[D365]

What are the chances they could just nick the old shoegear from the 350/1s...or not they not bother keeping it after they took it off many moons ago?

30 Class 350/1 units - all owned by Angel Trains, as per a previous post. 37 Class 350/2 units - all owned by Porterbrook.

I think this is just a forum thing. People seem to think that because SWR haven’t taken on the 350/2’s that have been magically fitted with batteries, that they must be having issues with the ROSCO.

I would suspect the real reason they haven’t taken them on is something to do with them hoping to procure new battery replacements units along with GWR and Chiltern to replace their sprinters.

I concur.

 

[CarrotPie]

30 Class 350/1 units - all owned by Angel Trains, as per a previous post. 37 Class 350/2 units - all owned by Porterbrook.

Ah, fair enough then!

 

[Sutton in Ant]

Where has it been written that SWR is having issues with Porterbrook? (They also own the remaining Class 455s in traffic.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2026 ==


I would be very surprised if your two cars have a multiple working capability

I didn't think that SWR had issues with Porterbrook. I would think that SWR had a great working relationship with Porterbrook.

 

[AWCook]

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.

To gain some context without getting into the world of looking at drawings, have a look at the side view of a 350/1 and how many equipment cases are on the underframe. There's realistically only the TCOL(W) (+400) car available for anything on the underframe, on a 20m carriage, less the "HV" control box for the heaters. There isn't that much one can fit in that kind of space in the way of batteries.

So just suppose batteries were fitted - what range could you get?

 

[Snow1964]

So just suppose batteries were fitted - what range could you get?

Probably only going to get 10-20 miles if you squeezed them in remaining areas underneath (that's a guess)

Really should be looking at nearer around 50-65 miles battery range to be useful, and would have to add a compartment inside (by taking out some seats), and if to do that the compartment should really be fire rated.

It is really lack of sensible planning (and segmentation) that a few short bits of electrification were not done to use these trains as is, when it was known they would be coming spare and could be reconfigured as part of mid life overhaul.

 

[AWCook]

If that could be stretched to 30 ... Scotrail could use them on the Fife Circle when the electrification work is finished.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Probably only going to get 10-20 miles if you squeezed them in remaining areas underneath (that's a guess)

Porterbrook must have known the 350/2 would be handed back the moment WMR ordered 730s - this was in 2017, so 8-9 years ago. Porterbrook made £70m in profit last year.

Pretending, for a moment, to be an exec at GBR, I'd look at this situation, think about the issues Porterbook had with the 769s and think that they had the time and the money to do a demonstration and build confidence, if it was technically feasible and economically viable.

On economic viability: The EMR refurb of 21x 360/1 is at least £27m and - given 360107 has been at Northampton for 6 months - perhaps not going brilliantly. So I guess that 37x 350/2 need £40-£50m refurb to get them to a similar standard.

The 802 demo project cost £20m, so perhaps a similar amount on to get the first 350/2 done. Then further £10-£20m for the other 36 units.

Plus for Waterloo-Exeter, third rail conversion?
Could easily see the total cost for all of the above being in the region of £100m or ~£650k/vehicle, which seems like quite a lot for a heavy, 20m vehicle that is entering mid-life.

 

[Kite159]

On economic viability: The EMR refurb of 21x 360/1 is at least £27m and - given 360107 has been at Northampton for 6 months - perhaps not going brilliantly.

The first unit which gets refurbished tends to take the longest time.

 

[JamesT]

If that could be stretched to 30 ... Scotrail could use them on the Fife Circle when the electrification work is finished.

Or Scotrail might use the BEMUs they're in the process of ordering, which will be designed appropriately for the job.

 

[waverley47]

If that could be stretched to 30 ... Scotrail could use them on the Fife Circle when the electrification work is finished.

I would like to clarify, just in case people are confused, ScotRail are categorically NOT accepting or investigating the possibility of using the 350s.

A leasing company offered ScotRail in the market engagement, the possibility of using existing surplus British EMUs, with battery packs and a refurbishment, as an alternative to new units. Process of elimination leads me to conclude that the company was most likely Porterbrook, and the units in questions were the 350/2s, however ScotRail took one look at that proposal and told them no, and so it's not happening regardless.

I shall leave this here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2026 ==

For legal reasons, I cannot confirm, but as far as we are aware, Porterbrook offered to put batteries in the 350s and give them to ScotRail, as a fudge for the BEMU contract.

Purely speculation, but I would heavily speculate that ScotRail asked them for the reliability data from the 769 conversion project, and a data set was sent. ScotRail then went for a chat with Northern, with some glaring questions from the data set, and asked about their experience with the whole thing. A hypothetical decision was made rather quickly inside TS that the 350 conversation would be wholly unsuitable and unsatisfactory, and that they would not be taking the option further.

ScotRail will categorically not be taking the 350s as battery units. As pure electrics, potentially, however that seems just as unlikely in the short to medium term.

 

[Snow1964]

If that could be stretched to 30 ... Scotrail could use them on the Fife Circle when the electrification work is finished.

Only need 20 miles battery range for a route like Reading-Gatwick, and in theory if have dual voltage could start services back from say Didcot or Newbury possibly combining other local services (assuming can use spur line)

 

[stevieinselby]

Only need 20 miles battery range for a route like Reading-Gatwick, and in theory if have dual voltage could start services back from say Didcot or Newbury possibly combining other local services (assuming can use spur line)

That sounds like a whole lot of unnecessary complication.

Adding in dual-voltage requirements is something else that can go wrong – I know part of the reason why the GWR Flex units never made it into service was down to the arrangements being more complex to have them as dual-voltage, unlike the Northern and TfW units, although whether that was something more specific to retrofitting that could be avoided with a new build, I don't know.

At the moment, it works very well having all the Wokingham trains using bay platforms 4, 5 and 6 at Reading and not having to even touch the mainline. Having the North Downs line trains cross onto the mainline and use the through platforms twice each way every hour puts extra pressure on the infrastructure and would significantly increase the risk of delays on both the North Downs line and other services on the mainline – not to mention the question of how much capacity there would be on the mainline to extend the trains to Didcot or Newbury and turn them there.

Far more sensible to keep it as a self-contained route giving passengers a reliable half-hourly service with predictable connections at Reading.

 

[Halifaxlad]

What happened to Porterbrook 'Batteryflex' project, was it ever discussed here or was it on another thread ?

 

[JonathanH]

What happened to Porterbrook 'Batteryflex' project, was it ever discussed here or was it on another thread ?

No outcome - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-350-batteryflex.171906/#post-3680359 - over seven years (and the 769 project) have passed since then.

 

[Geeves]

I personally don't see these 350s ever getting batteries, I think we have seen that changing old trains and adding new tech as far as battery traction goes with out it being installed from the start mostly leads to daily failures at least as far as the 769 saga goes.

The internal rumours at Northern still persist, Hadfield line releasing 323s for the all day Vic to Wigan via the WCML but whether this would be a micro fleet I don't know. The bonus of the Hadfield line is it has a Siemens depot attached to it directly already with 350 experience even if it was only a small number of units it could work.

 

[CarrotPie]

I personally don't see these 350s ever getting batteries, I think we have seen that changing old trains and adding new tech as far as battery traction goes with out it being installed from the start mostly leads to daily failures at least as far as the 769 saga goes.

The internal rumours at Northern still persist, Hadfield line releasing 323s for the all day Vic to Wigan via the WCML but whether this would be a micro fleet I don't know. The bonus of the Hadfield line is it has a Siemens depot attached to it directly already with 350 experience even if it was only a small number of units it could work.

The 769s with Northern don't even have batteries...and they're still really unreliable!

 

[Mamorin]

The internal rumours at Northern still persist, Hadfield line releasing 323s for the all day Vic to Wigan via the WCML but whether this would be a micro fleet I don't know.

Any other Northern routes rumoured to be getting 350/2s?

 

[brad465]

I personally don't see these 350s ever getting batteries, I think we have seen that changing old trains and adding new tech as far as battery traction goes with out it being installed from the start mostly leads to daily failures at least as far as the 769 saga goes.

The internal rumours at Northern still persist, Hadfield line releasing 323s for the all day Vic to Wigan via the WCML but whether this would be a micro fleet I don't know. The bonus of the Hadfield line is it has a Siemens depot attached to it directly already with 350 experience even if it was only a small number of units it could work.

In the latest RAIL magazine I noted an article said 350/2s have fewer seats than 323s, despite having one extra carriage, so if they do move to Northern ideally they should be to lengthen/add services, rather than replace anything like 323s.