LNWR Can't use something they no longer lease.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Future of the 350/2s
- Thread starter Intercity110
- Start date
- Status
LNWR Can't use something they no longer lease.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Rail Quest
Member
If Porterbrook need someone to start leasing the 350/2s and Northern replacing the 323s with them is the best shot they've got, then perhaps it's in Porterbrook's best interests not to assist Northern in sourcing parts from spare units. Presumably, Porterbrook will be hoping that Northern would pay a higher lease rate for the 350/2s than for the 323s.
If the overall cost for the 350s is higher than for the 323s, then the taxpayer needs more passengers to be travelling or lower operational and maintenance costs to make up the shortfall, not least as the DfT budget is under pressure not to be exceeded.
Why should the owner provide units beyond those that they are contracted to? Parts from unleased units might be available at a price, but just because they have them doesn't mean that they have any obligation to give parts away just because someone has leased some similar things.
brad465
Veteran Member
The 466s that were in storage in Ely were reportedly part-stripped before scrapping, and as Ely was for off lease storage it must be possible to provide parts in this way.
That's not entirely correct, but that's because individuals have consumer protection rights and the finance company have an interest in maintaining the value of their asset.
I imagine that there's likely to be something in the contract around reliability for trains (even if it's just a break clause), as otherwise a leasing company could just lease unusable stock.
Whist a break clause is unlikely to be that useful (due to other rolling stock options being effectively non existent), if a leasing company get a reputation for providing effectively useless rolling stock GBR is likely to look at new trains rather than older ones and from a different leasing company (or look at the business case for creating their own leasing company - whist that would effectively increase UK debt, the impact could be small and could reduce over time, especially once the trains reach a certain age and the loan to buy them has been paid off through the "lease payments" from one part of GBR to another).
Liam L
Established Member
Wasn't it already stated elsewhere in this forum (might even be this thread) that the trials northern did with the 350/2s didn't go any further as they did deemed them not suitable (abit on the Glossop line)
If they can be made to work reliably any spares should go to replace Voyagers between the W Midlands and Manchester. Birmingham-Liverpool, also an "Inter-City" route, relies on basically the same units and is very successful so why not? Ensure cross platform changes at Wolves or Cov to avoid them happening at New St...
anthony263
Established Member
I still wonder if these 350/2's if fitted with batteries and 3rd rail collection shoes could be good for GWR around the thames valley and the north downs line etc .
If there is any left over deploy them.on say Oxford to Bristol TM
If there is any left over deploy them.on say Oxford to Bristol TM
No, no, no! Surely we have learnt the hard way that interfering with old trains isn't as easy as it looks? Put them straight in where they are almost "at home" either just for strengthening (the Birmingham-Liverpools) or to release other stock which would be better-used elsewhere (i.e. to displace the Voyagers off Manchester - Birmingham.) Almost no traction or road-learning on either of those options...
Really? How many XC crews sign 350s currently? (I’m expecting a number adjacent to zero.)
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,146
Why not? Lack of capacity anywhere near Birmingham for those changes to happen. Anywhere on the Stour Valley line is way too busy for people to change.
Unless you're going to reroute via the Coventry to Nuneaton and have the changeover take place somewhere on the Trent Valley, and completely avoid Birmingham. Good luck with that!
If you really wanted to get Voyagers off Manchester Picc to Reading, you'd resurrect part of the Electric Spine project and electrify Gibbet Hill Junction to Didcot East Junction (around 60 miles) and then the 14 miles Southcote Jcn to Basingstoke.
Not only would this provide a massive boost to freight operators wanting to use electric traction to reach Southampton, but it would be a good starting point for electrification of the Snow Hill Lines, the Chiltern Main Line and an incentive to finish off the electrification (by OHLE or battery) of the remaining Thames Valley branches.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,319
Unfortunately, our railways are blighted by DfT, and its paymaster, the treasury Sensible policies, such as replacing polluting diesel trains is considered less important than not spending money.......
Which is a real shame, because in an idea world, double 350s operating Manchester - Birmingham would be a game changer.
Class 466
Established Member
In an ideal world we'd have a serious look at 'rewiring' timetables (see what i did there) across the country to make the best use of electrification where possible and therefore allocate stock accordingly - Unfortunately that's not likely to ever happen. 350/2s look destined to be reallocated to what is a best-ish fit, although if it does happen, there's going to be plenty of Selective Door Opening in action given an 8 car 350 (160m) is a little longer than a 6 Car 323 (138m).
Unfortunately, you're spot on with this.
Shouldn't we actually be looking at 331s? Since they also can run those services? And roughly, 6x26m carriages is 152m. And if 8m is really such a problem, put the 350s on longer platform routes, and the 331s replace 323s
331s are not 26m they are 24m so 6x24m is 144m actual length is 142m as centre cars are shorter. so a 18m problem more than double 8m
Elecman
Established Member
No reason why Cross Country has to operate that service if run with 350’s there’s a train company with train crews already traction competent and presently route learning the bit between Crewe and Manchester
but, to be fair, LNR drivers don't know Kidsgrove to Cheadle Hulme, and XC drivers off the Voyagers will become surplus to needs. The XC drivers could be TUPE'd to LNR and I'm sure that learning to drive old suburban EMUs wouldn't take long...
How many spare drivers do LNR have?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think that's a bit unkind to be honest - these are quite nice units even in 3+2 formation. Do a refurb to 2+2 like EMR are doing with theirs and they are VERY nice units and perfectly suited to long distance use.
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,146
Indeed...
Tbh Voyagers aren't bad units, just unsuited for the routes they are allocated to.
Here's an alternative proposal - I wonder how much discontinuous electrification you would need to use bi mode battery/OHLE 350/2s on the Turbostar operated XC routes?
Birmingham to Stansted might be more difficult, but there are already significant electrified sections on the Cardiff to Nottingham route between Cardiff and Magor/Bromsgrove and Birmingham New St.
Leicester to Birmingham New Street could also benefit from further MML electrification, although it's short enough to potentially be within battery range as is anyway.
A 170 cascade to EMR could see off their 158s and further simplify maintenance.
Nym
Established Member
How many times does one need to repeat that for various reasons, battery converting the 350/2 is not a plan that is likely to work…?
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,146
I understand Porterbrook's scepticism, but I can't see any other viable use for the trains.
They would be ideal for Manchester Airport to Barrow in Furness/Windermere if the DfT pulled their wallet out and invested in circa 40 miles of electrification to allow 350s to operate both routes without battery capabilities, but they're not going to any time soon.
Who else wants them? Additional capacity on ScotRail, or perhaps export?
Nym
Established Member
It’s not Porterbrook’s scepticism.
It’s also not the country’s problem if a private company made a business decision to price their leases in such a way that it was cheaper to raise debt for new assets than to retain those already leased.
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,146
Well, it partly is. If they hadn't got their fingers burnt with the 769 project, then they wouldn't be so wary of a 350/2 conversion.
I agree that it was a stupid decision at the time, but we are in a situation as a country where we have 1) a shortage of suitable DMUs to operate on our mainline rail network and 2) a surplus of EMUs that could be put to use on fully or partly electrified lines with moderate investment.
Aside from the climate benefits, a 350/2 on certain DMU operated routes that suffer badly with overcrowding (especially Barrow/Windermere to Manchester south of Preston) would massively improve capacity and often would enable the release of good modern DMUs to cascade older unreliable DMUs to the scrapyard where they belong.
Tbf, windermere is more than within battery range if the units were to be converted and is probably the best solution for the branch anyway with current technology. Barrow to carnforth is probably too long but there isn't too many obstacles to electrification there and no reason why discontinuous couldn't work either. It wouldn't be ideal but if it removes diesels under the wires and provides a better service then it's a no brainer.
Nym
Established Member
I feel that I need to just quote my own posts on this matter now.
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,146
Indeed
I appreciate that you have some knowledge on the matter, but with battery technology improving at a rapid pace, the lack of space is no longer a barrier in the same way it was before
- Status