350233 certainly still has 61546 in its formation so yes.Data from a year ago or so suggested that West Midland 350 units 350233; 350246 and 350264 were in non-standard formation.
Does anyone know if this is still the case please?
Thank you Jonathan, much appreciated350233 certainly still has 61546 in its formation so yes.
The odd carriages in the three 350/1s (350103, 350105 and 350108) have also never been 'put right' either.
350 | 103 | 63765 | 66813 | 66863 | 63713 |
350 | 105 | 63763 | 66815 | 66868 | 63715 |
350 | 108 | 63768 | 66818 | 66865 | 63718 |
350 | 233 | 61433 | 65233 | 67533 | 61546 |
350 | 246 | 61446 | 65246 | 67546 | 61564 |
350 | 264 | 61464 | 65264 | 67564 | 61533 |
Thank you D6975, that's great - hadn't realised there are switches with some 350/1 units tooItalicised bold are in the wrong unit
350103 63765 66813 66863 63713 350105 63763 66815 66868 63715 350108 63768 66818 66865 63718 350233 61433 65233 67533 61546 350246 61446 65246 67546 61564 350264 61464 65264 67564 61533
i have never noticed! does this impact on capacity on any way?
got you - thanks!They’re all like-for-like carriages, so shouldn’t do. Just from different original sets!
Watford tunnel incident and a derailment at Liverpool South Parkway for the three 350/2s https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...y-refurb-questions.210538/page-5#post-5150092What is the reason for the non-standard formations?
I think as a result of some sort of incident during initial testing - tree-related, I think - that saw some vehicles sent back to Germany for repair.The three 350/1s have been misformed basically since new 17 years ago.