Class 350's - Long Distance Services

[Class83]

350/2s are fine for the shorter commuter services and those where there is the express alternative. They're pretty rubbish for Trent Valley (which Virgin have effectively abandoned serving) and Liverpool to Birmingham, which are longer distance but have no better alternative.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They're pretty rubbish for Trent Valley (which Virgin have effectively abandoned serving)

By direction of the DfT who set the franchise spec.
DfT take the view that an hourly LM London service calling at all stations is better than an intermittent VT service calling at one or two stations, and a 2-hourly LM local.

 

[A0]

I was going from Euston to Kidsgrove so it was 2 hours plus on a 350/2 or a very long wait for the same train at Stoke.

Sorry - don't believe that - there are usually 3 trains an hour between Stoke and Kidsgrove (Northern stopper to Manchester, EMT Derby - Crewe and LM). You don't end up with a 'very long' wait at Stoke if you've used the Virgin service from London - at the most its 30 mins, because the stoppers are pathed behind the fasts to Manchester.

The point is you wanted to get a cheap ticket, so the compromise is a slower service in potentially less comfortable rolling stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Trouble is most of the time from the Trent Valley stations there is no choice but a 350.

I think people are wrong in viewing the units used on the TV services as inappropriate.

There are plenty of opportunities to change onto "inter city" standard services without a long journey (i.e. Rugby or Stafford) - given Rugby - Stafford is timed as less than an hour, if 350/2s are that much of a problem then nobody has to be on them for more than an hour and can change to other services.

Frankly, the service the TV stations have now is easily the best in living memory - it's regular, reliable and has decent connections - far better than any time in the last 20 years.

 

[jaigee]

There are plenty of opportunities to change onto "inter city" standard services without a long journey (i.e. Rugby or Stafford) - given Rugby - Stafford is timed as less than an hour, if 350/2s are that much of a problem then nobody has to be on them for more than an hour and can change to other services.

Agreed, the only drawback is a 31/32min. wait at Rugby for the next Virgin London service and 48min. at Stafford for the next Virgin Liverpool service. :cry:

 

[backontrack]

I'd rather have a 158 than a 390.

So, 350s are OK in my opinion.

 

[hassaanhc]

I really like Desiros, I've done a total of four 90-110 minute journeys on them (one each on a 185 and 350, other two were on a 444) and I had absolutely no problems. This is in addition to a large number of 15-45 minute journeys on the 360 and 450 variants.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Yesterday I did over 4 hours on a 350/1 (0846 Euston - Crewe and the 1402 Crewe - MKC) and found them very comfortable for those services.

I'm of the opinion that 350/2s are unsuitable for the very long services owing to the comfort and arrangement of seating and should be diagrammed for MKC/Tring stoppers or Northampton services only. To their credit, their diagrammers seem to do that pretty well.

 

[Class83]

By direction of the DfT who set the franchise spec.
DfT take the view that an hourly LM London service calling at all stations is better than an intermittent VT service calling at one or two stations, and a 2-hourly LM local.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with a 350 /1 or /3 on these services. Just that Virgin no longer offer an alternative for most of the day.

 

[David Goddard]

350s aren't bad at all - have used them between Birmingham and Liverpool a few times. The new 350/4s on TPX are quite good (although granted we have only tried them in First Class!)

With fifteen diagrams for the basic service, there should be plenty of 350/1s to cover all Euston-Crewe and Birmingham-Liverpool services, with 350/2s picking up the Euston-Birmingham journeys where greater capacity is required. Will be interesting to see if the 350/3s get regular diagrams or if they wander freely between services. Dedication to the Liverpool service wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[Mark62]

Hey, cross country voyagers aren't fit for long distance travel. Try travelling second class on one between Penzance and Dundee. That's pure torture. I was crippled after travelling from Derby to tamworth. That's 20 mins. Now add another 10 hours to that. Hell on earth.

 

[21C101]

Hey, cross country voyagers aren't fit for long distance travel. Try travelling second class on one between Penzance and Dundee. That's pure torture. I was crippled after travelling from Derby to tamworth. That's 20 mins. Now add another 10 hours to that. Hell on earth.

Isnt it facsinating how with every passing years new cars get more spacious and comfortable and new trains get more cramped. ?

 

[AM9]

Isnt it facsinating how with every passing years new cars get more spacious and comfortable and new trains get more cramped. ?

Not really, planes are getting more cramped, roads are getting more cramped, both are now run by commercial organisations to give you sic 'competition and choice'.

 

[DarloRich]

Hi guys,

After recently booking a trip to the brummies via London Midland (6 pounds one way at the moment- if you are interested), i discovered that the train that will be operating the service will be a class 350 desiro.

I was wondering if you think that class 350's are suitable trains for the job. Considering that the journey will be a tad over 2 hours, do you think Midland will be better off with a train such as class 444.

Also, just for curiosity, if yo have done this journey, how comfortable was the ride??

Well what else will it be on London Midland service? A 321? A 153? A 150? A 172? Fancy one of them instead?:roll:

You are paying £6 ffs! I regualry do Bletchley - Stafford/Crewe. It is fine, even via Northampton, on a 350/1. On a 350/2 it is tiresome.

Finally, from where shall LM extract this wonderful new stock to cover their long distance routes?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Trains with 1/3 & 2/3 layout I think are better suited to primarily metro/urban, sub-urban and are also suitable on long-distance where there are many station stops and not too great a distance between the stations (because of station dwell times).

 

[dk1]

Hey, cross country voyagers aren't fit for long distance travel. Try travelling second class on one between Penzance and Dundee. That's pure torture. I was crippled after travelling from Derby to tamworth. That's 20 mins. Now add another 10 hours to that. Hell on earth.

I regularly do Torquay-Birmingham & Euston-Bangor and they ain't that bad and I'm 6ft 1.

 

[Minilad]

Hey, cross country voyagers aren't fit for long distance travel. Try travelling second class on one between Penzance and Dundee. That's pure torture. I was crippled after travelling from Derby to tamworth. That's 20 mins. Now add another 10 hours to that. Hell on earth.

I've heard some over reactions in my time but to say you have been crippled by travelling from Derby to Tamworth takes the biscuit

 

[The Planner]

But how on earth will we get our fix of "Voyagers/Pendolinos/insert rolling stock here are crap" posts? I am surprised no one has suggested loco hauled LM, think of the livery on a Mk III....

 

[FQ]

I think that both types of the Lm 350s (/1 and /2) aren't suitable for long distance travel. Basically, this is because

1. They can't go over 110 miles per hour (/2 100)
2. They have 3rd door positioning (Definitely best for commuter short distance stuff and also means the frame lags)
3. They have no sort of refreshment facilities

I think LM like South West Trains should have the 350s for the short distance commuter stuff such as the London Euston-Tring, London Euston-St Albans Abbey, London Euston-Milton Keynes Central and London Euston-Northampton and the Coventry-Birmingham New Street. Also LM could then get rid of most of the 323s on the London Midland City line, as they would have 350s for that. And for the long distance stuff (London Euston-Crewe, London Euston-Birmingham New Street, Birmingham New Street-Liverpool Lime Street) have trains like a 444 sort of thing but overhead instead of third rail. This would have Vestibule doors, capable of 115 miles per hour (for Weedon and the Trent Valley line), 5 coaches and a trolly service/buffet. The 350/2s could work on the city lines; Reddich and Lichfield areas and the 350/1s on the London-Tring, London-St Albans Abbey, London-Milton Keynes and London-Northampton,

 

[waterboo]

I think that both types of the Lm 350s (/1 and /2) aren't suitable for long distance travel. Basically, this is because

1. They can't go over 110 miles per hour (/2 100)
2. They have 3rd door positioning (Definitely best for commuter short distance stuff and also means the frame lags)
3. They have no sort of refreshment facilities

I think LM like South West Trains should have the 350s for the short distance commuter stuff such as the London Euston-Tring, London Euston-St Albans Abbey, London Euston-Milton Keynes Central and London Euston-Northampton and the Coventry-Birmingham New Street. Also LM could then get rid of most of the 323s on the London Midland City line, as they would have 350s for that. And for the long distance stuff (London Euston-Crewe, London Euston-Birmingham New Street, Birmingham New Street-Liverpool Lime Street) have trains like a 444 sort of thing but overhead instead of third rail. This would have Vestibule doors, capable of 115 miles per hour (for Weedon and the Trent Valley line), 5 coaches and a trolly service/buffet. The 350/2s could work on the city lines; Reddich and Lichfield areas and the 350/1s on the London-Tring, London-St Albans Abbey, London-Milton Keynes and London-Northampton,

Sounds like a good idea, although what would be made of the 323's?? Is it another case of giving to the north?

 

[FQ]

Sounds like a good idea, although what would be made of the 323's?? Is it another case of giving to the north?

Maybe, That way Northern could have something else as well as the 319s when the wires go up. I had never thought of that; I was just thinking of sending them to Rotherham.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think that both types of the Lm 350s (/1 and /2) aren't suitable for long distance travel. Basically, this is because

1. They can't go over 110 miles per hour (/2 100)

Nor could any long-distance trains on the West Coast before the relatively recent Route Modernisation!

I think LM like South West Trains should have the 350s for the short distance commuter stuff such as the London Euston-Tring, London Euston-St Albans Abbey, London Euston-Milton Keynes Central and London Euston-Northampton and the Coventry-Birmingham New Street. Also LM could then get rid of most of the 323s on the London Midland City line, as they would have 350s for that.

It’s a good idea, in theory, and one that I agree with, as thirty-odd 350/2s would be quite useful to replace 26 class 323s across the West Midlands once the increased fleet requirement for the additional Redditch and Bromsgrove electric services takes effect, and also including those services, such as Walsall to Wolverhampton, that currently or shortly will see operation by 350s. However I think one of the larger potential stumbling blocks would be the ability to lengthen all the platforms on the Cross-City line to accommodate 8-car 350 formations over 6-car 323s. LM and Network Rail seemed to manage fine on the Snow Hill lines with the introduction of the lengthier 172s (Also involving the use of SDO at several locations, which the 350s don’t have), but I can envisage some problems potentially being encountered on the Cross-City at the likes of, say, Aston.

And for the long distance stuff (London Euston-Crewe, London Euston-Birmingham New Street, Birmingham New Street-Liverpool Lime Street) have trains like a 444 sort of thing but overhead instead of third rail. This would have Vestibule doors, capable of 115 miles per hour (for Weedon and the Trent Valley line), 5 coaches and a trolly service/buffet. The 350/2s could work on the city lines; Reddich and Lichfield areas and the 350/1s on the London-Tring, London-St Albans Abbey, London-Milton Keynes and London-Northampton,

Additionally, though, if you deploy only low-density 350s and some sort of new 5-car regional train on services into Euston from Northampton, etc, London Midland would probably have major problems meeting targets for number of seats into London during the morning peak, etc. It is interesting to note though that a previous (2011?) specification for the IEP gave an option for 5-car IEP trains to work the longer distance Euston – Northampton – Birmingham/Crewe services – I think this might have since been dropped.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that it might well be better value for money if the Cross Country services which presently run to Manchester ran no further north than Birmingham. The resulting Birmingham to Manchester fast services could use 350s or similar stock and this would increase capacity. The Voyagers freed up by this could be used to provide extra peak capacity elsewhere.

I think that something similar to 350s would be a cost effective option for Bournemouth-Birmingham-Manchester services once the route is fully electrified.

 

[sprinterguy]

I had never thought of that; I was just thinking of sending them to Rotherham.

That’d be a bit barmy, as the 323s aren’t really that old (Round about their 20th/21st years).

I don’t know whether Northern might perhaps actually get more utility out of 26 x 323s in the North West instead of 319s: Just one standard class of EMU, that is already in use with Northern, to maintain and have staff trained on; platform lengths that might be more accommodating of 6 x 23 metre train formations than they would be of 8 x 20 metre ones, short of modifying the 319s down to 3-car units; and a few years younger to boot.

Of course it’s all moot anyway, as 319s are what Northern are getting and 26 units might not be enough to operate all the electrified services in the North West.

 

[FQ]

I think that it might well be better value for money if the Cross Country services which presently run to Manchester ran no further north than Birmingham. The resulting Birmingham to Manchester fast services could use 350s or similar stock and this would increase capacity. The Voyagers freed up by this could be used to provide extra peak capacity elsewhere.

I think that something similar to 350s would be a cost effective option for Bournemouth-Birmingham-Manchester services once the route is fully electrified.

When it is electrified I would say that a 6 car Pendolino would be better as on those services there is already severe overcrowding.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think that both types of the Lm 350s (/1 and /2) aren't suitable for long distance travel. Basically, this is because

1. They can't go over 110 miles per hour (/2 100)

The speed limit is 110mph for non-tilting trains.

3. They have no sort of refreshment facilities

These were removed by London Midland because they were losing money.

I think LM like South West Trains should have the 350s for...London Euston-Northampton and the Coventry-Birmingham New Street.

The "through" London to Birmingham service is basically the London-Northampton and Northampton-Coventry-Birmingham stoppers linked together for operational convenience. It is not an "intercity" service- that is Virgin- it is an outer-suburban service.

The current system- /1s and /3s for the inter-urban London-Crewe and Birmingham-Liverpool runs, and a mixture of /1s, /2s and /3s for everything else- works fine.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think that it might well be better value for money if the Cross Country services which presently run to Manchester ran no further north than Birmingham. The resulting Birmingham to Manchester fast services could use 350s or similar stock and this would increase capacity. The Voyagers freed up by this could be used to provide extra peak capacity elsewhere.

Good grief, do we really want to see further damage done to Crosscountry connectivity North of Birmingham? While I can certainly appreciate the desire to increase electric working and reduce the strain on the Voyager fleet to free up a few units, as essentially happened with the transfer of all Birmingham to Liverpool services to London Midland, I think that corridors such as Bristol to Manchester are really quite important and should be retained as through services.

I think that something similar to 350s would be a cost effective option for Bournemouth-Birmingham-Manchester services once the route is fully electrified.

And 350s on Manchester to Bournemouth? No thanks. Those services should utilise proper Inter-city or inter-regional stock, be it Hitachi SETs (Or any competitively-decided substitute) or, yes that old favourite, some sort of AC electric 444 derivative (Or bang-up-to-date modern equivalent).

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that it might well be better value for money if the Cross Country services which presently run to Manchester ran no further north than Birmingham. The resulting Birmingham to Manchester fast services could use 350s or similar stock and this would increase capacity. The Voyagers freed up by this could be used to provide extra peak capacity elsewhere.

I think that something similar to 350s would be a cost effective option for Bournemouth-Birmingham-Manchester services once the route is fully electrified.

When it is electrified I would say that a 6 car Pendolino would be better as on those services there is already severe overcrowding.

An 8 or 12 car 350 (or Something similar) would solve the overcrowding problems and be able to run (or easily be adapted to run) on any remaining 3rd rail at the South of the route.

 

[sd0733]

I think that both types of the Lm 350s (/1 and /2) aren't suitable for long distance travel. Basically, this is because

1. They can't go over 110 miles per hour (/2 100)
2. They have 3rd door positioning (Definitely best for commuter short distance stuff and also means the frame lags)
3. They have no sort of refreshment facilities

I think LM like South West Trains should have the 350s for the short distance commuter stuff such as the London Euston-Tring, London Euston-St Albans Abbey, London Euston-Milton Keynes Central and London Euston-Northampton and the Coventry-Birmingham New Street. Also LM could then get rid of most of the 323s on the London Midland City line, as they would have 350s for that. And for the long distance stuff (London Euston-Crewe, London Euston-Birmingham New Street, Birmingham New Street-Liverpool Lime Street) have trains like a 444 sort of thing but overhead instead of third rail. This would have Vestibule doors, capable of 115 miles per hour (for Weedon and the Trent Valley line), 5 coaches and a trolly service/buffet. The 350/2s could work on the city lines; Reddich and Lichfield areas and the 350/1s on the London-Tring, London-St Albans Abbey, London-Milton Keynes and London-Northampton,

Point 1- The speed- Any faster than 110mph and acceleration will start to be impacted therefore not improving speeds at all,you r suggestion for 115mph stock seems a lot of expense to go to for 5mph especially when only south of Rugby via Weedon is 110+ anyway. Nowhere north of rugby (going via Stoke) is above 110 on the slows and if you don't go on the slows you wouldn't call at most stations without continually changing from fast to slow line.
Point 2- the doors, whilst working the 350s iv had passengers comment on several things but never, ever, ever has one mentioned the position of the doors in a negative way. Some have said they can see seats easier but the huge majority of the travelling public don't care where the door is, a trains a train if it gets them there in reasonable speed and comfort.
Point 3- yes they do. All of the /1s are fitted with catering points they just aren't used anymore. LM don't want to provide catering, that's not a fault of the unit itself.

 

[FQ]

It’s a good idea, in theory, and one that I agree with, as thirty-odd 350/2s would be quite useful to replace 26 class 323s across the West Midlands once the increased fleet requirement for the additional Redditch and Bromsgrove electric services takes effect, and also including those services, such as Walsall to Wolverhampton, that currently or shortly will see operation by 350s. However I think one of the larger potential stumbling blocks would be the ability to lengthen all the platforms on the Cross-City line to accommodate 8-car 350 formations over 6-car 323s. LM and Network Rail seemed to manage fine on the Snow Hill lines with the introduction of the lengthier 172s (Also involving the use of SDO at several locations, which the 350s don’t have), but I can envisage some problems potentially being encountered on the Cross-City at the likes of, say, Aston.

Never thought of that. I guess they could have a bit of the train overhanging or have single 350s.

 

[sprinterguy]

Never thought of that. I guess they could have a bit of the train overhanging or have single 350s.

Not if there's passenger doors off the platform you couldn't, unless using Unit de-select, which, in place of Selective Door Operation seems less than ideal for the high numbers of passengers on the Cross-City line.

There is no way that a 4-car 350 could cope with the loadings that a 6-car 323 currently contends with during the evening peak on the Cross-City line especially. A lot of people would end up left behind.