Possible use for Class 350/2s

[Stephen Lee]

No. I don't. They are looking at using 377/3s. No need for 350/2s.

Are they planning to electrify the line?

 

[JonathanH]

Are they planning to electrify the line?

No, they are looking at fitting batteries to 377/3s, not 350/2s.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/battery-powered-electrostars-for-southern.192809/

 

[swt_passenger]

Guys, do you think 350/2 can go to GTR-SN after being fitted with Battery and 3rd rail equipment for operations in Oxted line Uckfield Branch as well as Marshlink Line?

Do you think we’ll ever see a 350/2 with batteries? It’s only theoretical at the moment, the ROSCO will never proceed if no one actually needs it...

 

[Stephen Lee]

Do you think we’ll ever see a 350/2 with batteries? It’s only theoretical at the moment, the ROSCO will never proceed if no one actually needs it...

This is Porterbrook’s Plan

 

[swt_passenger]

This is Porterbook’s Plan

A “proposal”, in my opinion you’re reading too much into it.

I saw all the publicity back in Oct 2018, like everyone else, but it hasn’t actually happened, has it?

here’s the original discussion: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-350-batteryflex.171906/

 

[43096]

This is Porterbrook’s Plan

You are certainly doing your best on here to find a use for battery 350/2s.....

They’re the new 442s.

 

[Energy]

You are certainly doing your best on here to find a use for battery 350/2s.....

They’re the new 442s.

I wouldn't call them the new 442s, unlike the 442s the 350/2s are still fine units however they may just be used as standard emus, guess we will just see if anybody wants battery 350s.

I wonder if Scotrail could have 350/2s to work along the 380s and replace some of Scotrail's older EMUs, although they seem to be going for 385s.

 

[swt_passenger]

I wouldn't call them the new 442s, unlike the 442s the 350/2s are still fine units however they may just be used as standard emus, guess we will just see if anybody wants battery 350s.

I wonder if Scotrail could have 350/2s to work along the 380s and replace some of Scotrail's older EMUs, although they seem to be going for 385s.

As you say I think use as standard AC EMUs is far more likely.
Good luck to them if they can run the Windermere service as a short extension off the wires. But there’s no way they’ll convert the whole fleet and then start looking for a suitable use. As a number of people have mentioned, routes such as Waterloo to Exeter have the wrong ratio of electric supply distance to battery distance...

 

[Doomotron]

Guys, do you think 350/2 can go to GTR-SN after being fitted with Battery and 3rd rail equipment for operations in Oxted line Uckfield Branch as well as Marshlink Line?

No. I don't. They are looking at using 377/3s. No need for 350/2s.

Neither are going to happen. 350s cannot fit in the Uckfield tunnels, and Southern called oof the plan to use battery trains entirely a couple of weeks ago. The most likely option is to electrify the lines and use existing Electrostars, as no other diesel stock is suitable for Southern's services.

 

[Nym]

Or EMR will keep their 158s along side their new 170s....?

 

[James Kevill]

Could anybody explain why the 37 Class 350/2 Desiros are being replaced by Class 730 Aventras on the London Northwestern Railway services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could anybody explain why the 37 Class 350/2 Desiros are being replaced by Class 730 Aventras on the London Northwestern Railway services?

Because of the excessive cost of the lease on the 350/2s. In a sense the ROSCO's bluff was called and they lost.

 

[James Kevill]

I guess that makes sense. And after if they were converted into Battery-Electric Multiple Units with the battery pack will be fitted on these units, Porterbrook would be waiting for the Rolling Stock owners to buy 37 Class 350/2 Desiros. And my guess would be Angel Trains because they own 50 Class 350/1, 350/3 and 350/4 Desiros.

 

[swt_passenger]

I guess that makes sense. And after if they were converted into Battery-Electric Multiple Units with the battery pack will be fitted on these units, Porterbrook would be waiting for the Rolling Stock owners to buy 37 Class 350/2 Desiros. And my guess would be Angel Trains because they own 50 Class 350/1, 350/3 and 350/4 Desiros.

That doesnt follow. Porterbrook is their Rolling stock owner, and Angel is a competing ROSCO, why would Porterbrook wait for someone else to buy them after paying for the conversion (if it ever happens)?

 

[Energy]

That doesnt follow. Porterbrook is their Rolling stock owner, and Angel is a competing ROSCO, why would Porterbrook wait for someone else to buy them after paying for the conversion (if it ever happens)?

I could see them being sold to Angel if they don't get converted, all Desiro EMUs are currently owned by Angel except 380s. However Porterbrook probably don't want to sell one of their more modern fleets.

 

[Nym]

Or they could just get real on their leasing costs and flog them to someone like Northern, Scotrail or SouthEastern...

 

[JonathanH]

Or they could just get real on their leasing costs and flog them to someone like Northern, Scotrail or SouthEastern...

How are they going to pay for them?

Northern and ScotRail do not have any need for more electric units. SouthEastern don't have anywhere to service them.

 

[43096]

Because of the excessive cost of the lease on the 350/2s. In a sense the ROSCO's bluff was called and they lost.

High, yes; excessive, no.

Excessive implies that the owner is making an exceptional profit on them. Given they were competitively tendered when ordered, that is unlikely to be the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

High, yes; excessive, no.

Excessive implies that the owner is making an exceptional profit on them. Given they were competitively tendered when ordered, that is unlikely to be the case.

A fair point, though whatever you'd call it they were more expensive than new. You'd not buy a used car if a new one was cheaper, would you?

 

[43096]

A fair point, though whatever you'd call it they were more expensive than new. You'd not buy a used car if a new one was cheaper, would you?

True.

The interesting part is that the 172s - procured at the same time and through the same ROSCO by London Midland - have been retained rather than being replaced by new CAF units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True.

The interesting part is that the 172s - procured at the same time and through the same ROSCO by London Midland - have been retained rather than being replaced by new CAF units.

I wonder if the price for CAF DMUs wasn't as good because CAF are the only supplier, perhaps? 100/110mph suburban EMUs are ten a penny at the minute with a good range of suppliers meaning a very competitive market.

 

[43096]

I wonder if the price for CAF DMUs wasn't as good because CAF are the only supplier, perhaps? 100/110mph suburban EMUs are ten a penny at the minute with a good range of suppliers meaning a very competitive market.

That’s a good point. Might help explain why CAF aren’t bothered about build quality (though that appears to be an institutional trait!).

 

[Nym]

A fair point, though whatever you'd call it they were more expensive than new. You'd not buy a used car if a new one was cheaper, would you?

Would you want a new Dacia or a used Beemer?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you want a new Dacia or a used Beemer?

Knowing the way people treat Beemers probably the Dacia. That is a fair point, though while I'd agree the Desiro is a Beemer, the Aventra isn't a bad train, perhaps more of a Vauxhall Astra (which is a decent car). It's CAF I'd call a Dacia.

 

[Nym]

Knowing the way people treat Beemers probably the Dacia. That is a fair point, though while I'd agree the Desiro is a Beemer, the Aventra isn't a bad train, perhaps more of a Vauxhall Astra. It's CAF I'd call a Dacia.

Fair, our old pool car was a beemer and was 'not fully functional'. But given that the 350s have won many golden spanners and new fleets are proving less than reliable, with several notable issues with the Aventura design at a fundamental management level I'd honestly rather have a nicely proven 350/2 than something new.

But when you're looking to grow your fleet by a small ish amount, the only way to avoid a microfleet is to replace one of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But when you're looking to grow your fleet by a small ish amount, the only way to avoid a microfleet is to replace one of them.

There is that. Even if they'd bought from Siemens, it'd still be a totally different train, the classic Desiro UK is no longer available and hasn't been for years.

 

[Iskra]

If we are scraping the barrel of uses for them I would give them to XC for; Birmingham-Manchester, Doncaster/York-Newcastle (maybe even on to Glasgow) to eliminate diesel running under the wires to free up XC units for strengthening elsewhere, using 8 car EMU formations.

In the same vein, could Northern's Chathill flyer be re-evaluated to use 350's? Is the turnround loop north of Chathill electrified? If not could it be extended Northwards to get the unit out of the way?

 

[JonathanH]

If we are scraping the barrel of uses for them I would give them to XC for; Birmingham-Manchester, Doncaster/York-Newcastle (maybe even on to Glasgow) to eliminate diesel running under the wires to free up XC units for strengthening elsewhere, using 8 car EMU formations.

Whilst that is a noble aim, the moment you split the existing services at Birmingham or Doncaster / York they lose their reason to be Cross Country services. They might also struggle to maintain journey times on the latter route and can't extend to Aberdeen / Dundee (if that matters).

As you say, scraping the barrel a bit.

 

[43096]

If we are scraping the barrel of uses for them I would give them to XC for; Birmingham-Manchester, Doncaster/York-Newcastle (maybe even on to Glasgow) to eliminate diesel running under the wires to free up XC units for strengthening elsewhere, using 8 car EMU formations.

I think you need to look at a timetable. Manchester-Birmingham trains almost all run through to Reading/Bristol and beyond. As for change at Doncaster for Newcastle, there’s so many problems with that.

 

[Iskra]

Whilst that is a noble aim, the moment you split the existing services at Birmingham or Doncaster / York they lose their reason to be Cross Country services. They might also struggle to maintain journey times on the latter route and can't extend to Aberdeen / Dundee (if that matters).

As you say, scraping the barrel a bit.

I agree it isn't a perfect solution but for many of the journeys from South of Birmingham a faster option than XC exists already. I would only replace one of the two XC services that operate on the ECML (probably the Reading service North of York) and leave the other one to maintain direct links. Would passengers prefer to stand on a 4 car voyager or sit on an 8 car 350?

I don't think they would struggle too much on journey times; they have good acceleration, better door layouts for dwell times XC already have long dwells for making up time anyway.

Aberdeen/Dundee could still be maintained if you just chopped the Reading service as well as Birmingham-Manchester, although I'm not convinced the XC service up there is adding all that much that couldn't be absorbed by Scotrail and LNER.