Possible use for Class 350/2s

[greatvoyager]

All Desiros sound exactly the same to me.

Of course a rational thing to do would be to reseat the 350/2s to 2+2 then swap them out for the 350/1s. Of course their ownership mucks with that.

I suppose it depends on the length of the route they are operating. If it's an hour or two then 3+2 is fine, but over that, people seem to prefer 2+2.

 

[swt_passenger]

What makes you think it's not a difficult modification?

They're built with the ability to be converted but there's a lot to do to get them dual / DC.

Adding shoe gear to an outside frame bogie, with appropriate cabling and protective fuses or circuit breakers, feeding into the existing DC link is not a difficult modification by any definition. It’s been discussed in these forums numerous times.

 

[greatvoyager]

Adding shoe gear to an outside frame bogie, with appropriate cabling and protective fuses or circuit breakers, feeding into the existing DC link is not a difficult modification by any definition. It’s been discussed in these forums numerous times.

Also, haven't all EMUs been built so that the conversion from AC or DC or even making them Dual Voltage can be easily done?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'd love them to be used with SWR, either on Reading services or on the Waterloo-Woking/Guildfords. It would mean people on the Reading line are happy and would cover for stock out of service. I wonder if their traction would keep the same sound, or a higher pitch like on the 444s & 450s.

The traction converters would almost certainly sound and operate as per 444/450 on DC. This was reported in these forums when the 350/1s worked to East Croydon on the SN WLL service.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also, haven't all EMUs been built so that the conversion from AC or DC or even making them Dual Voltage can be easily done?

That’s been regularly reported here ever since the Desiro UK and Electrostar fleets were knew. No matter what it would cost or time it would take, I doubt any electrical engineer would consider it “difficult”...

 

[TrainTube]

The traction converters would almost certainly sound and operate as per 444/450 on DC. This was reported in these forums when the 350/1s worked to East Croydon on the SN WLL service.

So they change pitch slightly when switching between pantograph and third rail?

 

[greatvoyager]

That’s been regularly reported here ever since the Desiro UK and Electrostar fleets were knew. No matter what it would cost or time it would take, I doubt any electrical engineer would consider it “difficult”...

It would make sense for it to be straightforward.

 

[37057]

Adding shoe gear to an outside frame bogie, with appropriate cabling and protective fuses or circuit breakers, feeding into the existing DC link is not a difficult modification by any definition. It’s been discussed in these forums numerous times.

Having working knowledge of these units and how rolling stock mod projects go, I beg to differ....

 

[The Ham]

From the 442 thread (talking about the 350/2's):

Battery trains. Although nobody has leased them yet, there are 37 of these trains so they could replace the 442s, 158s (used with batteries) and some 159s (used with batteries).

Are you sure there are enough?

There is no way SWR will take the risk of wasting all the money they have spent on the 442s (if they still have the franchise that is?)

Plus the 442s still have further upgrades yet to go. It's pointless; passengers will complain no matter what. SWR did what they were asked to do.

By my maths you could run the all the 442 diagrams with 27/37 units (running then as 12 coach trains all day) that leaves 10 for the WofE services which didn't go to Exeter (I'm not sure that you'd want to test battery power door that far). Given that you'd need 6 to run an hourly service of one unit, 10 isn't going to get you very much capacity.

Conversely if you ran those services as all 12 coach trains you'd need 18/37 of them. You wouldn't need many to run the Salisbury 6 services (Salisbury Romsey via Southampton), by my maths is only 3, so that's a total of 21/37.

You could then look at other options, such as replacing the Basingstoke Stoppers with them so that you could increase the frequency between Basingstoke and Salisbury to 4tph (by extending the stopping services to Salisbury), that would require an extra 16 units to do so (assuming 2 units run together). That would max out the 37 units.

However with the uplift in capacity due to the more frequent service between Basingstoke and Salisbury it would be reasonable to drop a unit a Basingstoke on the Yeovil services during the off peak, which should give you enough spare units for covering for maintenance and breakdowns. Even if it didn't you could have the Basingstoke Stoppers turn back at Basingstoke every few hours.

Whilst dropping a unit at Basingstoke would take up platform capacity, this would be offset by the loss of the termination of the Basingstoke Stoppers.

 

[Stephen Lee]

Well.......I would think it will be a good idea to transfer it to SWR as a dual-voltage Battery EMU（but to enable operation under 3rd rail i afraid the best way is to take the third rail equipment away from the 350/1s and move to the /2s）

 

[Energy]

Well.......I would think it will be a good idea to transfer it to SWR as a dual-voltage Battery EMU（but to enable operation under 3rd rail i afraid the best way is to take the third rail equipment away from the 350/1s and move to the /2s）

Or just order new 3rd rail equipment from Siemens? They made the 350/3s and /4s years after they made previous 350s so I think they would be willing to made new 3rd rail equipment.

 

[greatvoyager]

Well.......I would think it will be a good idea to transfer it to SWR as a dual-voltage Battery EMU（but to enable operation under 3rd rail i afraid the best way is to take the third rail equipment away from the 350/1s and move to the /2s）

Would that be easy to do though, considering that Angel owns 350/1s and Porterbrook owns 350/2s?
Also there are only 30 350/1s, which would leave 7 350/2s without equipment.

 

[greatvoyager]

Or just order new 3rd rail equipment from Siemens? They made the 350/3s and /4s years after they made previous 350s so I think they would be willing to made new 3rd rail equipment.

That would probably be the easier option.

 

[D365]

Where has the idea come from that SWR need more EMUs? Much less 37.

 

[Stephen Lee]

Where has the idea come from that SWR need more EMUs? Much less 37.

I am saying Battery EMU, not pure EMUs!

 

[Domh245]

I am saying Battery EMU, not pure EMUs!

Point still stands, what services are you going to put them on?

 

[Energy]

Point still stands, what services are you going to put them on?

To replace some 158/159s or 442s?

 

[Stephen Lee]

Point still stands, what services are you going to put them on?

London Waterloo-Bristol/Exeter

 

[Doomotron]

London Waterloo-Bristol/Exeter

Good luck.

 

[JonathanH]

Where has the idea come from that SWR need more EMUs? Much less 37.

The 350/2 fleet would quite nicely replace the 442 fleet as noted on this page by The Ham.

 

[swt_passenger]

London Waterloo-Bristol/Exeter

Impossible. You need bimodes for that.

 

[Energy]

Impossible. You need bimodes for that.

He said battery EMU, presumably as porterbrook are planning to fit some with batteries.

 

[swt_passenger]

He said battery EMU, presumably as porterbrook are planning to fit some with batteries.

Yes I know, but the relative route mileages between Waterloo, Basingstoke and Exeter/Bristol make no sense whatsoever for battery power.

 

[Energy]

Yes I know, but the relative route mileages between Waterloo, Basingstoke and Exeter/Bristol make no sense whatsoever for battery power.

Isn't part of the route electrified? To be honest I would prioritise the replacement of the 442s which the 350s would be good at imo.

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn't part of the route electrified?

But only about 50 miles out of nearly 180... It’s just not the sort of route being looked at for battery extension...

 

[The Ham]

Impossible. You need bimodes for that.

Indeed, even getting as far as Salisbury could be quite a challenge on batteries, which was as far as if suggested that they be used for.

Might be better to have them so that the extension to the Basingstoke Stoppers that I'd suggested ran as fast as Andover or have them run between there and Salisbury by using a loco/a smaller diesel engine (for those extended services having them limited to 40mph when they ran out of battery power, akin to the electric IEP's, probably wouldn't cause too much of a problem) to exted the range (as the engine would be able to generate power before the batteries were low to extend the range, so that the 40mph running limit of the units would be almost never used unless there's a problem with the batteries).

 

[43096]

London Waterloo-Bristol/Exeter

Might want to re-think that one as you’ll run out of battery power around Yeovil on the outward leg.

Are 350/2s the new 442s that is this forum’s solution for everything?

 

[6Gman]

Might want to re-think that one as you’ll run out of battery power around Yeovil on the outward leg.

Are 350/2s the new 442s that is this forum’s solution for everything?

We really, really need a LIKE function on here.

 

[Stephen Lee]

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?

 

[JonathanH]

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.