Where are the 350/2s going?

[childwallblues]

The 350/1 leaving Walsall at about 1530 acually runs through to Liverpool but is not advertised as such.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The /2s are owned by a different ROSCO and are fitted with a different seating arrangement - I don’t understand.

and what difference does either the owning ROSCO or the seating arrangement make to what subclass they are?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The seating arrangement does, it's a material difference that affects diagramming, particularly on TOCs that offer reservations.

 

[sd0733]

The 350/1 leaving Walsall at about 1530 acually runs through to Liverpool but is not advertised as such.

The Walsall to Liverpool working is the 14:31 ex Walsall which takes the path of a /1 which goes down to London as an 8 car to form the 17:46 to crewe.
The14:31 is a /2 diagram though and it is a proper through working as is one round 7 am.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think number changes are quite that simple...

Unit number changes are relatively straightforward. It is vehicle number changes that would be more difficult.

However in more recent new units there tends to be a more direct (predictable) relationship between unit and vehicle numbers.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If they got converted to 2+2 seating, what would be the trade off (number of seats lost and approx gain in standing capacity)?

 

[MCR247]

Information in the public domain suggests that /2s have 243 Standard seats compared to the 209 of 350/1s

 

[DarloRich]

The london Midland services are painful anyway, but with the 2+3 seating and lack of tables, it makes the journey much more painful... Would rather them bulk the 350/1s and 3s to 125mph running, and then drop the annoying stops (Atherstone, Litchfield Trent Valley etc).

The 350/1s and 350/3s could run the fast services from Liverpool (Liverpool, Runcorn, Crewe, Stafford, Nuneaton, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Watford Junc, Euston)

The 350/2s could run the more stopping service via Northampton...

I assume you are happy to pay Virgin prices for skipping the "annoying" stops

 

[59CosG95]

Not even the same ROSCO - Angel owns the /2s, Porterbrook owns all other 350s.

I'm fairly sure it's the other way around; Angel own the /1s, /3s and /4s with Porterbrook owning the /2s.

 

[bnsf734]

^

Just checked my book and 59CosG95 is correct - Angel own all except the 350/2s which are Porterbrook.

 

[D365]

I was waiting for someone to call me out on that

 

[ABB125]

Thinking of the future, would these class 350s be welcome up in Scotland to replace the class 318/320/321s? I believe there are 50 of these in total.
One coach from each class 350 could be removed to create 37 x 3-car units, with 37 spare trailer vehicles; 24 of these could then be converted to motor vehicles (I assume this would be possible), and along with a further 12 trailers, 12 of the 3-car units could be made up to 6-car. This would result in 12 x 6-car, and 25 x 3-car units, or 49 x 3-car equivalent, with one spare trailer, which i suspect would be sufficient to replace presumably less reliable older stock, with the benefit of a more homogenous fleet.
If greater capacity is required, then perhaps take the class 360/1s, remove the two trailer vehicles, and insert an entire class 350, creating a fully gangwayed 6-car unit (as long as they are compatible). 21 of these would leave 16 x class 350s left, which could have a coach removed as above, resulting in a total fleet of 21 x 6-car and 16 x 3-car, or 58 x 3-car equivalent. 42 class 360 trailers would be spare, along with 16 from the class 350s.
Should any further capacity be required (which I doubt), the 5 class 360/2 units could be added to the above idea, resulting in 26 x 6-car and 11 x 3-car, or 63 x 3-car equivalent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or just use them as 4s and 8s and extend platforms/use UDS/SDO? Then you've got growth space.

 

[ABB125]

As I have no knowledge of the routes around Glasgow, I have assumed that 6-car is the limit, especially through the tunnels.

 

[507 001]

350/2s would be very welcome in the North West.....