Northern Tender for up to 450 units

[FlyingPotato]

So will the 195s and 331s stay at northern or will they be cascaded as well?
Or is it just wibble I'm reading on wnxx?

I think the 195s will probably stay at northern but cascaded to less important routers

331s probably the same, as when electrification does happen for routes, they will most likely be needed
And will be used to replace older trains when new ones come in as well

 

[AlastairFraser]

So will the 195s and 331s stay at northern or will they be cascaded as well?
Or is it just wibble I'm reading on wnxx?

Gold standard wibble.
The upcoming order is to repalce the Sprinters (15x) and cascade the Turbostars (170s).

 

[jonesy3001]

Gold standard wibble.
The upcoming order is to replace the Sprinters (15x) and cascade the Turbostars (170s).

Thought so.

 

[1D53]

So will the 195s and 331s stay at northern or will they be cascaded as well?
Or is it just wibble I'm reading on wnxx?

They are staying and being fitted with ETCS. Going nowhere.

 

[Neptune]

Gold standard wibble.
The upcoming order is to repalce the Sprinters (15x) and cascade the Turbostars (170s).

Not quite.

Yes the new trains will replace the 15x/769 fleet. The 170’s however will remain at Hull until it’s their turn for replacement which is still a long way off. The 195/331 fleet are staying but the 195’s will move to another area of Northern (known internally what the plans for them are but I’m not at liberty to say).

Possible orders beyond this are most likely for pure electric trains of the same design to replace the 323/333 fleets but again that’s a long way off.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Not quite.

Yes the new trains will replace the 15x/769 fleet. The 170’s however will remain at Hull until it’s their turn for replacement which is still a long way off. The 195/331 fleet are staying but the 195’s will move to another area of Northern (known internally what the plans for them are but I’m not at liberty to say).

Possible orders beyond this are most likely for pure electric trains of the same design to replace the 323/333 fleets but again that’s a long way off.

Ah OK, so Sprinter replacement only. Makes sense.

 

[Snow1964]

Ah OK, so Sprinter replacement only. Makes sense.

Probably in initial batch, but looks like a framework agreement with sufficient number to allow more batches well into 2030s

 

[Harvey B]

So will the 195s and 331s stay at northern or will they be cascaded as well?
Or is it just wibble I'm reading on wnxx?

I doubt it anytime soon. But seen as the tender is going to last almost 15 years, I wouldn't be surprised if they do get cascaded at some point down the line.

But I doubt that'll happen until around 2039/2040 (at which point, the Civities will be about 20 years old)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Or, cynically, a reduction from 4 car to 3 car!

Was that something that once happened to TransPennine Express when the Class 185 units order was in the discussion stages?

 

[Neptune]

I doubt it anytime soon. But seen as the tender is going to last almost 15 years, I wouldn't be surprised if they do get cascaded at some point down the line.

But I doubt that'll happen until around 2039/2040 (at which point, the Civities will be about 20 years old)

The cascade will happen long before then.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Further examples of a Stadler FLIRT product would be interesting, surely Bi and Tri mode capabilities would be ideal for the Northern network. Akin to the TFW Class 756, maybe some could incorporate battery propulsion? Just imagine a Class 757 or a Class 760 in Northern Livery. This being said, as GWR and Scotrail are also putting tenders out more examples of FLIRTS may be favourable.

 

[Harvey B]

The cascade will happen long before then.

So you're saying that they do intend to eventually replace the 195s and 331s, and cascade them to other operators long before 2040?

 

[Vectron383]

Further examples of a Stadler FLIRT product would be interesting, surely Bi and Tri mode capabilities would be ideal for the Northern network. Akin to the TFW Class 756, maybe some could incorporate battery propulsion? Just imagine a Class 757 or a Class 760 in Northern Livery. This being said, as GWR and Scotrail are also putting tenders out more examples of FLIRTS may be favourable.

FLIRTs becoming the 80x series of regional trains would be perfectly fine with me- of all the ‘new gen’ trains debuting in recent years, those from this family have consistently received the best reception. Plus I personally think they look stunning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FLIRTs becoming the 80x series of regional trains would be perfectly fine with me- of all the ‘new gen’ trains debuting in recent years, those from this family have consistently received the best reception. Plus I personally think they look stunning.

Though if the outcome is 3 and 4 section FLIRTs that's bad, as that's just like 2-3 car 24m units. If it's Stadler, unless they do bogied units with 24m vehicles (which Stadler do offer) you want 4 and 5 section.

Northern isn't like Greater Anglia, the secondary lines are much, much busier, and there are plenty of 2 car 195s for the branch lines that do only need that.

 

[Neptune]

So you're saying that they do intend to eventually replace the 195s and 331s, and cascade them to other operators long before 2040?

No what I’m saying is that the 195’s will be cascaded to other parts of the Northern network where there is little interaction with overhead wires. There is a plan but I’m not yet at liberty to say what that is.

331’s are staying where they are.

 

[Trainbike46]

No what I’m saying is that the 195’s will be cascaded to other parts of the Northern network where there is little interaction with overhead wires. There is a plan but I’m not yet at liberty to say what that is.

Sounds very sensible, use the new bimodes/BEMUs where the route is partially electrified, use the existing 195s on those routes that have little overhead wires

Though if the outcome is 3 and 4 section FLIRTs that's bad, as that's just like 2-3 car 24m units. If it's Stadler, unless they do bogied units with 24m vehicles (which Stadler do offer) you want 4 and 5 section.

Northern isn't like Greater Anglia, the secondary lines are much, much busier, and there are plenty of 2 car 195s for the branch lines that do only need that.

clearly northern should have units with the right capacity, including planning for some growth over current levels - whether that is by having longer cars compared to GA or more cars. I'd suspect more cars is easier as it doesn't require bodyshell redesign. 4&5 car or even better, 4&6 car would be nice

But really, the important part is that the new fleet has the good features of a the flirts, no matter who builds them, so level-boarding BEMUs/bimodes/trimodes

 

[Meerkat]

clearly northern should have units with the right capacity, including planning for some growth over current levels - whether that is by having longer cars compared to GA or more cars. I'd suspect more cars is easier as it doesn't require bodyshell redesign. 4&5 car or even better, 4&6 car would be nice

Isn’t the problem getting that capacity within platform lengths, when the Stadlers have a power pack in the middle?
Presumably low floor is pretty tricky within the UK loading gauge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably low floor is pretty tricky within the UK loading gauge.

Umm, Classes 777, 745 and 755?

You mean there isn't room underneath? There probably is for an EMU at least, but the FLIRT is designed for proper low floor so it doesn't put stuff underneath. The METRO has the same 960mm floor, but because there aren't any* low floor metros that don't use tram type vehicles (so the platform doesn't need to support proper European low floor) the kit is underfloor on those.

* OK, one - the deep Tube. And possibly Glasgow. But they use custom stock.

 

[Meerkat]

Umm, Classes 777, 745 and 755?

You mean there isn't room underneath? There probably is for an EMU at least, but the FLIRT is designed for proper low floor so it doesn't put stuff underneath. The METRO has the same 960mm floor, but because there aren't any* low floor metros that don't use tram type vehicles (so the platform doesn't need to support proper European low floor) the kit is underfloor on those.

* OK, one - the deep Tube. And possibly Glasgow. But they use custom stock.

But they have significant non-passenger length, particularly if multi mode.
What is the length/capacity comparison between 150s and 755s?

 

[Trainbike46]

Isn’t the problem getting that capacity within platform lengths, when the Stadlers have a power pack in the middle?
Presumably low floor is pretty tricky within the UK loading gauge.

In a voyager thread I did the comparison at the bottom of this message. Doing a similar thing comparing it with a 195 gives this:

Class	seats	length	seats m^-1
Class 195/0 (2-car)	108	48 metres	2.25
Class 195/1 (3-car)	184	71 metres	2.59
Class 745 (Electric only)	704 (IC) 722 (StanEx)	237 metres	2.97 (IC) 3.05 (StanEx)
Class 755 (bimode, 4-car)	202	81 metres	2.49
theoretical 12-car bimode FLIRT with 2 powerpacks	704 (IC) 722 (StanEx)	250 metres	2.82 (IC) 2.89 (StanEx)

Clearly the 195s give you a somewhat larger number of seats per metre length, but the difference isn't that big, and the 4-car 755 has 2 toilets compared to 1 on the 195s, which explains part of the difference. The important question then becomes how much it matters, which depends on how limiting platform length is

Source for the numbers on the class 195: https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-195/

You ask for a lot of comparisons here that require information that I don't think anyone on this forum can provide - What higher density layout for a voyager? Can you remove some of the accessible bogs, or not? I suspect removing crumple zones won't be possible.

I've heard some suggestions that the UK FLIRT design is mostly suited for 125mph, though I don't know how much work mostly is doing in that sentence!

I think, using the best information available, it is fair to say that a 125mph FLIRT is likely similar in density to an 80x

My source for seating numbers was wikipedia for the class 22x and 80x, which seems to have maintained its reputation for being wrong. For the FLIRTs I used the stadler-provided datasheets. That does explain the point noted by @Krokodil, which surprised me as well. I've provided an updated table below with your seat numbers for class 221:

Class	seats	length	seats m^-1
Class 220	200	93 metres	2.15
Class 221 (5-car)	262 (XC) 256 (avanti)	119 metres	2.20 (XC) 2.15 (Avanti)
Class 800 (bimode, 5-car)	302 (LNER) 326 (GWR)	130 metres	2.32 (LNER) 2.51 (GWR)
Clas 800 (bimode, 9-car)	611 (LNER) 650 (GWR)	234 metres	2.61 (LNER) 2.78 (GWR)
Class 745 (Electric only)	704 (IC) 722 (StanEx)	237 metres	2.97 (IC) 3.05 (StanEx)
Class 755 (bimode, 4-car)	202	81 metres	2.49
theoretical 12-car bimode FLIRT with 2 powerpacks	704 (IC) 722 (StanEx)	250 metres	2.82 (IC) 2.89 (StanEx)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly the 195s give you a somewhat larger number of seats per metre length, but the difference isn't that big, and the 4-car 755 has 2 toilets compared to 1 on the 195s, which explains part of the difference. The important question then becomes how much it matters, which depends on how limiting platform length is

Source for the numbers on the class 195: https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-195/

Worth bearing in mind though that aside from the small number of airline rows 195s have a very low density layout - it's almost all tables and there are wide standbacks at the doors. Whereas the GA FLIRTs are quite a bit tighter packed with fewer tables and I don't *think* standbacks. They were essentially designed I think to have a comfort level similar to the 185 but without 1st, primarily for the proposed Northern Connect routes.

 

[Snow1964]

Isn’t the problem getting that capacity within platform lengths, when the Stadlers have a power pack in the middle?

Northern has lots of different platform heights and lengths, a hangover from multiple constituent companies.

I don't know the area that well, but there used to be some platforms that were part disused or lower, so list of full platform length doesn't match usable length. Although of course if already got a solid stone or masonry base it is easy to add hollow blocks to raise it and fit new coping stones.

Really if you are buying a standardised fleet in batches which might still be working in 2070, then sorting out the rogue platforms which limit length is better than bodging the train spec, and being stuck with wrong train length for next 40+ years.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'd add to this, I'm not saying that northern will or should get a flirt (though full level boarding should be mandatory whoever ends up building the new units!), just that the powerpack isn't nearly as much of a problem as you make out to be, while recognising that if every metre of platform length counts it does have some negatives

Northern has lots of different platform heights and lengths, a hangover from multiple constituent companies.

I don't know the area that well, but there used to be some platforms that were part disused or lower, so list of full platform length doesn't match usable length. Although of course if already got a solid stone or masonry base it is easy to add hollow blocks to raise it and fit new coping stones.

Really if you are buying a standardised fleet in batches which might still be working in 2070, then sorting out the rogue platforms is better than bodging the train spec, and being stuck with wrong train length for next 40+ years.

And SDO is also an option, at least for the platforms at non-terminus stations

Worth bearing in mind though that aside from the small number of airline rows 195s have a very low density layout - it's almost all tables and there are wide standbacks at the doors. Whereas the GA FLIRTs are quite a bit tighter packed with fewer tables and I don't *think* standbacks. They were essentially designed I think to have a comfort level similar to the 185 but without 1st, primarily for the proposed Northern Connect routes.

I've not yet travelled on a 195 - the reason I picked them for the comparison is simply that they are a modern regional unit used by northern - if you believe another unit would be a better comparison feel free to add lines for other classes to the table

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd add to this, I'm not saying that northern will or should get a flirt (though full level boarding should be mandatory whoever ends up building the new units!), just that the powerpack isn't nearly as much of a problem as you make out to be, while recognising that if every metre of platform length counts it does have some negatives

There are other options. For instance you could put larger engines under the end vehicles of a 3-car 24m unit and have the centre car unpowered with a drop between the bogies. This sort of design exists elsewhere e.g. in Switzerland with the "Domino" EMUs (though the low floor middle coaches are a retrofit), and then you've got the Sheffield trams which are the opposite (high floor middle, low floor ends).

It is ideal to have low floor throughout, but you don't have to - most people can handle a step and so just having a section for those who can't does deal with it. Though gap bridges at every door would be good for safety reasons and are certainly possible.

Having said that it seems to me that the CAF DMUs have a noticeably higher floor than 15x (but without an additional step as found on the likes of Voyagers) and some people do seem to struggle with that, so ideally we wouldn't have that setup. If for instance we go for a design with a low floor between the bogies in the middle coach (or middle two for a 4-car) should we consider Pacer style deep steps and handrails in the high floor coaches as a ramp will never need to be used there?

And SDO is also an option, at least for the platforms at non-terminus stations

Northern uses lots of SDO already (e.g. 6-car 195 on Barrows and Windermeres) so I'm sure that would be fine.

I've not yet travelled on a 195 - the reason I picked them for the comparison is simply that they are a modern regional unit used by northern - if you believe another unit would be a better comparison feel free to add lines for other classes to the table

196 perhaps, that has a much higher density layout than the 195 (being designed for urban and other short distance use). Basically a whole extra window bay and everything crammed up accordingly (add thick backed seats to that and you'll see why I dislike them, the legroom in the normal Standard seats is little better than a Merseytravel Pacer was).

That has a massive 141 in a 2-car - 17 more than a 195 (195 is 124 2-car and 204 3-car, I suspect the above figures exclude tip-ups?)

 

[Trainbike46]

That has a massive 141 in a 2-car - 17 more than a 195 (195 is 124 2-car and 204 3-car, I suspect the above figures exclude tip-ups?)

I'm assuming you've travelled on both - would you say the 196 and the 755 are similar in density?

I've substracted the number of tip-up seats (7 per unit from you numbers for the 196s) and assumed the lengths are the same as for the 195s (I can't seem to find a source for that), giving this updated table:

Class	seats	length	seats m^-1
Class 195/0 (2-car)	108	48 metres	2.25
Class 195/1 (3-car)	184	71 metres	2.59
Class 196/0 (2-car)	134	48 metres	2.79
Class 196/1 (4-car)	304	95 metres	3.20
Class 170 (3-car)	185	71 metres	2.61
Class 745 (Electric only)	704 (IC) 722 (StanEx)	237 metres	2.97 (IC) 3.05 (StanEx)
Class 755 (bimode, 4-car)	202	81 metres	2.49
theoretical 12-car bimode FLIRT with 2 powerpacks	704 (IC) 722 (StanEx)	250 metres	2.82 (IC) 2.89 (StanEx)

source for the class 170: https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-170-and-171/

It really highlights the advantages of having longer trains for seats per metre!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm assuming you've travelled on both - would you say the 196 and the 755 are similar in density?

Yep. 755 is noticeably tighter. Part of that is the terrible design of the FISA LEAN seat which puts supporting framework exactly where the knees of a tall male go (I'm so glad Northern didn't go with it as they were originally going to - same issue with the 196 - the airline seats would have been 153-like for space if they had) but I'm pretty sure even ignoring that it's denser, e.g. the table legroom is poorer and there are far fewer tables. The 195 is very low density because of its original purpose - pretty much comparable to the 185, which is probably intentional.

I've substracted the number of tip-up seats (7 per unit from you numbers for the 196s) and assumed the lengths are the same as for the 195s (I can't seem to find a source for that), giving this updated table:

Cheers for all that.

It really highlights the advantages of having longer trains for seats per metre!

Certainly. A cab basically takes up a full bay of 8. So for Northern, given that they've already got short trains in the form of the 2-car 195 for branch lines like Ormskirk and Headbolt, I'd really suggest they go for 3x24/4x24 or the FLIRT equivalent (4 and 6 section perhaps) and not waste that space. Particularly given the revenue protection disadvantage of not having cab end gangways, which Stadler don't offer.

 

[Trainbike46]

Yep. 755 is noticeably tighter. Part of that is the terrible design of the FISA LEAN seat which puts supporting framework exactly where the knees of a tall male go (I'm so glad Northern didn't go with it as they were originally going to - same issue with the 196 - the airline seats would have been 153-like for space if they had) but I'm pretty sure even ignoring that it's denser, e.g. the table legroom is poorer and there are far fewer tables. The 195 is very low density because of its original purpose - pretty much comparable to the 185, which is probably intentional.

Thanks for explaining, though as a 6'4" man I don't share your view on the FISA LEAN, I quite like them actually!

Certainly. A cab basically takes up a full bay of 8. So for Northern, given that they've already got short trains in the form of the 2-car 195 for branch lines like Ormskirk and Headbolt, I'd really suggest they go for 3x24/4x24 or the FLIRT equivalent (4 and 6 section perhaps) and not waste that space. Particularly given the revenue protection disadvantage of not having cab end gangways, which Stadler don't offer.

Fully agreed, though northern doesn't seem to care too much about Gangways anyway, given the 195s don't have them even though CAF do offer them!

edited to correct stupid error of writing cabs instead of gangways!

 

[Purple Orange]

Don’t forget standing room. On a 756 there is additional capacity for 148 standees on a 3-car and 204 on a 4-car unit to bring total capacity to 290 and 394 passengers respectively. I assume that the 755 for GA will have a similar total capacity too.

If these new trains are to be replacing the 15X fleet and also substitute for the 195s operating through Manchester & Leeds, then we need to understand for a FLIRT could compare to a 15X in 4xcar formation (as that is the predominant configuration) and compared to a 4-car and 6-car 195 formation.

A 4-car 150 would be 80m long with just over 400 passengers, while a 4-car 156 or 158 would be 90m with a capacity in the region of 440-450.

So if all 15X units are replaced by the same volume of 75X units in a combination of 3-car and 4-car trains, it would therefore be possible to continue running double units just as the 15X and 195s are today. That would mean trains of 130m or 160m long in 6-car or 8-car formation, with a total capacity of 580 or 788 passengers (seated and standing).

So it could be the case that following in the footsteps of Greater Anglia and TfW and get some 755s or 756s might not be a bad thing for Northern to do. At least to have enough 3-car to run in 6-car formation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for explaining, though as a 6'4" man I don't share your view on the FISA LEAN, I quite like them actually!

Guess you must have skinny legs. I'm not only tall but also very heavily built (and a bit fat) - think "retired rugby player who still goes to the pub with the team" type of thing**, even though I've never played the sport since school - even with my knees pressed tight together I physically can't get them in the niche, and as any male will know that isn't a comfortable position for anatomical reasons

But even for a skinny rake with a narrow pelvis, you only have to look at the angles involved to see why you get more legroom by having the seat shaped with the "niches" at the sides of the seat, not the centre. The Class 175 seat is probably the best design of that type, and the new Pendolino seat does it too hence the massive amount of extra space (about 2" or so I reckon over the previous ones).

The shape of the seat itself is similar to the Grammer E3000 but I'd rather a wooden plank* with enough legroom than a comfortable seat with my knees pressed against the one in front.

* But not a metal bar, eh, Fainsa

** I could tell I'd put on weight when people stopped asking "do you play rugby?" and instead "did you used to play rugby?"

 

[Trainbike46]

Guess you must have skinny legs. I'm not only tall but also very heavily built (and a bit fat) - think "retired rugby player who still goes to the pub with the team" type of thing, even though I've never played the sport since school - even with my knees pressed tight together I physically can't get them in the niche.

But even for a skinny rake with a narrow pelvis, you only have to look at the angles involved to see why you get more legroom by having the seat shaped with the "niches" at the sides of the seat, not the centre. The Class 175 seat is probably the best design of that type, and the new Pendolino seat does it too hence the massive amount of extra space (about 2" or so I reckon over the previous ones).

The shape of the seat itself is similar to the Grammer E3000 but I'd rather a wooden plank* with enough legroom than a comfortable seat with my knees pressed against the one in front.

* But not a metal bar, eh, Fainsa

those are the ones on the GWR 80x right? they are terrible, truly the worst train seat I've encountered anywhere!

This all goes to show, seat prefences are very variable person to person!

Though I would agree that more space is nicer, independent of anything else