Northern Tender for up to 450 units

[Peter Mugridge]

Given the size of the order, would it not be likely that the 333s would be life expired anyway by the time the tail end of the deliveries are made?

 

[Snow1964]

Also, if this order is including a replacement of the 333s and 170s then I'd like to question why they are willing to order replacements for perfectly good mid life rolling stock that probably have another 15 years of their Operating life still left in them?

The 333s would be non standard, and close to 30 years old by tail end of delivery period. If they had inherited them at scrap value at that age might keep them for some peak hour extras, but if got to pay full rent then hate to justify keeping them.

The 170s are different, good trains, but there are others who haven't yet worked out what to replace their diesel rolling stock with, they could easily find a new home for 10-15 years somewhere like Devon and Cornwall where could be nearer 2040 before electrification gets there.

 

[InkyScrolls]

I've literally just said the same thing above. And I wouldn't be opposed to it as I really like the Civities that Northern have got. They're probably my favourite trains in the Northern fleet

You obviously don't work them!

While choosing CAF would make a lot of sense, whatever is ultimately chosen will be because it best matches the specification Northern are asking for. By the time a new fleet of EMUs potentially begins to enter service in late 2028, the 333s will be approaching 30 years old, which isn't what I'd call mid-life. They are also a highly non-standard and unreliable micro fleet, so while I personally consider the 333s to be very decent units, it just doesn't make sense to retain them longer term.

Fixed that for you! I would not be surprised if they went at the same time at all.

I can understand why Northern would want to replace their 323 stock by 2030 as they are rapidly approaching the end of their service life. But why would they want to get rid of the 333s at the same time? Won't they be perfectly good to use up until 2040?

Won't the 333s still have another 10 years of their service life left in them by 2028? Would it not be best to keep them another 10 years and run them until the end of their life instead of scrapping them?

They may be good for a further ten years but it will likely be more cost-effective simply to replace as many trains as possible all in one go. And look at the 332s - built at roughly the same time and similarly nonstandard.

 

[RobShipway]

If it was not for the fact that I don't think the three remaining class 360/2 units I don't believe have been used that much by the Global Centre for Rail Excellence, I would have said that the class 333 units could be used by them. If the class 360/2 units still exist when the class 333 units, is there parts that can be taken from the class 333 units to keep the class 360/2 or for that matter the class 360/1 units going?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it was not for the fact that I don't think the three remaining class 360/2 units I don't believe have been used that much by the Global Centre for Rail Excellence, I would have said that the class 333 units could be used by them. If the class 360/2 units still exist when the class 333 units, is there parts that can be taken from the class 333 units to keep the class 360/2 or for that matter the class 360/1 units going?

I'd have thought not, the 333 is really a CAF unit but with Siemens electrical kit. There won't be many, if any, parts in common. They'll be old and like the HEx units they'll go for scrap.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

For those members newly joining this thread, what is the date of the tender referred to in the title of this thread.

 

[Harvey B]

For those members newly joining this thread, what is the dale of the tender referred to in the title of this thread.

The Dale for the Tender?

 

[Bornin1980s]

He means date.

 

[Snow1964]

For those members newly joining this thread, what is the dale of the tender referred to in the title of this thread.

Assuming you mean date, the notice came out in August 2023, full specs were sent to those who registered interest in October 2023

Initial batch to be awarded by early 2025 as part of framework, additional batches can be called taking it upto max of 450 units, over following 96 months.

Haven't ever seen exact delivery dates but seems to be from late 2027 or early 2028. Adding 96 months suggests deliveries until 2032

 

[3RDGEN]

Assuming you mean date, the notice came out in September 2023, full specs were sent to those who registered interest in October 2023

Did the specs get issued in October 2023 as per the original tender, I can't find any further update on the .gov website but then again perhaps they don't publish that?

The DfT are quoting end of 2024 for contract sign off/start so there needs to be some progress soon if that's to be achieved.

 

[Harvey B]

Assuming you mean date, the notice came out in August 2023, full specs were sent to those who registered interest in October 2023

Initial batch to be awarded by early 2025 as part of framework, additional batches can be called taking it upto max of 450 units, over following 96 months.

Haven't ever seen exact delivery dates but seems to be from late 2027 or early 2028. Adding 96 months suggests deliveries until 2032

Did the specs get issued in October 2023 as per the original tender, I can't find any further update on the .gov website but then again perhaps they don't publish that?

The DfT are quoting end of 2024 for contract sign off/start so there needs to be some progress soon if that's to be achieved.

Is there any idea if/when we'll hear the about potential Bidders?

 

[Snow1964]

Is there any idea if/when we'll hear the about potential Bidders?

Unlikely to be made public, until someone signs contract.

Could get caught in election purdah, but politically announcing new trains on order before an election announcement might suit Government

 

[Harvey B]

You obviously don't work them!

Why? What's wrong with the Civity Fleet?

 

[InkyScrolls]

Why? What's wrong with the Civity Fleet?

Well I'll admit it obviously not objective, but the vast majority of conductors, and most drivers I speak so (myself included) find them unpleasant to work. Poor build quality, horrendous touchscreens, ergonomically odd to say the least, awful cab doors - those are the main points! Give me a 158 or a 333 any day. But as I say, not everyone agrees with me.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How is the Civity fleet viewed by rail passengers travelling in those units?

 

[Anonymous10]

How is the Civity fleet viewed by rail passengers travelling in those units?

The 197s with enhanced seat cushions are quite nice in my opinion, a bit rough riding on jointed track so in my experience west of Swansea but otherwise nice enough.

 

[InkyScrolls]

How is the Civity fleet viewed by rail passengers travelling in those units?

From those I've spoken to the views are actually pretty mixed. Tables are a big plus and no-one seems to mention the seats (I think enthusiasts must have Princess-and-the-Pea behinds!). But the ride quality (shaking, vibrations, jolting) and sounds (occasional alarming bangs coming from the panto and suspension) are negatives. Of course this is based on my own conversations with passengers, mostly around Leeds, and is not necessarily a representative sample.

 

[jonesy3001]

From those I've spoken to the views are actually pretty mixed. Tables are a big plus and no-one seems to mention the seats (I think enthusiasts must have Princess-and-the-Pea behinds!). But the ride quality (shaking, vibrations, jolting) and sounds (occasional alarming bangs coming from the panto and suspension) are negatives. Of course this is based on my own conversations with passengers, mostly around Leeds, and is not necessarily a representative sample.

Only time I've heard the "bangs" are in the neutral sections between leeds and shipley.

 

[Whistler40145]

Only time I've heard the "bangs" are in the neutral sections between leeds and shipley.

Presumably, you mean the circuit breakers opening and closing at Neutral sections?

 

[Mat17]

The 195s have too many tables, I'd rather have a seat to sit on than be stood in the aisle looking at a row of tables.

 

[Bantamzen]

How is the Civity fleet viewed by rail passengers travelling in those units?

I use them primarily around the Aire / Wharfe triangle, and sometimes over the Calder Valley, and I honestly don't mind them. They are very light on their feet so delay recovery, especially noticeable on the Calder Valley services is pretty good. The ride quality seems to vary from unit to unit, but the litmus test is that it is far easy to travel standing than it is on practically every other unit Northern has in my experience.

 

[Snow1964]

The 195s have too many tables, I'd rather have a seat to sit on than be stood in the aisle looking at a row of tables.

The ride quality seems to vary from unit to unit, but the litmus test is that it is far easy to travel standing than it is on practically every other unit Northern has in my experience.

This is rather sad, that they are being judged on basis of quality for standees, rather than do they provide sufficient quality seating.

More a judgement of inadequate train length by operators that the trains.

 

[JonathanH]

This is rather sad, that they are being judged on basis of quality for standees, rather than do they provide sufficient quality seating.

More a judgement of inadequate train length by operators that the trains.

As with many fleets, they provide sufficient seating capacity at the majority of times, but not where there are peaks of travel. Many trains are designed to allow standees, not least since they have fewer seats now than trains did in previous eras.

A 48 metre train could have nearly 200 seats if organised in a 3+2 pattern. The railway rightly or wrongly chooses to only put 124 seats in. The view is often expressed that people prefer to stand than sit in the middle seat of a three, and that people like table seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 195s have too many tables, I'd rather have a seat to sit on than be stood in the aisle looking at a row of tables.

I agree with the former, but being designed for premier long distance routes originally a low density seating layout is appropriate even if I would go for more airline seats.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is rather sad, that they are being judged on basis of quality for standees, rather than do they provide sufficient quality seating.

More a judgement of inadequate train length by operators that the trains.

Maybe, but for Aire / Wharfe triangle services and especially with only 3 car 331s on this side now, standing is a reality for peak services.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Well I'll admit it obviously not objective, but the vast majority of conductors, and most drivers I speak so (myself included) find them unpleasant to work. Poor build quality, horrendous touchscreens, ergonomically odd to say the least, awful cab doors - those are the main points! Give me a 158 or a 333 any day. But as I say, not everyone agrees with me.

Are the touchscreens ever used for operationally critical functions?

 

[Mat17]

I agree with the former, but being designed for premier long distance routes originally a low density seating layout is appropriate even if I would go for more airline seats.

I always thought the 158s had a good balance of tables/seats and airline/bays. Something for everyone. They're just really well designed trains.

 

[GoneSouth]

A 48 metre train could have nearly 200 seats if organised in a 3+2 pattern. The railway rightly or wrongly chooses to only put 124 seats in. The view is often expressed that people prefer to stand than sit in the middle seat of a three, and that people like table seats.

I think it’s a fairly reasonable ask not to be crushed between 2 other people seated either side of you for a couple of hours.

If you like 3+2 seating and nowhere to put your drink, try the 165s between Bristol and Portsmouth. People hate them.

I think the 195s are a good balance but quality of the ride is a bit dodgy. This may of course be due to the unloved northern England branch lines they plod up and down all day, some of which are a bit rough

 

[northwichcat]

Key dates are

• Contract signature early 2025
• Late 2028 new EMUs
• 2029 for new multi-mode units

While I get new electric only units will be easier to build. If they go for an existing model, wouldn't it be better to deliver multi-mode first? After all the oldest electric train is Northern's fleet is around ten years newer than the oldest diesel train.

From those I've spoken to the views are actually pretty mixed. Tables are a big plus and no-one seems to mention the seats (I think enthusiasts must have Princess-and-the-Pea behinds!).

If you're used to the 150s, that have either poorly designed seats, or well designed seats but too many crammed in to so little space, it's not hard to find something you'll be satisfied with.

And of course the journey length is important. If you're doing Manchester Airport to Windermere you might prefer the seating type on the class 158s, but if you're only doing Deansgate to Piccadilly (to pick up a connecting train) any modern train that actually turns up is probably going to be good enough.

A 48 metre train could have nearly 200 seats if organised in a 3+2 pattern. The railway rightly or wrongly chooses to only put 124 seats in. The view is often expressed that people prefer to stand than sit in the middle seat of a three, and that people like table seats.

Isn't it a choice of a 41m 2 carriage train with 3+2 seating, or a 47m 2 carriage train with 2+2 seating? Losing the bit of extra width for the longer carriage means you can't squeeze in the extra seat, even if you forget armrests and fit seats actually touching the wall of the train. I suppose you could do a 48m 3 carriage train with 3+2 seating but then you're losing space as a result of the additional intercarriage connection.

Short fat carriages with 3+2 seating was introduced when the average passenger was shorter, slimer and before there were requirements for accessible toilets.

I agree with the former, but being designed for premier long distance routes originally a low density seating layout is appropriate even if I would go for more airline seats.

At least they didn't go down the London Midland route of a mix of seating layouts and then random unit allocations on some of the longer services that people use end-to-end, like Liverpool to Birmingham.

 

[JD2168]

The 195s have too many tables, I'd rather have a seat to sit on than be stood in the aisle looking at a row of tables.

Agree with this, at busy times & on busy journeys the lack of seats on a Class 195 is quite noticeable with a number of people stood in the doorway areas. A few more airline type seats would help with this.

With regards 3+2 seating this can make it difficult to move down the carriage particularly if you have luggage, also people tend to sit in a way on these that puts you off sitting in a three unless you are all friends.