Northern's upcoming plans

[Prestige15]

It was issued on Today's Rail (243) reguarding Northerns stock plans which is expected to be compleated by the end of this decade as follow.

The Sprinters are expected to be phased out between 2026-2029, while the 158 will also go but likely to be the last of its type to leave. Nothing has been mention about the 170 except that they ''Will be able to continue through the 2030's as will the 333''. I won't be surprised if any more Turbostars ever gets released from other TOC ends up with Northern.

Once WMT hands over the 323's it will allow both class 319 to be stood down and many of the 3 car class 331 to be transferred to Leeds (In exchange for 4 car sets which will return to Manchester) to operate some Airedale and Wharedale as 6 car sets, Pairs or 323 will be used on some service in the NW. There has been £84M investment which includes platform extensions on the Chat Moss, Bolton, Styal and Leeds NW lines to support 6 car 323/331 sets, Northern has recently started using 323 in pairs on the Manchester - Stoke on saturdays so far.

20 2 car class 195 has been signed off and expect to be Diesel-Hybrid sets and all CAF sets will go though a refresh which sees the original flat cloth material used on the seats replaced wuth more durable upholdtery that provide better in long-term and make the seats ''Less Firm''.


Lets see what happens.

 

[py_megapixel]

The 323 cascades have been planned for a while now, and the replacement of flat cloth with moquette has already started.

As much as the 195s are far better than 150s, more 2-car DMUs without level boarding are exactly what we don't need up north

 

[Agent_Squash]

20 2 car class 195 has been signed off and expect to be Diesel-Hybrid sets and all CAF sets will go though a refresh which sees the original flat cloth material used on the seats replaced wuth more durable upholdtery that provide better in long-term and make the seats ''Less Firm''.

2 car 195s? We need them all to be three car, not more two cars

But at least the DfT might've just proven that they aren't all about cost cutting, considering this is the first 'new' stock order to be announced since COVID.

 

[py_megapixel]

2 car 195s? We need them all to be three car, not more two cars

In my opinion, we also need them to not be 195s but preferably a new design. This is 2022 - we should be ordering bi-modes, with low floors for level boarding.

At a rough guess, these 2-car units

 

[Agent_Squash]

In my opinion, we also need them to not be 195s but preferably a new design. This is 2022 - we should be ordering bi-modes, with low floors for level boarding.

Bi-modes make sense for quite a few of Northern's current services - the WCML semi fasts to Windermere and Barrow especially!

Could continue the trend of adding 10 to the unit number operating those services every few years...

 

[The exile]

The 323 cascades have been planned for a while now, and the replacement of flat cloth with moquette has already started.

As much as the 195s are far better than 150s, more 2-car DMUs without level boarding are exactly what we don't need up north

Presumably any new-build will have to conform to the group standard on entrance height (I'm guessing that 195s already do). Once the majority of trains in an area conform to that standard, it then makes sense to start work on ensuring that the platforms also conform - thus enabling level-boarding. There's not much point in doing the much harder job on the platforms first - unless of course you're working on them anyway. Something has to come first!

 

[Prestige15]

In my opinion, we also need them to not be 195s but preferably a new design. This is 2022 - we should be ordering bi-modes, with low floors for level boarding.

At a rough guess, these 2-car units

It has also been noted that it will not be exactly the same as the 195's. If its going to be a 2 car at least have a gangway like 196/7's. It would makes more sense as i do expect not many of these new sets will run solo

 

[Class 170101]

Bi-modes make sense for quite a few of Northern's current services - the WCML semi fasts to Windermere and Barrow especially!..

I definitely agree with this bi-modes make sense on the WCML and as far as Manchester Airport using the OLE rather than diesel power under the wires. They would probably be faster on the WCML if they were anything like the Class 755s and using less track capacity on the WCML.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Oh lovely, more cheap rattly plastic junk from everyone's favourite Spanish train builder. And only two carriages, what is this obsession and we have in this country of ordering vast numbers of trains that are too short for the roots they serve. You think that operation princess all those years ago would have taught successive transport departments the era of this. But then again they are probably all singing from the, nobody travels anymore, song sheet like ScotRail

 

[skyhigh]

It has also been noted that it will not be exactly the same as the 195's. If its going to be a 2 car at least have a gangway like 196/7's. It would makes more sense as i do expect not many of these new sets will run solo

Are you certain on that? I expect these new 195s to be almost identical to the current ones, except the hybrid element.

In my opinion, we also need them to not be 195s but preferably a new design. This is 2022 - we should be ordering bi-modes, with low floors for level boarding.

While I agree with the sentiment, hybrid 195s would be much better environmentally than a 150, and also would mean easy conversion courses from current 195s. A completely new design for 20 units just builds in a long-term compatibility headache.

 

[Starmill]

It's difficult to justify building more three or four car DMUs, even self-charging hybrids, because their financiers would charge unacceptable risk premiums. They may not have a serviceable mainline lifespans of 30 years at least because they can't easily be shortened to work on the routes which won't be electrified. Three and four cars are very unlikely to be necessary for routes like Stranraer - Girvan, central Wales, etc.

 

[Prestige15]

Are you certain on that? I expect these new 195s to be almost identical to the current ones, except the hybrid element.


While I agree with the sentiment, hybrid 195s would be much better environmentally than a 150, and also would mean easy conversion courses from current 195s. A completely new design for 20 units just builds in a long-term compatibility headache.

Todays Rail said it, not me

 

[Mollman]

It was issued on Today's Rail (243) reguarding Northerns stock plans which is expected to be compleated by the end of this decade as follow.

The Sprinters are expected to be phased out between 2026-2029, while the 158 will also go but likely to be the last of its type to leave. Nothing has been mention about the 170 except that they ''Will be able to continue through the 2030's as will the 333''. I won't be surprised if any more Turbostars ever gets released from other TOC ends up with Northern.

Once WMT hands over the 323's it will allow both class 319 to be stood down and many of the 3 car class 331 to be transferred to Leeds (In exchange for 4 car sets which will return to Manchester) to operate some Airedale and Wharedale as 6 car sets, Pairs or 323 will be used on some service in the NW. There has been £84M investment which includes platform extensions on the Chat Moss, Bolton, Styal and Leeds NW lines to support 6 car 323/331 sets, Northern has recently started using 323 in pairs on the Manchester - Stoke on saturdays so far.

20 2 car class 195 has been signed off and expect to be Diesel-Hybrid sets and all CAF sets will go though a refresh which sees the original flat cloth material used on the seats replaced wuth more durable upholdtery that provide better in long-term and make the seats ''Less Firm''.


Lets see what happens.

The 331 swap will be interesting as it will presumably see the end of 6-car 331 working in the North West (given the logic that the 12 4-car units will be swapped for 24 3-car units leaving 7 3-car sets in the NW). I guess we will have to see where the 323s go too but unless we see a frequency lift I can't see many routes where 6 car can be replaced by 4 car, for instance Preston - Manchester via Bolton has two trains an hour against pre-COVID three and 6-car sets are definitely required on that route now. Even if the Cumbria - Airport train is diverted via Bolton as per Manchester Task Force plan, there will still be one fewer Preston - Manchester service an hour.

 

[Agent_Squash]

The 331 swap will be interesting as it will presumably see the end of 6-car 331 working in the North West (given the logic that the 12 4-car units will be swapped for 24 3-car units leaving 7 3-car sets in the NW). I guess we will have to see where the 323s go too but unless we see a frequency lift I can't see many routes where 6 car can be replaced by 4 car, for instance Preston - Manchester via Bolton has two trains an hour against pre-COVID three and 6-car sets are definitely required on that route now. Even if the Cumbria - Airport train is diverted via Bolton as per Manchester Task Force plan, there will still be one fewer Preston - Manchester service an hour.

Do we have any idea if the Cumbria-Airports are due to become 4 or 6 coach services in the future with the move to the Bolton corridor?

 

[jonnyfan]

Do we have any idea if the Cumbria-Airports are due to become 4 or 6 coach services in the future with the move to the Bolton corridor?

Some will run as 6 car from December, there is some platform work being carried out over the next few months to accommodate the longer trains.

 

[Some guy]

Some will run as 6 car from December, there is some platform work being carried out over the next few months to accommodate the longer trains.

It’s most likely going to be 2 car sets joined together on the barrow route and just 3 car on the Windermere route. I’d just make sense to run them to Preston and divide them and join them up like TPE used to do. It sits in there for 15 minutes a lot of the time it can easily be done

 

[D365]

It's difficult to justify building more three or four car DMUs, even self-charging hybrids, because their financiers would charge unacceptable risk premiums. They may not have a serviceable mainline lifespans of 30 years at least because they can't easily be shortened to work on the routes which won't be electrified. Three and four cars are very unlikely to be necessary for routes like Stranraer - Girvan, central Wales, etc.

Bingo.

 

[AndrewE]

It's difficult to justify building more three or four car DMUs, even self-charging hybrids, because their financiers would charge unacceptable risk premiums. They may not have a serviceable mainline lifespans of 30 years at least because they can't easily be shortened to work on the routes which won't be electrified. Three and four cars are very unlikely to be necessary for routes like Stranraer - Girvan, central Wales, etc.

Tell the "financiers" to take a running jump. This is public transport, infrastructure. The future of rail is supposed to be delivering what the country needs, not enriching the shysters in the City any more.
Trains needed? Govt collects taxes, gives money to the railway to buy trains, trains enter service. Full stop. Why throw money away paying interest if you don't need to? (I forgot, patronage, nepotism and corruption are back, and with a vengeance!)

 

[507020]

2 car 195s? We need them all to be three car, not more two cars

But at least the DfT might've just proven that they aren't all about cost cutting, considering this is the first 'new' stock order to be announced since COVID.

No we don’t we need all existing 195s to be lengthened by 1 car meaning we need some 4 car walk through ones. These plans don’t seem to make sense.

Bi-modes make sense for quite a few of Northern's current services - the WCML semi fasts to Windermere and Barrow especially!

Could continue the trend of adding 10 to the unit number operating those services every few years...

They might have some problems when they start trying to run them with old SR 205 Thumpers!

Oh lovely, more cheap rattly plastic junk from everyone's favourite Spanish train builder.

I’m sure all at Talgo are highly offended by these commentsAre you certain on that?

I expect these new 195s to be almost identical to the current ones, except the hybrid element.
While I agree with the sentiment, hybrid 195s would be much better environmentally than a 150, and also would mean easy conversion courses from current 195s. A completely new design for 20 units just builds in a long-term compatibility headache.

The existing 195s are almost identical to the 331s except for the electric and Diesel elements, which is already a long term compatibility headache. They should have been ordered as a single compatible fleet of bi-mode 3 and 4 car units in the first place, which we could either just order more of, or decide to order something better now we’ve seen them.

The 331 swap will be interesting as it will presumably see the end of 6-car 331 working in the North West (given the logic that the 12 4-car units will be swapped for 24 3-car units leaving 7 3-car sets in the NW). I guess we will have to see where the 323s go too but unless we see a frequency lift I can't see many routes where 6 car can be replaced by 4 car, for instance Preston - Manchester via Bolton has two trains an hour against pre-COVID three and 6-car sets are definitely required on that route now. Even if the Cumbria - Airport train is diverted via Bolton as per Manchester Task Force plan, there will still be one fewer Preston - Manchester service an hour.

We simply can not have the end of 6 car 331s in the North West because the 6 car Manchester - Bolton - Blackpool services are already full and will not be able to cope with only 4 cars. 8 would be more appropriate.

Is there no possibility of only some 4 car units being swapped for twice as many 3 cars, not all of them, leaving enough to continue running the required 6 cars on all Blackpool services, with 4 car units where 331s run alone and 6 car 323s on present 323 and 319 routes. Bolton - Chorley - Preston requires 331s since 323s are incompatible with the signalling system on that line.

It’s most likely going to be 2 car sets joined together on the barrow route and just 3 car on the Windermere route. I’d just make sense to run them to Preston and divide them and join them up like TPE used to do. It sits in there for 15 minutes a lot of the time it can easily be done

The Windermere service could definitely do to be 5 or 6 cars judging by how busy it’s always been when I’ve been on it. Longer separate Barrow and Windermere trains may be required to retain the 6 car frequency through Bolton and 6 car Sprinters to Southport wouldn’t be a bad idea if the 769s are left as the shortest trains that run through Bolton.

 

[Starmill]

No we don’t we need all existing 195s to be lengthened by 1 car meaning we need some 4 car walk through ones. These plans don’t seem to make sense.

It's all that's on offer with commercial funding however, for the reason I've explained.

Government has the option to purchase rolling stock at list prices and pay cash up front if it wants to. But it doesn't. Understandably...

Bolton - Chorley - Preston requires 331s since 323s are incompatible with the signalling system on that line.

Is that really true?

 

[507020]

It's all that's on offer with commercial funding however, for the reason I've explained.

Government has the option to purchase rolling stock at list prices and pay cash up front if it wants to. But it doesn't. Understandably...

Of course paying cash up front is *always* the cheapest option in the long term…

Is that really true?

I believe it is true that 323s suffer electromagnetic incompatibility issues when running through Chorley (but not between Bolton and Manchester, so they could run to Wigan via Westhoughton) so it is not considered desirable to send them to Preston or Blackpool, but that the 319s, 331s, 397s (and Pendolinos on diversion) do not share these issues and can pass through unhindered.

 

[skyhigh]

Is that really true?

No it's not.

The existing 195s are almost identical to the 331s except for the electric and Diesel elements, which is already a long term compatibility headache. They should have been ordered as a single compatible fleet of bi-mode 3 and 4 car units in the first place, which we could either just order more of, or decide to order something better now we’ve seen them.

Northern cope just fine in daily service with 195s and 331s being incompatible. Even if compatibility could be better, why make a poor situation even worse by having completely different units? The guard traction course is 2 days and at the end crews sign both 195s and 331s. From memory drivers have a 2 week course on either 195s or 331s and then a 2 day conversion from one to the other. I imagine a course on hybrid 195s would either be a paper brief or a single day course. Why go through another 2 week course for a completely different unit? Major costs involved with almost any other option.

 

[py_megapixel]

I imagine a course on hybrid 195s would either be a paper brief or a single day course. Why go through another 2 week course for a completely different unit? Major costs involved with almost any other option.

Unless 195s will ultimately be the Sprinter replacements, it's surely just a question of whether those major costs occur now or later on.

It'd be better than nothing, but there would be missed opportunities associated with just using more 195s in their current form as the Sprinter replacements. No low floors or sliding step, not bi-mode, and no front gangways, so another 30 years of needing manual ramps for wheelchairs, running diesel under wires, and fare evaders getting a free ride because there's no guard in the front unit.

 

[railfan100]

Cannot stand in the way of progress, more two car DMU's. Lots of detailed and forward planning clearly gone in this strategic decision...

 

[py_megapixel]

Cannot stand in the way of progress, more two car DMU's. Lots of detailed and forward planning clearly gone in this strategic decision...

I don't think there's anything fundementally wrong with a big fleet of short trains with the intention of multiple working most of the time, apart from perhaps the wasted cost/space of the extra cabs.

 

[railfan100]

I don't think there's anything fundementally wrong with a big fleet of short trains with the intention of multiple working most of the time, apart from perhaps the wasted cost/space of the extra cabs.

Maybe even order single cars, without front gangway of course! When you look at the skyline in Leeds, Manchester etc and then think of a two-car DMU without level boarding and double glazed windows in the doors. Not to mention the rather poor ride quality it seems less than ideal.

 

[brick60000]

Tell the "financiers" to take a running jump. This is public transport, infrastructure. The future of rail is supposed to be delivering what the country needs, not enriching the shysters in the City any more.
Trains needed? Govt collects taxes, gives money to the railway to buy trains, trains enter service. Full stop. Why throw money away paying interest if you don't need to? (I forgot, patronage, nepotism and corruption are back, and with a vengeance!)

I understand the sentiment - however, are you going to finance them personally?

Equally, if a financier won’t accept the risk then it suggests it’s not what the market needs long term, else there wouldn’t be an unacceptable risk in the first place! So not the best way to spend the money.

 

[py_megapixel]

Maybe even order single cars, without front gangway of course! When you look at the skyline in Leeds, Manchester etc and then think of a two-car DMU without level boarding and double glazed windows in the doors. Not to mention the rather poor ride quality it seems less than ideal.

No, you don't, but if it works better operationally, I see no reason why several high-quality 2-car DMUs with end gangways coupled together shouldn't be fine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think there's anything fundementally wrong with a big fleet of short trains with the intention of multiple working most of the time, apart from perhaps the wasted cost/space of the extra cabs.

Lack of gangways? That they would benefit HUGELY from some bimodes for the WCML services?

Incredibly short sighted.

 

[py_megapixel]

Lack of gangways? That they would benefit HUGELY from some bimodes for the WCML services?

Incredibly short sighted.

I was talking specifically about the idea of trains made of several units in multiple rather than one big unit.

The problem with Northern's rolling stock is with the actual stock, not the principle of that mode of operation.

I quote myself from earlier:

there would be missed opportunities associated with just using more 195s in their current form as the Sprinter replacements. No low floors or sliding step, not bi-mode, and no front gangways, so another 30 years of needing manual ramps for wheelchairs, running diesel under wires, and fare evaders getting a free ride because there's no guard in the front unit.