New units for Northern - shortlist of manufacturers

[Bletchleyite]

Not true. Class 309 says "hello".

Well I didn't know that! The Northern fleet is going to be 3s and 4s (or Stadler equivalent) in any case. This is specified in an excerpt from the tender documents above.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Lot 1 - EMU
Phase 1
11 x 3 car
Phase 2
34 x 3 car
16 x 4 car
These may be ordered under Lot 2 or Lot 3 as direct built to EMUs.

Lot 2 - Multimode Multiple Unit (Diesel + Battery + Electric with potential to convert or direct build to Electric + Battery Electric)
Phase 1
44 x 3 car
66 x 4 car
Phase 2
30 x 3 car
20 x 4 car

Lot 3 - Battery EMU (Battery + Electric with poential to convert or direct build to Electric)
Phase 1
6 x 4 car
Phase 2
26 x 4 car

These may be ordered under Lot 2 as direct built to BEMUs.

It is possible that all lots are awarded to the same manufacturer but it isn't unlikely that a mix is chosen. For example, CAF could offer a class 331 compatible EMU for Lot 1 which would make a lot of sense.

I do wonder how many manufactuers would send in bids for lot 1 or 3 intead of just sending in 1 big bid for lot 2 including the other ones.

Edited 23:06 16/01/2025 - Had 33 instead of 44 3 cars in lot 2 phase 1.

 

[Fincra5]

Can't remember where I read it but I understand the Desiro Verve does now offer level boarding as an option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2025 ==



I believe 3 and 4 are the intention. There aren't any UK 25kV 2 car EMUs, there's not enough underfloor space for all the gubbins I believe. There are enough 2 car 195s to cascade to secondary lines, which was the main reason, I understand, why the 195 fleet isn't all 3 car.

I'm sure a 2 Car AC EMU would be possible. One coach for Transformer (etc), the other for Motors + Motor/ Aux Equipment.

 

[Energy]

I do wonder how many manufactuers would send in bids for lot 1 or 3 intead of just sending in 1 big bid for lot 2 including the other ones.

For some manufacturers, it will depend on what they can offer. All can do EMU and BEMU within their current offering but, aside from Stadler, diesel would require a clean sheet design. It's a large order, so I imagine most will be willing to take it on, but some manufacturers may see limited future work for diesel and aren't prepared to do a clean sheet design just for lot 2.

A proper bi-mode on the existing CAF Civity UK platform wouldn't be possible due to space constraints. Even the class 897 for LNER can only do ~80mph on diesel and it has 10 cars to play with rather than 3/4. From what I understand Hitachi has previously proposed a 4-car unit with diesel engines under 2 vehicles for GWR, but this would likely be similarly underpowered to the class 769. I suspect a Stadler-esc engine powerpack is likely.

Also, they can do both if they want to. e.g. if you're CAF it makes sense to bid:

Lot 1 - Class 331 (modified centre vehicle for level boarding)
Lot 2 - Clean sheet design
Lot 3 - Class 331 (battery + modified centre vehicle for level boarding)

Northern will have to order something clean sheet (or Stadler) for Lot 2 but for the other lots its gives them the option of compatibility with the 331 fleet or the new build fleet. If I was CAF I'd be hoping to win at least one lot.

 

[coxxy]

When are we expecting details of TPE's rolling stock? With northern and TPE under DOHL, what are the possibilities of joint orders of a uniform fleet? Or atleast as uniform as possible..

 

[Mikey C]

A shame the previous order for straight EMUs and DMUs (the 331s and 195s) wasn't for something more flexible and adaptable like this.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not true. Class 309 says "hello".

Indeed. There were most certainly 2-car 309s. Definitely possible!

I'm sure a 2 Car AC EMU would be possible. One coach for Transformer (etc), the other for Motors + Motor/ Aux Equipment.

The additional equipment of today's requirements (accessible toilets and associated tanks, aircon kit, etc.) would probably make a 2-car unit more tricky. Though it's more a case of if a service could only justify 2 cars then there isn't much of a business case for putting the wires up in the first place. Even the 2-car 309s only really existed to allow 10-car formations... and were later extended to 4-car with the addition of 2 formerly loco-hauled coaches.

 

[D365]

A shame the previous order for straight EMUs and DMUs (the 331s and 195s) wasn't for something more flexible and adaptable like this.

One would suspect that sufficient funding was not available ~10 years ago to enable diesel-battery-electric vehicles to be procured.

 

[rattyben]

Nothing particularly surprising in the announcement, but the shortlist is confirmed as:
Alstom
CAF
Hitachi
Siemens
Stadler

(I am unable to post a direct link to the source).

New here but have been watching these forums for a while.

Just to back this up… see attached replies from Northern and the DfT although there does seem to be some confusion as Northern and DfT have previously stated all 15X units to go by 2028/29 but that seems to have been rolled back to 150-156.

 

[BoroAndy]

Does this mean, obviously, that there will be no more orders for 195s ? Indeed, across all TOCs, is that it for DMUs?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Just to back this up… see attached replies from Northern and the DfT although there does seem to be some confusion as Northern and DfT have previously stated all 15X units to go by 2028/29 but that seems to have been rolled back to 150-156.

I calculate Phase 1 to be 453 carriages (in 127 units), which while less than the 185 15x units with Northern, surpasses their 380 carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I calculate Phase 1 to be 453 carriages (in 127 units), which while less than the 185 15x units with Northern, surpasses their 380 carriages.

As the 15x these days mostly work in pairs I can't imagine that being a huge issue. A 3-car new unit would replace a pair of 150s (72m vs 80m, but less wasted space as no buried cabs) and a 4-car a pair of 155/156. The 2 car 195s remain for routes that genuinely only justify 2 car.

 

[AirRail]

This order ideally needs to be gangwayed stock as standard, for both the electric and diesel units. Plus also, they need to be a design already in service on the UK railways - such as the Class 730's or Class 196. No more of this lengthy delayed "testing" of yet more new types of stock that just delay and delay, hold up after hold up of entry into service and being of no benefit to anyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This order ideally needs to be gangwayed stock as standard, for both the electric and diesel units. Plus also, they need to be a design already in service on the UK railways - such as the Class 730's or Class 196. No more of this lengthy delayed "testing" of yet more new types of stock that just delay and delay, hold up after hold up of entry into service and being of no benefit to anyone.

New speculative thread for discussing what we think they should look like: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-should-northerns-new-units-be-like.280254/

 

[DanNCL]

As the 15x these days mostly work in pairs

Definitely not the case in the North East. There’s the odd booked 4 car working, the vast majority however are 2 car.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Definitely not the case in the North East. There’s the odd booked 4 car working, the vast majority however are 2 car.

And the same goes for those in Cumbria.

 

[Fokx]

When are we expecting details of TPE's rolling stock? With northern and TPE under DOHL, what are the possibilities of joint orders of a uniform fleet? Or atleast as uniform as possible..

Minimal.

Transpennine want ‘Intercity’ style trains with features similar to the Nova fleet whereas Northern are ordering ‘metro’ style trains for frequent stopping services

 

[Mat17]

As the 15x these days mostly work in pairs I can't imagine that being a huge issue. A 3-car new unit would replace a pair of 150s (72m vs 80m, but less wasted space as no buried cabs) and a 4-car a pair of 155/156. The 2 car 195s remain for routes that genuinely only justify 2 car.

South Yorkshire is nearly all two car, except for the 170s and 150/0s. Four cars only come out to play on Sundays.

 

[Adam0984]

The original notice for the procurement (Aug 2023) indicated one supplier for all phases.
The text above mentions "companies", so I imagine that means more than one manufacturer may win an order.
But they will need to be convertible to EMU/BEMU.

We need to see the ITT for an assessment of the likely designs.
They are starting with the hardest tranche (DMU replacement) first.

I heard they were told to seperate into a couple of manufacturers to stop whole fleet grounding like the CAF 195 yaw damper cracks and the Hitachi problems

 

[Snow1964]

The framework is divided into 3 lots. Orders from the framework are done in phases, with 2 phases detailed as part of the framework award. These lots can be awarded to separate manufacturers.

The good news is it is 3car and 4car, the existing 2car DMUs don't really have the capacity

It is possible that all lots are awarded to the same manufacturer but it isn't unlikely that a mix is chosen. For example, CAF could offer a class 331 compatible EMU for Lot 1 which would make a lot of sense.

Although this is a Northern led order, it would have been better in some ways if 2 manufacturers were chosen, but GWR and SouthEastern requirements were part of same design. Maybe follow on batches are possible for other soon to be nationalised areas.

Northern has previously stated a preference toward level boarding, but since all units are 3+ vehicles all CAF would need to do is engineer a new centre car with a central lower section.

I think all the manufacturers have built vehicles with lower floors in centre of vehicle, and raised areas over bogies with slopes or steps. They also all have designs with HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) modules on roof, where there is insufficient under floor space.

Realistically if you look at other orders around Europe (and some others eg Morocco) then all the 5 listed manufacturers have a kit of parts that work out of the box that could potentially be suitable. Let's hope they don't try and change to untested ideas.

 

[hacman]

Do they do gangway'd FLIRTs? If not, I'm sure a mix of 3, 4 and ideally 6 car units would work well, especially at places like the Mid Cheshire where 4x20m is too long for some platforms.

I hope gangway units are a requirement - ordering the CAF fleet without was an incredibly short-sighted decision, which will absolutely bite Northern in the future. Other operators with CAF gear have at least thought this through.

Stadler will be able to produce FLIRTs with a gangway - their entire USP is that they can do all sorts of custom stuff as required. FLIRT would be an excellent choice on this front to be honest, as they are very modular and configurable, with quite a few notable examples of FLIRT units being extended, converted from diesel to bi-mode or outright electric, and more.

For God's sake please make them, a) compatible b) easy to add on orders c) a standard bodyshell d) comfortable seats.

Compatibility and the option for follow-up orders of either full sets or intermediate cars need to be a hard requirement. Again, as mentioned above, Stadler is very well placed for this.

Seating will ultimately be decided upon by Northern as part of the interior spec. To be honest, as long as the legroom and general seat size is generous that will be enough of a start - especially seeing as some of the existing fleet and some recent orders elsewhere seem to be targeted at midgets. It's pointless having a train with 300 seats if its size and configuration mean that only 250 are ever occupied at any given time, even when the train is full and standing.

There is confliction in this announcement: First they state that they want to "eliminate complexities" which come with dirrerent train types, then they state they are working to appoint "a company or companies" to manufacture the new trains ! Surely only one bid winner will provide a standard or compatible fleet - if more than one company wins, they will be stuck with the "complexities" they say they want to eliminate !!

It could always be a consortium - it's not something we've seen in the UK rolling stock market for a while, but is certainly more common on the continent. Recent examples that immediately spring to mind are the current DSB S-Tog fleet in Denmark (LHB/Siemens/Alstom), with their replacements being tenders for by a Siemens-Stadler consortium, which was also the combination who produced the latest Berlin S-Bahn units.

Might not be a bad direction to go, since each manufacturer will hold the other accountable since neither will get paid unless the project is successful!

 

[43096]

I hope gangway units are a requirement - ordering the CAF fleet without was an incredibly short-sighted decision, which will absolutely bite Northern in the future. Other operators with CAF gear have at least thought this through.

Are they really needed between units based on additional cost, resulting compromise on cab layout against how much use they get? I am unconvinced they are needed.

It could always be a consortium - it's not something we've seen in the UK rolling stock market for a while, but is certainly more common on the continent. Recent examples that immediately spring to mind are the current DSB S-Tog fleet in Denmark (LHB/Siemens/Alstom), with their replacements being tenders for by a Siemens-Stadler consortium, which was also the combination who produced the latest Berlin S-Bahn units.

Might not be a bad direction to go, since each manufacturer will hold the other accountable since neither will get paid unless the project is successful!

That’s one way of looking at it, the other is the infighting and blame games that could also result.

 

[skyhigh]

Further information now on the Northern website:

Northern's new trains
Northern begin negations for new trains

Northern Trains has moved a step closer to the largest ever investment in its fleet which could eventually see up to 450 new trains.

Major train manufacturers have been invited to begin negotiations to supply new trains to operate across the North of England.

The new trains will be introduced on a phased basis, replacing the oldest units in Northern’s existing fleet, most of which have been in service since the 1980s and 90s. Approximately two thirds of existing fleet is targeted to be replaced in the next ten years.

The trains will feature a mix of electric, multi-modal (diesel/electric), and battery-powered models, ensuring greater efficiency and sustainability

Rollout will begin with replacing the oldest trains and introducing electric units for key routes, such as local services between York, Leeds, Huddersfield, and Manchester. These upgrades will enhance passenger comfort, reliability, and environmental performance, while simplifying operations.

Northern is working closely with leading train manufacturers to deliver these modern trains as soon as possible, marking a significant step forward for rail travel across the North of England.

Northern's new trains

Northern | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

www.northernrailway.co.uk

Further key details are 3 and 4 car units will have 2 toilets (one accessible, one standard). Initial phases include around 130 units.

 

[Snow1964]

The procurement process tends to have opposing parameters affecting timescales. A few countries keep it simple (needs to do A, B, C etc) and let manufacture just get on with it, so they just vary something that works and is cost effective.

But the British way seems to be to write a hideously long spec with all sorts of mins and maxs, then when manufacturers realise it requires lots of non standard parts, price goes up, then buyer starts faffing and paring bits back as too expensive (and wasting many months doing so). So end up with a procurement that started in 2023 which probably won't get to a signed contract until 2026.

Of course if the design is not made up of standard parts with simple variation, instead of having a new train delivered in 2027, will be lucky if it gets into service by 2030.

I have checked some European orders, and first trains are in service within 4 years of issuing tender, so it is unfortunate that Northern (probably under DfT meddling) has turned process into a 6-7 year wait.

 

[hacman]

The procurement process tends to have opposing parameters affecting timescales. A few countries keep it simple (needs to do A, B, C etc) and let manufacture just get on with it, so they just vary something that works and is cost effective.

But the British way seems to be to write a hideously long spec with all sorts of mins and maxs, then when manufacturers realise it requires lots of non standard parts, price goes up, then buyer starts faffing and paring bits back as too expensive (and wasting many months doing so). So end up with a procurement that started in 2023 which probably won't get to a signed contract until 2026.

Of course if the design is not made up of standard parts with simple variation, instead of having a new train delivered in 2027, will be lucky if it gets into service by 2030.

I have checked some European orders, and first trains are in service within 4 years of issuing tender, so it is unfortunate that Northern (probably under DfT meddling) has turned process into a 6-7 year wait.

It is worth remembering that European orders do have the benefit of the majority of the continental network being standardised loading gauge, meaning manufacturers have far more available in terms of designs "ready to go".

In cases of UK orders of additional units from the same family, the introduction can, and has been, very quick - the Turbostar/Electrostar and Desiro families are a great example of this, same with the class 8xx.

A big part of the issue here is that the UK market has its own requirements in various forms (loading gauge, signalling, etc), yet is very small with large orders being placed in a feast then famine style. This often results in the existing designs no longer being available or sufficient, which means going fully back to the drawing board. A more consistent stream of orders would instead allow the designs to be gradually iterated upon, and make more financial sense for the manufacturers to keep the lines and tooling open.

Ideally, as part of the GBR (or whatever it's now called) plans, we should establish a national entity that manages all rolling stock procurement for the entire franchised passenger network, perhaps only excluding London Underground and tram systems. This team can then work with the DfT to have a long-term strategy for the allocation and management of the nation's fleet, and factor replacements into this. This team can then also build substantial continuous expertise in the specification, procurement, commissioning and management of rolling stock; something that on its own would substantially reduce delays and issues that arise as a result of every operator currently doing sporadic projects on their own. Said entity could then also offer their services on a paid basis to open-access operators, FOCs and even international entities as experts in the field.

 

[Trainbike46]

But will they take the opportunity for level boarding? Probably find the platforms are all at different heights.

Level boarding simply means the train will offer level boarding at the standard uk platform height of 915mm

Most platforms are at or close to this standard, and the few that aren't should be upgraded to meet the standard during the lifespan of the train anyway.

If the trains don't offer level boarding, that would be a serious failure. Now that level boarding trains are operational, any further orders of inaccessible trains is utterly unacceptable.

My understanding, unless things have changed, is that level boarding is preferred. If that’s still the case then with that in mind, CAF probably won’t last long on the shortlist and Hitachi might struggle too. Stadler do level boarding as standard and Alstom have confirmed that it’ll be available on the Adessia platform too. Siemens have just made changes to the Desiro Verve so possible that they might also now offer level boarding.

Good to see that the 150s, 155s and 156s are going first. They’re all overdue replacement.

While preferred is better than nothing, it should be an absolute requirement

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2025 ==

Does this mean, obviously, that there will be no more orders for 195s ? Indeed, across all TOCs, is that it for DMUs?

I can't see any new DMU orders that would be sensible. Indeed, I would argue that there is going to be an excess of existing DMUs around the second half of the 2030s if the government acts remotely sensibly over the next 10 years

 

[Energy]

Although this is a Northern led order, it would have been better in some ways if 2 manufacturers were chosen, but GWR and SouthEastern requirements were part of same design.

GWR is likely to have similar requirements but SouthEastern requires 20m vehicles. I can't see why GWR couldn't order from the same framework.

I think all the manufacturers have built vehicles with lower floors in centre of vehicle, and raised areas over bogies with slopes or steps.

I believe so in other countries. At least the centre vehicles having a lower floor section should be possible.

 

[hacman]

Are they really needed between units based on additional cost, resulting compromise on cab layout against how much use they get? I am unconvinced they are needed.

In the short term probably not as much, but longer term they will be. Most of the 15x fleet was ordered as 2-car units, and we now regularly see them doubled up in some areas, or even hybrid 3 car units being formed. Class 195 units are already operating together to form 4 or 6 car consists.

Having the train separated can often result in additional crew requirements, either in terms of ancillary services such as catering and hospitality, or in terms of future DOO conversions (yes, not a popular subject I know, but whether we like it or not it's on the cards).

Security and revenue protection also become more challenging on such consists, with anyone wanting to avoid paying knowing which portion of the train to board to reduce the chances of a revenue check.

On busier routes, it also can result in one portion of a train becoming significantly more crowded than the other, since in my experience people are very reluctant to leave the train at a stop to change sections - especially when they have luggage.

Gangways don't have to compromise the cab design, as we've seen on continental stock such as the DSB IC/IR series and some Belgian multiple units. Sadly that design has never really been repeated. Either way, there are plenty of examples of gangway stock on UK rails that work just fine.

 

[185]

My post was deleted, as it was unclear to some what I meant.

Again, given the performance & state of the (often, junk) trains from the other bidders, for me, Siemens should get this, but solely on the provision that a value for money aftercare maintenance contract is signed, and an admission from them that their previous aftercare maintenance contracts weren't up to scratch and financially ripped off the purchasers.

Proper fitment of guard panels in cabs is a must. As this was a serious problem for both CAF and Alston in some recent purchases - demanding huge extortionate modification fees to change the order, they should perhaps be punished for their greed.

 

[brick60000]

If the trains don't offer level boarding, that would be a serious failure. Now that level boarding trains are operational, any further orders of inaccessible trains is utterly unacceptable.

I completely agree with this. Yes, it won’t solve the problem everywhere, but it will solve a lot of problems in a lot of places.

It’s easy to forget that level boarding doesn’t just benefit those previously needing a ramp to board. It benefits everybody - parents with children, those that struggle with steps but can just about manage, etc.

I remain baffled why legislation hasn’t now mandated what is clearly possible.