New units for Northern - shortlist of manufacturers

[Snow1964]

I have grown to like the 185s, but if Siemens is involved they need to go on a diet. Their trains do, anyway. Level boarding should be a gimme these days (with attendant platform work).

Once TRU is done, the 185s can go into warm storage until they're ready to be deployed on Skipton-Colne. ( )

Siemens do make trains with low boarding.

Look at the photos on the link, there is an Desiro HL in OBB Cityjet livery and Desiro HC with the different height windows in the lower section between bogies clearly visible.

If passenger comfort is required (and I would argue seats suitable for 3 hour journeys ideally) then could use some of the features of vectouro range (hauled and push-pull carriages with low track force bogies)

Desiro – die richtungsweisende Zugfamilie

Perfect combination of comfort and reliability: Discover the Desiro train family.

www.mobility.siemens.com

 

[J-2739]

The Class 185s were specified for a very specific purpose (Transpennine routes) at a very different time. Presumably something proposed by Siemens now would be quite different.

 

[Travelmonkey]

Agreed - my experiences on Northern’s 170s have been excellent and, on a separate note, is what EMR’s 170 refurb should have strived to achieve.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2025 ==


And you know what, chances are it may end up being later than 2031. Look at EMR’s 810 introduction - admittedly a completely different train; but goes to show that constant problems and delays make what was “there’s no way it’ll take that long” to not just a possibility, but a distinct reality.

Indeed the 810 delays are beginning to get noticeable, last few 222 journeys I've taken have had "no seat reservation avaliable"

I do hope that Level boarding is a must for the new northern stock, there will be a push to "protect British Jobs" Seimens and Hitachi mean they can boast "built in the north" at Newton Acliffe & Goole respectively,

 

[QSK19]

Indeed the 810 delays are beginning to get noticeable, last few 222 journeys I've taken have had "no seat reservation avaliable"

I do hope that Level boarding is a must for the new northern stock, there will be a push to "protect British Jobs" Seimens and Hitachi mean they can boast "built in the north" at Newton Acliffe & Goole respectively,

Agreed, I think GA’s Stadler fleet has shown that level boarding is the way to go. Hopefully that’ll be reflected in Northern’s new stock (and any new stock for that matter).

If I had to state my preference, I would go for either CAF (continuity of the 195/331 sort of train) or Stadler (due to them being, to all intents and purposes, an excellent product). But we’ll see!

 

[43096]

Siemens do make trains with low boarding.

Look at the photos on the link, there is an Desiro HL in OBB Cityjet livery and Desiro HC with the different height windows in the lower section between bogies clearly visible.

If passenger comfort is required (and I would argue seats suitable for 3 hour journeys ideally) then could use some of the features of vectouro range (hauled and push-pull carriages with low track force bogies)

Desiro – die richtungsweisende Zugfamilie

Perfect combination of comfort and reliability: Discover the Desiro train family.

www.mobility.siemens.com

A UK version of the Siemens-built ÖBB Cityjets would be an excellent train. But that is down to both Siemens build quality and the customer specification of the interior - they are a really high-quality bit of kit. And that is for S-bahn/regional type services, let alone anything longer distance.

 

[superkev]

I always thought Northern originally should have bought the level boading flexible traction Flirts rather than the hard riding CAF stuff which is still struggling to reach a decent level of reliability.
Re the current procurement my view is unchanged to although if you want something that works out of the box Siemens or perhaps Hitachi come to mind.
K

 

[Killingworth]

Agreed, I think GA’s Stadler fleet has shown that level boarding is the way to go. Hopefully that’ll be reflected in Northern’s new stock (and any new stock for that matter).

If I had to state my preference, I would go for either CAF (continuity of the 195/331 sort of train) or Stadler (due to them being, to all intents and purposes, an excellent product). But we’ll see!

My understanding from the recent Stakeholder events is that level boarding is very much on the priority list, although I don't think it was specifically shown on any of the presentation slides.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Siemens do make trains with low boarding.

Look at the photos on the link, there is an Desiro HL in OBB Cityjet livery and Desiro HC with the different height windows in the lower section between bogies clearly visible.

If passenger comfort is required (and I would argue seats suitable for 3 hour journeys ideally) then could use some of the features of vectouro range (hauled and push-pull carriages with low track force bogies)

Desiro – die richtungsweisende Zugfamilie

Perfect combination of comfort and reliability: Discover the Desiro train family.

www.mobility.siemens.com

I don't understand, they built trains like this before they developed the Desiro UK. So why did they develop a traditional, high-floor, BR-style unit instead of adapting the more advanced continental design?

 

[Doomotron]

I don't understand, they built trains like this before they developed the Desiro UK. So why did they develop a traditional, high-floor, BR-style unit instead of adapting the more advanced continental design?

Because low-floor multiple units just weren't a thing in the UK in the late nineties and early 2000s. It's only in the past few years that TOCs have started to use low-floor designs.

 

[DanNCL]

I don't understand, they built trains like this before they developed the Desiro UK. So why did they develop a traditional, high-floor, BR-style unit instead of adapting the more advanced continental design?

Level boarding wasn’t a consideration back then. Siemens delivered their first low floor trains, the Desiro Classic, in 2000, just 1 year before the first Desiro UK order was placed. The Desiro Classic was designed for rural branch lines where platforms were often as low as 380mm, the low floor design was to make the step up/down from those platforms more manageable rather than for level boarding with EU standard height platforms, that’s a more recent development.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

It's mainly been the work of disability advocacy groups especially Campaign for Level Boarding in very recent years that anyone in decision making positions has had to take it seriously. To them we should be thankful. National policy for accessibility that only came around in the 2010s probably played a role too.

I think BR and its immediate successors were of the view that a step up to the train was the safest and so built to trains to be higher than the wide variation of platform heights.

I'm glad you find it surprising that it wasnt a considered 20 years ago, shows at least some people haven't calibrated their expectations too low

 

[Bornin1980s]

It's mainly been the work of disability advocacy groups especially Campaign for Level Boarding in very recent years that anyone in decision making positions has had to take it seriously. To them we should be thankful. National policy for accessibility that only came around in the 2010s probably played a role too.

I think BR and its immediate successors were of the view that a step up to the train was the safest and so built to trains to be higher than the wide variation of platform heights.

I'm glad you find it surprising that it wasnt a considered 20 years ago, shows at least some people haven't calibrated their expectations too low

Strange thing is, it was compulsory on new buses 20 years ago, and on all buses 9 years ago. The step entrance bus recently featured in Patience is an anachronism. But trains are still built like that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Network Rail, and some TOCs, were also resistant to articulated stock, one of the reasons (old) Alstom backed out of the Thameslink bidding won by the Siemens class 700.
We did have TGV-cloned articulated class 373 Eurostar, of course, although its replacement was the non-articulated Velaro class 374.
But Stadler has shown the way on articulation with their GA/TfW Flirts and Merseyrail/TfW 777s/398s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Strange thing is, it was compulsory on new buses 20 years ago, and on all buses 9 years ago. The step entrance bus recently featured in Patience is an anachronism. But trains are still built like that.

Much as I'm all for level boarding, it's still legal for coaches to be like trains, i.e. a wheelchair lift/ramp being needed, operated by the driver, just as a member of traincrew or station staff can put a ramp down for a train. It's not actually different.

 

[DiscoSteve]

Strange thing is, it was compulsory on new buses 20 years ago, and on all buses 9 years ago. The step entrance bus recently featured in Patience is an anachronism. But trains are still built like that.

to be fair roadside kerb height variation is far less than platform height variation - despite the 'goodness' in DDA regulations, exhorbitant costs still trump it in many cases (you only have to look at the tube for that)

 

[Roose]

I'm hoping for Siemens, Stadler, or Alstom personally.

Hitachi are mainly known for Intercity Trains and I don't think they'd be a good fit for Northern.

However, knowing Northern, they'll likely go with CAF and get more 195's and 331s for uniformity purposes (I hope this isn't the case and they go for Siemens or Stadler instead).

Hitachi AT100? AT200?

 

[IanXC]

That’s not a great sign, especially considering they’re not the oldest units around, are maintained by Siemens and that they’re going to transfer to another depot in the forthcoming years.

At the moment 12/16 are in service, with another having gone to the depot earlier today so ok availability, but it does seem like there should be another one or two out. Much better than certain other Northern units though…

It does make you wonder whether it has been determined that an extensive overhaul would be uneconomical given the benefits of eliminating this microfleet.

So you're expecting the Siemens staff at Neville Hill to be made redundant, and new ones employed at Shipley?

It'll be the same people working in a new location with the same units. I don't think that is the kind of risk you're suggesting.

 

[studio_two]

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.

Forgive me, but you mean that the CAF 195 DMU can't be joined with another one (to make a longer train)?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Forgive me, but you mean that the CAF 195 DMU can't be joined with another one (to make a longer train)?

It's more that the lack of gangways leads to a greater instance of fare dodging or at least a "pay-when-challenged" attitude.

I'd rather we render the gangway question irrelevant by ordering units which are long enough in the first place. Many drivers seem to complain about draughts and noise from gangway doors along with reduced visibility out of the cab. I'd rather we didn't have to resort to such a compromise as a matter of course.

 

[studio_two]

Many drivers seem to complain about draughts and noise from gangway doors along with reduced visibility out of the cab.

Many thanks.

I often wondered about that.

They gangway doors on the front of the train look ugly too.

I do like the 195 Units they have on the Sheffield => Barnsley => Leeds service though.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Classes 165, 166, 175, 180, 185, 195, 22x, 231, 331, 334, 360, 745, 755, 756 don't seem to have any problems without gangway ends.
Apart from the better driving environment, they have readable front PIS displays which needn't scroll.
Driving cabs are increasingly expensive with all the smart gear in them, so you don't really want them boxed away unused in the middle of a train.
Very few continental trains have gangwayed ends, and they look more attractive for it.
Equipment will be generally designed for wide cabs, and there are compromises (and costs) fitting it all into UK-gauge gangwayed cabs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They absolutely do have problems on units where they tend to work in multiple - fare dodging. This is worked around on much of Chiltern by much of it being gated, but Northern will never be in that position. It is to be fair ordering 3s and 4s which means less multiple working, but unless they order 5s and 6s there will always be some.

End PIS displays are not that important with almost every station having displays.

 

[themiller]

Forgive me, but you mean that the CAF 195 DMU can't be joined with another one (to make a longer train)?

Yes they can. Just look back to the sinkhole incident on the line near Grange over Sands where there were 2 x 195s running ecs to Barrow in Furness. 195104 & 133 were the two units involved and are shown in the accident report https://assets.publishing.service.g...d7a22ca4/R022025_250128_Grange-over-Sands.pdf

 

[Mikey C]

They absolutely do have problems on units where they tend to work in multiple - fare dodging. This is worked around on much of Chiltern by much of it being gated, but Northern will never be in that position. It is to be fair ordering 3s and 4s which means less multiple working, but unless they order 5s and 6s there will always be some.

End PIS displays are not that important with almost every station having displays.

And more importantly for passengers, you end up with very uneven loads in the train, with one unit with far more people in it than the other.

With Chiltern, the back units leaving Marylebone are always more crowded than the front ones, with latecomers crowding into the rear unit and stuck there.

It's also not good when you have short platforms, as passengers may not be able to pass through the train to the correct part of it, if it's in a separate unit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And more importantly for passengers, you end up with very uneven loads in the train, with one unit with far more people in it than the other.

With Chiltern, the back units leaving Marylebone are always more crowded than the front ones, with latecomers crowding into the rear unit and stuck there.

That happens at Euston as well and that's with gangways. People are just lazy and won't walk 240m to where some of us are enjoying a bay of seats to ourselves while they are crammed head in armpit.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That happens at Euston as well and that's with gangways. People are just lazy and won't walk 240m to where some of us are enjoying a bay of seats to ourselves while they are crammed head in armpit.

If you're running late, it's a case of getting on at the nearest door or missing your train- nothing to do with laziness (unless it was laziness that caused them to be late in the first place!). If the rear carriages are so packed it doesn't matter if there are gangways, as you can't actually get to them anyway.

 

[skyhigh]

End unit gangways are not a requirement in the tender - they are a costed option that manufacturers may choose to offer. So don't expect to see them fitted.

 

[Killingworth]

That happens at Euston as well and that's with gangways. People are just lazy and won't walk 240m to where some of us are enjoying a bay of seats to ourselves while they are crammed head in armpit.

It happens at nearly every station, the part of the train stopping nearest to the entry point to the platform always becomes fuller than the rest of the train.

As the journey progresses that may even out a little but over my decades of rail travel I've tended ro head for the front of any train that started from a busy terminal station. I learned that at York in the 50s and 60s when heading north. First carriage all but empty, rammrd in the centre and at the back (probably 14 coach trains back then, they were very long).

The drawback could be that after pushing ones way along the corridor the front carriage woukd also be rammed, but I can't ever recall that.

Crossrail carriages have indicators to show most crowded carriages in 12 car unts. No surprise that the front and back are usually the least crowded. Getting my usual travelling companion to wait at the end of the platform can be tricky. Burgess Hill going north is good.

Do many people move up and down the crowded train once boarded? On my own I would if I knew another carriage was empty and I was travelling any distance. Elizabeth line trains also show which carriages are full and empty. Last time we used one of them our carriage was full. Others looked to be less full, one all but empty. Did we move. No!

Which reminds me why people don't move. If only going a few stops standing like sardines may not be such a big thing!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do many people move up and down the crowded train once boarded?

Replied here:

What should Northern's new units be like?

Surely the solution is longer trains rather than cramming people in. Given that most stations in and around Manchester can only fit 4 carriages, lengthening would be very expensive, and the infrastructure is too congested to run more trains, so fitting more people onto the same train is the...

www.railforums.co.uk

...as this is closer to the topic of that thread than the shortlist of manufacturers now.

 

[HammerDown154]

I'd rather we render the gangway question irrelevant by ordering units which are long enough in the first place. Many drivers seem to complain about draughts and noise from gangway doors along with reduced visibility out of the cab. I'd rather we didn't have to resort to such a compromise as a matter of course.



Copied the above from someone else’s post! Couldn’t agree more with this statement. Good point, well made!