Class 350/2s to replace 323s on Northern

[CHAPS2034]

I feel mentalities must have changed. I've seen many a 323 recently where people are choosing to stand and block doorways, not allowing others on, when there's been plenty of free seats.

Travelling on the 323s on South Manchester lines as a single person, you can usually get a seat, apart from the Stoke stoppers on Saturdays! A lot of the people standing in the doorways are groups of people who would rather stay together and talk rather than be scattered around the carriage.

Rather a lot of people in Northern aren't particularly pleased with the decision as I understand it. Primarily the reason is because the leasing company is has managed to successfully lobby the department that someone should be paying for them instead of them being off lease.

IIRC one of the reasons the 350/2 were disposed of was because their leasing costs were very high compared to the 350/1/3/4 - something to do with the interest rates being high at the time I think.

I wonder if Porterbrook are looking for the same rates that WMT had to pay.. Perhaps we will never know...

 

[Goldfish62]

Rather a lot of people in Northern aren't particularly pleased with the decision as I understand it.

Presumably you're referring to the senior management?

 

[Starmill]

Plenty of passengers who use Northern are not best pleased with the operator........west side gives up at the slightest sign of sunshine, joke timetables on a Sunday, 769 reliability leads to cancellation/short-formed rates worst for years on certain routes- the 'new operations manager' apparently seriously tried to say that the 'temporary new Sunday tt introduced' on the west side in Dec 24 (yes, that long ago) was a benefit in that journey plans were 'more certain' and cancellations were down - one hell of a strange interpretation of statistics where gaps of anywhere between 2 and 6 hours are in place.

I agree, it would displease me greatly if I had to either work in those conditions or rely on the train service day to day.

 

[Stephen42]

Is it normal for the original builder of the train to contribute to the refurbishment of a second hand unit?

Or is is this because the Siemens Desiro Verve is likely to be on Northern's candidate list for its upcoming orders?

Or am I being overly sceptical?

It's not normal, typically either the fleet owner or the company taking the lease pays. It's relatively common for the original manufacturer to be selected for major refurbishments or the current operator for smaller scale refurbs. It's far from unheard of for news outlets to accidentally misrepresent funders in complicated transactions. It's possible Siemens are contributing as the intent is for them to do the train maintenance so might fund anything to improve reliability.

Two transparency notices for direct awards have hit the standard procurement portals. One to Porterbrook for leasing the trains and a second to Siemens for a train service agreement/maintaining the trains.

Interesting parts of the leasing one:

Intention to direct award a 16-year lease of a fleet of 37 Class 350/2 electric multiple units to replace the current Class 323 electric multiple unit fleet which Northern Trains Limited ("Northern") lease and operate on the Northern Network, primarily in the Greater Manchester area. The lease will include an ability for Northern to break the lease after 8 years (in August 2034) where the rolling stock fails to meet performance targets in respect of reliability and availability.

As part of the proposed leasing of the class 350 fleet, Northern have also agreed with the lessor that the lessor will agree to the termination of the lease by the same lessor of a fleet of 34 class 323 electric multiple units early, allowing the class 350 fleet to be substituted for the class 323 fleet without any increase in subsidy required to Northern to enable leasing of the class 350 fleet.

Direct award justification​

Single supplier - technical reasons

Due to reducing performance of its current class 323 fleet, Northern requires introduction of a fleet of trains which will continue to meet its operational and capacity requirements to replace that existing fleet for at least its current term. Having carried out a detailed market review, and having consulted with third parties, Northern have identified the proposed class 350 fleet as the only train fleet which meets its technical, operational and capacity requirements for the relevant service provision within the required timeframe

The train services agreement doesn't add much to the above, the justification section also has this:

In order to meet the requirements of the lessor of the class 350 fleet, Northern are required by the lessor to obtain maintenance of the fleet from a service provider that meets the requirements of the lessor and who can also make the fleet available to Northern at the required locations. The proposed service provider is the manufacturer of the Class 350 fleet, is currently carrying out modifications to the fleet prior to lease to Northern, has a maintenance location close to the primary area of operation of the fleet and has been specified by the lessor as the required maintainer of the fleet. Northern therefore intend to direct award on that basis in accordance with paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 Procurement Act 2023.

The 8 year break clause seems so phase 2 of the new trains framework could replace the 350s if they don't meet their targets otherwise until 2042. Cost wise the leasing is £222m excluding VAT over term which would be £93k per year per vehicle. The train maintanence is £158m excluding VAT so around £10m per year for the whole fleet.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Rather a lot of people in Northern aren't particularly pleased with the decision as I understand it. Primarily the reason is because the leasing company is has managed to successfully lobby the department that someone should be paying for them instead of them being off lease.

My DfT 'mole' - recently retired so he feels more able to talk - has told me that the DfT put a lot of effort generally into getting the leasing companies 'off the hook' by finding uses for off-lease stock regardless of logic. This seems in my opinion to be an example and also imo it would have been better if the leasing company had suffered from their own poor negotiations tactics in losing the WMT business. I wonder if the lease charges for the 350s are considerably higher than for the 323s, in line with those offered to, and declined by, WMT.
One might also have thought that if the leasing company can't supply trains (323s) that can be repaired when they break down then they might at least exchange them with others that they own that work but are in store. But clearly the contracts are carefully framed...

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Cost wise the leasing is £222m excluding VAT over term which would be £93k per year per vehicle. The train maintanence is £158m excluding VAT so around £10m per year for the whole fleet.

Or to break it down in some other interesting ways:
Lease - £375,000 per unit per year.
Maintenance - ~£267,000 per unit per year (rounded from £266,891.89)
Total - £642,000 per unit per year

Which is £1,750 per unit per day (£64,750 for all 37).
Trains certainly aren't cheap pieces of kit.

 

[Class 466]

My DfT 'mole' - recently retired so he feels more able to talk - has told me that the DfT put a lot of effort generally into getting the leasing companies 'off the hook' by finding uses for off-lease stock regardless of logic. This seems in my opinion to be an example and also imo it would have been better if the leasing company had suffered from their own poor negotiations tactics in losing the WMT business. I wonder if the lease charges for the 350s are considerably higher than for the 323s, in line with those offered to, and declined by, WMT.
One might also have thought that if the leasing company can't supply trains (323s) that can be repaired when they break down then they might at least exchange them with others that they own that work but are in store. But clearly the contracts are carefully framed...

Other than Northern, there really wasn’t another use for these units that was anywhere near to close to fitting. Much like the 379s that were always destined to end up on the Great Northern.

 

[lowe1409]

Or to break it down in some other interesting ways:
Lease - £375,000 per unit per year.
Maintenance - ~£267,000 per unit per year (rounded from £266,891.89)
Total - £642,000 per unit per year

Which is £1,750 per unit per day (£64,750 for all 37).
Trains certainly aren't cheap pieces of kit.

As a question, how do these numbers compare to the existing 323 fleet. Is this going to be significantly more expensive for northern?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

As a question, how do these numbers compare to the existing 323 fleet. Is this going to be significantly more expensive for northern?

Not sure, I've had a poke around the tender website but am struggling to locate any similar tender or award for the 323s.
In the 350 document it says the below, which seems to say they cost less since no extra subsidy is required?

As part of the proposed leasing of the class 350 fleet, Northern have also agreed with the lessor that the lessor will agree to the termination of the lease by the same lessor of a fleet of 34 class 323 electric multiple units early, allowing the class 350 fleet to be substituted for the class 323 fleet without any increase in subsidy required to Northern to enable leasing of the class 350 fleet.

 

[py_megapixel]

Not sure, I've had a poke around the tender website but am struggling to locate any similar tender or award for the 323s.
In the 350 document it says the below, which seems to say they cost less since no extra subsidy is required?

"No extra subsidy required" could also mean the 350s cost (slightly) more, but that is expected to be outweighed by reduced maintenance and/or energy costs due to them being more modern stock.

In that case everyone wins: the lessor makes more money and doesn't have their fleet sitting around doing nothing; Northern/the government can reduce their maintenance/energy billl and get the positive PR benefits of modernising and slightly expanding their fleet at low cost; the passengers of course get the increased capacity and greater comfort.

If executed well I think this will be a very positive thing.

 

[Starmill]

My DfT 'mole' - recently retired so he feels more able to talk - has told me that the DfT put a lot of effort generally into getting the leasing companies 'off the hook' by finding uses for off-lease stock regardless of logic.

You explained it in much better words than me. That's exactly the manifestation of the pressure I'm talking about.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2026 ==

One might also have thought that if the leasing company can't supply trains (323s) that can be repaired when they break down then they might at least exchange them with others that they own that work but are in store.

One also might have thought that some previously little-known issues with them suddenly coming to light at about the same time as their owners have a 'replacement', that they're desperate to sell, is an incredibly unlikely coincidence. I guess in the vastness of the universe it's always the case that some unlikely coincidences are real.

 

[43096]

"No extra subsidy required" could also mean the 350s cost (slightly) more, but that is expected to be outweighed by reduced maintenance and/or energy costs due to them being more modern stock.

In that case everyone wins: the lessor makes more money and doesn't have their fleet sitting around doing nothing; Northern/the government can reduce their maintenance/energy billl and get the positive PR benefits of modernising and slightly expanding their fleet at low cost; the passengers of course get the increased capacity and greater comfort.

If executed well I think this will be a very positive thing.

The lessor has the lesser of two evils; it certainly isn't a complete win for them. They get a more modern fleet back on lease, but will likely take a hit on the fleet being replaced.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

but that is expected to be outweighed by reduced maintenance and/or energy costs due to them being more modern stock.

I would be surprised if a 350 has less power draw than a 323 given the significant extra weight (175 vs 112 tonnes (56% more!)), and the air con.
Maintenance might be a better bet, especially if parts are causing issues for 323s compared to the significant fleet of Desiros still operating in the UK which there must be a decent spares supply for.



They don't have as good acceleration but they can go up to 110 (which won't be of much use to Northern, given the only track they have at 110 is Golborne-Oxenholme, Cheadle Hulme - Sandbach, and various bits of 105 and 110 on the line to Stoke).

 

[lowe1409]

"No extra subsidy required" could also mean the 350s cost (slightly) more, but that is expected to be outweighed by reduced maintenance and/or energy costs due to them being more modern stock.

In that case everyone wins: the lessor makes more money and doesn't have their fleet sitting around doing nothing; Northern/the government can reduce their maintenance/energy billl and get the positive PR benefits of modernising and slightly expanding their fleet at low cost; the passengers of course get the increased capacity and greater comfort.

If executed well I think this will be a very positive thing.

That's assuming that the better stock doesn't act as a draw itself. Regulars on the blackpools don't have to complain about the downgrade from 331s to 323s any more. Plus if less people find themselves having to stand on trains and find more seats, that can only be a good thing.

One also might have thought that some previously little-known issues with them suddenly coming to light at about the same time as their owners have a 'replacement', that they're desperate to sell, is an incredibly unlikely coincidence. I guess in the vastness of the universe it's always the case that some unlikely coincidences are real.

The issue is one that's been around quite a while, just this recent weather seems to have pushed things to a breaking point.

They don't have as good acceleration but they can go up to 110 (which won't be of much use to Northern, given the only track they have at 110 is Golborne-Oxenholme, Cheadle Hulme - Sandbach, and various bits of 105 and 110 on the line to Stoke).

Only catch is 350s won't operate preston-oxenholme as that currently 195 worked. The only regular electric working I can think of by northern is goldborne to Preston.

However, remember 323s are 90mph units and there's definitely 90+mph stretches between Salford and Preston for these newer units to take advantage of.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Regulars on the blackpools don't have to complain about the downgrade from 331s to 323s any more.

331s to 350/2s is still a downgrade.
2+3 seating, no tables except in 1 small bit of ex-First.
At least they have air con and through gangways, that's something.
I can only really see them on Blackpools as 8 cars but that has its own problems, 4 cars just won't be enough, 4 car 331s barely cope as it is and they are far superior at crowds.

 

[Liam L]

My DfT 'mole' - recently retired so he feels more able to talk - has told me that the DfT put a lot of effort generally into getting the leasing companies 'off the hook' by finding uses for off-lease stock regardless of logic. This seems in my opinion to be an example and also imo it would have been better if the leasing company had suffered from their own poor negotiations tactics in losing the WMT business. I wonder if the lease charges for the 350s are considerably higher than for the 323s, in line with those offered to, and declined by, WMT.
One might also have thought that if the leasing company can't supply trains (323s) that can be repaired when they break down then they might at least exchange them with others that they own that work but are in store. But clearly the contracts are carefully framed...

If anything, they haven't lost out with WMT, poterbrook recently purchased the 196 & 730 fleets and still own a large fraction of the 172 fleet.

 

[L+Y]

Does anybody have Northern's current electric diagrams to hand, so we can try to work out what will go where in terms of 350s? I'm assuming this is all going to be a lot more complex than a simple like for like swap of 323s to 350s with a couple of spares for Staly-Wigan?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Does anybody have Northern's current electric diagrams to hand, so we can try to work out what will go where in terms of 350s? I'm assuming this is all going to be a lot more complex than a simple like for like swap of 323s to 350s with a couple of spares for Staly-Wigan?

Yep, they're at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/northern_unit_diagrams_may_to_de

Of 34:
Monday-Friday, there are 25 (73.5%)
Saturdays, there are 21 (61.7%)
Sundays, there are 3 out all day (8.8%), 2 coming out to run just the 22:15 from Liverpool to Blackpool North for some reason (5 = 14.7%), and 1 running just as an ECS from Crewe to Allerton (6 = 17.6%) - not sure what a normal Sunday service would be, it's been so long since we've had one.

 

[Class 466]

Does anybody have Northern's current electric diagrams to hand, so we can try to work out what will go where in terms of 350s? I'm assuming this is all going to be a lot more complex than a simple like for like swap of 323s to 350s with a couple of spares for Staly-Wigan?

The latest diagrams are available on What Do They Know (The FOI site) - also think they have a page on their site with them. Worth noting that when the Staly-Wigan service starts - the Crewe - Piccadilly via Manchester Airport is due to be truncated, so they should cancel one another out… almost

 

[Bletchleyite]

331s to 350/2s is still a downgrade.

Debatable. They are 3+2 but the seats themselves I find a bit better, window alignment is better and ride and build quality are too. They really are great units.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Debatable. They are 3+2 but the seats themselves I find a bit better, window alignment is better and ride and build quality are too. They really are great units.

Depends what you value in a train.
I value armrests and tables over most things but if you value window alignment and build quality over those, the 350s probably are more ideal.

Either way, I’m sure most will see 350 as an upgrade on 323!

 

[Mamorin]

Either way, I’m sure most will see 350 as an upgrade on 323!

I'm sure everybody will see a 350 as upgrade on a 323, especially in summer given the 350s have Air Conditioning.

 

[lowe1409]

331s to 350/2s is still a downgrade.
2+3 seating, no tables except in 1 small bit of ex-First.
At least they have air con and through gangways, that's something.
I can only really see them on Blackpools as 8 cars but that has its own problems, 4 cars just won't be enough, 4 car 331s barely cope as it is and they are far superior at crowds.

Regardless, a 350 is better than a 323. And for the afformentioned problems, there's a likelyhood we might see all diagrams being 331 covered again

 

[Class 466]

Yep, they're at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/northern_unit_diagrams_may_to_de

Of 34:
Monday-Friday, there are 25 (73.5%)
Saturdays, there are 21 (61.7%)
Sundays, there are 3 out all day (8.8%), 2 coming out to run just the 22:15 from Liverpool to Blackpool North for some reason (5 = 14.7%), and 1 running just as an ECS from Crewe to Allerton (6 = 17.6%) - not sure what a normal Sunday service would be, it's been so long since we've had one.

There's more than 3 out all day on Sundays - Theres two on the Hadfield line for starters.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

There's more than 3 out all day on Sundays - Theres two on the Hadfield line for starters.

The diagrams themselves show 3 out, 2 on Hadfield, 1 on Crewe, plus the bonus 2 running the single evening service, and 1 running empty Crewe-Allerton in the morning. If you don't believe me you can look for yourself.

Last Sunday that exact pattern ran, 207 and 220 to Hadfield, 212 to Crewe, 206 on 5Y31 0938 Crewe to Allerton Depot, and 237+223 on 1N86 2215 from Liverpool Lime Street.

 

[p1ash]

I wonder what the future of the 9 ex-WMT units is? If they are scrapped soon, we will know the future of the northern units too (to be mainly returned in 2028).

It will also be interesting to see whether the 3 northern units apparently requiring transformers are repaired? It seems a lot of money to spend on units that might not have a future?

What is also crazy is that double rate sanders were fitted in the last few years to 323s (with public funding). Poor use of public funding if the units are scrapped!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2026 ==

Whilst the 350s sounds good, how many stations on the Blackpool to Manchester line can take 2x350, apart from Blackpool, Preston, Bolton and the Manchester stations. Every other station will need selective door operation, or the platform extending?
The northern network isn’t set up for 20m trains, so this very much sounds very much like a political sticking plaster!

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Whilst the 350s sounds good, how many stations on the Blackpool to Manchester line can take 2x350, apart from Blackpool, Preston, Bolton and the Manchester stations. Every other station will need selective door operation, or the platform extending?

I did this previously on the old thread, but the data isn't quite right (e.g. Salford Crescent is shorter than it should be), I will pull up the sectional appendix at some point and get the proper numbers but these are about right.

For Manchester Airport - Blackpool North, the platform lengths are (Bold stations are 160m), the amount of 20m carriages usable each way is in for stations shorter than 8 carriages

Manchester Airport - P1 197m, P2 200m, P3 200m, P4 201m.
(7) Heald Green - 143m (40m out of use)
(7) Gatley - P1 149m, P2 146m.
(7) East Didsbury - P1 150m, P2 146m
(7) Burnage - 152m (11m OOU)
(7) Mauldeth Road - P1 140m, P2 146m.
Manchester Piccadilly - P13 277m, P14 266m. (1-10 all fit 160m, 11 and 12 don't)
Manchester Oxford Road - P1 106m, P2/3 161m, P4 163m.
(7) Deansgate - P1 151m, P2 155m
(6) Salford Crescent - 130m
(4) Clifton - 95m
(5) Kearsley - Down 109, Up 126
(5) Farnworth - 100m
(4) Moses Gate - 79m
Bolton - P1 187m (124m towards Preston), P3 322m (305m towards Preston), P4 252m, P5 271m.
(7) Lostock - 155m
(7) Horwich Parkway - 141m
(5) Blackrod - P1 144m, P2 114m
(?) Adlington - no data
(7) Chorley - Down 150m, Up 158m
(7) Buckshaw Parkway - 150m
(7) Leyland - P1 151m, P2 140m, P3 142m, P4, 143m
Preston - P1 277m, P2 275m, P3 362m, P4 285m, P5/6 269m.
(4) Salwick - 93m
Kirkham and Wesham - P1 179m, P2 183m, P3 198m
Poulton-Le-Fylde - Down 162m, Up 170m
(7) Layton - P1 145m, P2 148m
Blackpool North - P1/2 277m, P3 217m, P4/6 205m, P5 203m.
(data from railwaydata.co.uk)

I am suprised at how many just fit 7 carriages.

 

[D365]

What is also crazy is that double rate sanders were fitted in the last few years to 323s (with public funding). Poor use of public funding if the units are scrapped!

I’ve been told that sander and/or WSP enhancements ’pay for themselves’ after only a few seasons.

 

[Starmill]

The issue is one that's been around quite a while, just this recent weather seems to have pushed things to a breaking point.

I don't think the weather is having any effect on whether the contract gets signed or not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2026 ==

there's a likelyhood we might see all diagrams being 331 covered again

I wouldn't get too excited...

 

[Gricer99]

As the first train services are not planned till late 2027, will the refurbs be In Northern colours or in GBR colours?