Northern’s New Trains, Possible Interior Spec Speculation

[Class 323 Fan]

As Northern will be ordering 3 different types of trains. The Class 382 Electric Multiple Unit, Class 780 Multi-Mode Unit (Electric, Battery, and Diesel), And Class 781 Battery Electric Multiple Unit.

How do you think the interior spec should be?

This post also links to my other thread around what manufacturer should be chosen, as most manufacturers has a different specification process.

From reading other threads, these 2 manufacturers have been mentioned the most:

Stadler, for their ability to meet the level boarding requirement, even in a multi-mode unit.

CAF, for their possible compatibility with the existing Class 331s.

My opinion

• Comfier Seating
• Same PIS screen style as used now
• Aligned table seating


And for Manufacturer:

I’d like Northern to “do a TFW”.

CAF Civitys for the Class 382 Electric Multiple Unit.

Stadler FLIRTs for the Class 780 Multi-Mode Multiple Unit and the Class 781 Battery Electric Multiple Unit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would go for:

Approximately 50:50 airline and table seating, alternating like the Class 158 as-built
Window aligned
At least one full size luggage stack per vehicle
Thin backed seating to maximise legroom (not the utterly woeful FISA LEAN which should not be used anywhere)
Standbacks by the doors which should be at thirds or quarters
An interior colour scheme that is restful and easy on the eye, not a stark blue with overbrlght blue lighting
Two toilets per unit, one accessible and one small

Apart from the stupid catering cupboard thing, as you mention TfW, the layout in the 197 isn't at all bad, and that seat (with the no-metal-bar base) would be perfect.

For manufacturer I really don't mind, but I don't think the one-door-per-section Stadler layout would work very well so you probably want to go for traditional 24m bogied vehicles, which Stadler can do.

For accessibility I would go for high floor end vehicles but with a deep entrance step and easy to use handrails, and a dip between the bogies on the centre vehicle (both centre vehicles in a 4 car set) with doors, accessible toilet and wheelchair space(s) in the dip, providing level boarding for those who need it. Most people however don't, and so having the end vehicles as high floor avoids the compromises on layout that low floor throughout can bring. This model works well on the Swiss "Domino" units which had low floor trailers retro-added between the high floor end vehicles.

Gangways should be walk-through type.

 

[Class 323 Fan]

Gangways should be walk-through type.

The specification made by northern says that they will be no gangways on any of the trains, so I imagine a class 755 style

 

[Bletchleyite]

The specification made by northern says that they will be no gangways on any of the trains, so I imagine a class 755 style

I mean gangways within the unit.

 

[Class 323 Fan]

I mean gangways within the unit.

Oh ok, sorry about that, i think that would be better

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Hopefully the approach won't be the "one size fits all" that we got with the 195s and 331s. The layout of those fleets is clearly tailored for regional medium-distance services (remember "Northern Connect"?) rather than all-stops commuter runs. Great* on the 195s which are working Blackpool to York or Leeds to Nottingham but less than ideal on the 331s working Airedale and Wharfedale.

*= "Great" in terms of having tables and 2+2, that is. I'm not going to get into the quality/comfort (or otherwise) of the seats themselves.

 

[Class 323 Fan]

Hopefully the approach won't be the "one size fits all" that we got with the 195s and 331s. The layout of those fleets is clearly tailored for regional medium-distance services (remember "Northern Connect"?) rather than all-stops commuter runs. Great* on the 195s which are working Blackpool to York or Leeds to Nottingham but less than ideal on the 331s working Airedale and Wharfedale.

*= "Great" in terms of having tables and 2+2, that is. I'm not going to get into the quality/comfort (or otherwise) of the seats themselves.

I really hope not

 

[FGWHST43009]

If going for CAF I would include additional vehicles to extend Class 195s and 331s. Or I would go for sufficient FLIRTs so that the Sheffield-Leeds fast train could have more capacity. A 5 car bi-mode FLIRT could be a good option. Depending on seating capacity and order numbers then the fast Sheffield-Leeds and Nottingham-Leeds could be run by double 195s or new FLIRTs. Correct me if I'm wrong but surely a 2 car 195 for Sheffield-Leeds fast is poor provision?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If going for CAF I would include additional vehicles to extend Class 195s and 331s. Or I would go for sufficient FLIRTs so that the Sheffield-Leeds fast train could have more capacity. A 5 car bi-mode FLIRT could be a good option. Depending on seating capacity and order numbers then the fast Sheffield-Leeds and Nottingham-Leeds could be run by double 195s or new FLIRTs. Correct me if I'm wrong but surely a 2 car 195 for Sheffield-Leeds fast is poor provision?

Isn't it the case that the reason for that service being 2-car is that the only practical platform it can use at Leeds is a 2-car bay? If so, the best you can probably do is dedicate a small subfleet of 2-car 195s and rip the interior out and replace with a London Underground style standee layout to maximise capacity, assuming the infrastructure work or timetable changes to allow it to have a longer platform are not affordable/viable.

Interiors are talked about above, and the 195's layout is surprisingly practical for all the purposes it's used for, from a rammed peak time 2 car Rose Hill stopper to the Windermere. But you could get more effective still if you could have dedicated subfleets for commuter and regional/medium distance operations instead and had enough units to keep everything on diagram so you didn't end up turning out a Tube layout 195 on a Windermere unless it was that or cancel.

 

[ScottGallagher]

Would Stadler even be in the mix politically especially with a Labour govermenent who need to do something in/for the North to have any hope of getting reelected. I would imagine not so one of the others with factories here need to find a level.boarding solution for the uk guage.

 

[Halwynd]

As Bletchleyite says, two toilets per unit (three if there are four carriages).

 

[Class 323 Fan]

If going for CAF I would include additional vehicles to extend Class 195s and 331s. Or I would go for sufficient FLIRTs so that the Sheffield-Leeds fast train could have more capacity. A 5 car bi-mode FLIRT could be a good option. Depending on seating capacity and order numbers then the fast Sheffield-Leeds and Nottingham-Leeds could be run by double 195s or new FLIRTs. Correct me if I'm wrong but surely a 2 car 195 for Sheffield-Leeds fast is poor provision?

An hourly 2 car 150/195 from Manchester to Sheffield is even worse, as no other northern trains go to Sheffield from Manchester

 

[Bletchleyite]

An hourly 2 car 150/195 from Manchester to Sheffield is even worse, as no other northern trains go to Sheffield from Manchester

That's normally at least 3, though it could do with being longer particularly on weekends. Though if they stopped trying to price people onto it so it was only really used by those wanting the intermediates it'd be interesting to see if that resolved the issue. There was justification to do that when the EMR was 2-car and the TPE 3, but both are now mostly longer.

 

[Class 323 Fan]

As much as I hate the quality of CAF, I love the 331s

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

That's normally at least 3, though it could do with being longer particularly on weekends.

Or it could be a 3 coach, think it’s a mix.

Really that route supposed to be 195s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Isn't it the case that the reason for that service being 2-car is that the only practical platform it can use at Leeds is a 2-car bay? If so, the best you can probably do is dedicate a small subfleet of 2-car 195s and rip the interior out and replace with a London Underground style standee layout to maximise capacity, assuming the infrastructure work or timetable changes to allow it to have a longer platform are not affordable/viable.

Interiors are talked about above, and the 195's layout is surprisingly practical for all the purposes it's used for, from a rammed peak time 2 car Rose Hill stopper to the Windermere. But you could get more effective still if you could have dedicated subfleets for commuter and regional/medium distance operations instead and had enough units to keep everything on diagram so you didn't end up turning out a Tube layout 195 on a Windermere unless it was that or cancel.

The semi-fast services via Barnsley (the Nottingham and Lincoln) are limited to 2-cars on Monday to Saturday because of Leeds platform 17, but the new service that started at the December timetable change runs via Wakefield Westgate so doesn't have that constraint.

Edit- additional commentary on the P17 issue:
Yourself and others have mentioned the slight difficulty that would present with having two different interior specifications, so an even smaller subfleet of "ultra high-density" units dedicated to those services is a non-starter. Particularly as those services run quite long distances by Northern standards and have a significant share of passengers running the whole route. AIUI plans are ongoing to extend the problem platform at Leeds, so to an extent that problem will be solved in a more sensible way. How long we go until it needs extending again however, is anyone's guess!

If the Yorkshire 331s had a higher-density layout than the Lancashire ones, there'd be no danger of one showing up on the wrong service... though equally the interim period of the 4-cars being in Yorkshire initially would have still created a mismatch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the Yorkshire 331s had a higher-density layout than the Lancashire ones, there'd be no danger of one showing up on the wrong service... though equally the interim period of the 4-cars being in Yorkshire initially would have still created a mismatch.

To be fair you could probably have given all the 331s a 730/0 like layout. The Lancashire ones do do longer journeys, but they still carry high loadings, and it's not like they aren't also using 323s on those services which have a far more cramped layout than even the 730/0.

It all I guess comes down to what they were ordered for - I imagine there was a view that they might be working an electrified Windermere before long, for instance, and a suburban layout really wouldn't be suitable for that.

 

[superkev]

Not sure if it's been mentioned or the info is available. Ater reading all the praise for the GA and TFW trains with pop out level boarding ramps I hope Northen specify such a feature on any new stock.
With almost all buses having integral ramps, some powered, ordering trains without would be ordering obsolete technology.

Also. Thinking of Northerns scenic lines it would be nice if a few of the trains were modified to improve passenger experience on the S and C for example seats lining up with windows, tables and luggage space come to mind.
K

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure if it's been mentioned or the info is available. Ater reading all the praise for the GA and TFW trains with pop out level boarding ramps I hope Northen specify such a feature on any new stock.
With almost all buses having integral ramps some powered ordering trains without would be ordering obsolete technology.

In my view level boarding at all doors causes too much compromise to interior layout in UK loading gauge, plus you have the issue of the vehicle being very narrow at foot level which compromises comfort. I find the layout of the UK FLIRT interiors to be just too compromised because of that. That doesn't mean to say that a gap bridge is a bad thing, it means less of a step, though I think I'd also consider in the high floor coaches having proper interior steps like European trains do which are much easier to use than narrow step boards.

Also. Thinking of Northerns scenic lines it would be nice if a few of the trains were modified to improve passenger experience on the S and C for example seats lining up with windows, tables and luggage space come to mind.

It would be nice if a lazy seating layout that doesn't compromise window alignment (yes, you, Class 195) wasn't adopted. That said, the S&C might be better off with used 170s, as these pretty much are panoramic units and the vast majority of the length of the route isn't and won't be electrified.

 

[xotGD]

In my view level boarding at all doors causes too much compromise to interior layout in UK loading gauge, plus you have the issue of the vehicle being very narrow at foot level which compromises comfort. I find the layout of the UK FLIRT interiors to be just too compromised because of that. That doesn't mean to say that a gap bridge is a bad thing, it means less of a step, though I think I'd also consider in the high floor coaches having proper interior steps like European trains do which are much easier to use than narrow step boards.



It would be nice if a lazy seating layout that doesn't compromise window alignment (yes, you, Class 195) wasn't adopted. That said, the S&C might be better off with used 170s, as these pretty much are panoramic units and the vast majority of the length of the route isn't and won't be electrified.

The S&C interworks with the Bentham Line, and these diagrams lend themselves to bimodes.

 

[tfw756rider]

The S&C interworks with the Bentham Line, and these diagrams lend themselves to bimodes.

(the Bentham line is the Leeds–Morecambe line, to save anyone else looking it up)

 

[superkev]

In my view level boarding at all doors causes too much compromise to interior layout in UK loading gauge, plus you have the issue of the vehicle being very narrow at foot level which compromises comfort. I find the layout of the UK FLIRT interiors to be just too compromised because of that. That doesn't mean to say that a gap bridge is a bad thing, it means less of a step, though I think I'd also consider in the high floor coaches having proper interior steps like European trains do which are much easier to use than narrow step boards.



It would be nice if a lazy seating layout that doesn't compromise window alignment (yes, you, Class 195) wasn't adopted. That said, the S&C might be better off with used 170s, as these pretty much are panoramic units and the vast majority of the length of the route isn't and won't be electrified.

Not so sure about the 100mph 170's on the 60mph S and C as they dont get into direct drive until 65mph reportedly using fast quantities of fuel on the 60mph Harrogate line. Re-geared for <90 possibly.
Perhaps explains why there propping up one of the traction reliability tables in this months Modern Railways.
K

 

[InkyScrolls]

Not so sure about the 100mph 170's on the 60mph S and C as they dont get into direct drive until 65mph reportedly using fast quantities of fuel on the 60mph Harrogate line. Re-geared for <90 possibly.
Perhaps explains why there propping up one of the traction reliability tables in this months Modern Railways.
K

This has been debunked repeatedly.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Would Stadler even be in the mix politically especially with a Labour govermenent who need to do something in/for the North to have any hope of getting reelected. I would imagine not so one of the others with factories here need to find a level.boarding solution for the uk guage.

Indeed.
That gives us 4 options.
1) Siemens - probably too busy building tube trains at their Goole factory (likely to get more orders too), proven experience of building bimodes though.
2) CAF - they have the advantage of compatibility with the existing fleet, but quality not amazing and I'm not sure if their Australian bimodes are proving to be so successful.
3) Hitachi - also busy with orders and mostly have produced intercity units for the UK market.
4) Alstom/Bombardier - probably the most likely contender. Derby needs work, Alstom can provide bi mode expertise and the Aventra (especially the class 730s as mentioned above) provide a relatively suitable layout.
2 + 2 + doors at thirds would make sense. We should probably order at least 3 coach min sets, 4 may work as well (especially joined on the busiest routes, I can't see most Northern services needing more than 8 coaches in future or the infrastructure accommodating more than that).

 

[Bletchleyite]

A mix of 3 and 4 car units is what is envisaged. Anything only justifying 2 car (such as the "Lancashire triangle") would get a 195.

 

[AlastairFraser]

A mix of 3 and 4 car units is what is envisaged. Anything only justifying 2 car (such as the "Lancashire triangle") would get a 195.

Although I don't think those routes only justify 2 cars most of the time if they were marketed properly, it's good to see that Northern are ordering 3 car minimum.

 

[Bevan Price]

I would go for:

Approximately 50:50 airline and table seating, alternating like the Class 158 as-built
Window aligned
At least one full size luggage stack per vehicle

Such luggage stacks are a very bad idea. Passengers want to be able to see their luggage from their seats. Remote stacks just make life easier for thieves. Seating layout should mostly include tables, and a return to having luggage space between back to back seats. Better seat to window alignment, plus one toilet in every coach (one disabled toilet per train).

 

[rattyben]

Indeed.
That gives us 4 options.
1) Siemens - probably too busy building tube trains at their Goole factory (likely to get more orders too), proven experience of building bimodes though.
2) CAF - they have the advantage of compatibility with the existing fleet, but quality not amazing and I'm not sure if their Australian bimodes are proving to be so successful.
3) Hitachi - also busy with orders and mostly have produced intercity units for the UK market.
4) Alstom/Bombardier - probably the most likely contender. Derby needs work, Alstom can provide bi mode expertise and the Aventra (especially the class 730s as mentioned above) provide a relatively suitable layout.
2 + 2 + doors at thirds would make sense. We should probably order at least 3 coach min sets, 4 may work as well (especially joined on the busiest routes, I can't see most Northern services needing more than 8 coaches in future or the infrastructure accommodating more than that).

I’d be surprised if it goes to a single manufacturer for the whole lot.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I’d be surprised if it goes to a single manufacturer for the whole lot.

surely it makes sense from a fleet simplification PoV?

 

[rattyben]

surely it makes sense from a fleet simplification PoV?

It does but politics will inevitably get involved. MPs and Mayors in affected regions will be lobbying the DfT hard.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It does but politics will inevitably get involved. MPs and Mayors in affected regions will be lobbying the DfT hard.

Bombardier is the logical choice, all the other British factories are relatively busy (especially Siemens) and CAF is only an assembly factory.