Northern Future fleet updates

[Snow1964]

Very interesting, though I wonder what the 52 station figure is (915mm tall platforms?), and a "sliding step gap filler" suggests low floor, presumably.

But what's most notable is how that seat count is really quite low - a 3 car 195 seats 204 and a 158 has 207. This is more akin to the very low density Class 197s or 170s.

Part of the problem is UKs small loading gauge. There are plenty of standard designs like Alstom Corradia Stream where the design is proven with working software. But needs different body shell.

The real problem is the units with a diesel generator as it's nigh on impossible to fit it under a low floor (technically it fits, but not if you want to also leave room to maintain it) hence the over floor power units that Stadler use. Sliding steps are an underfloor module that also needs space that isn't on older generation trains.

Of course if th space under the floor is used, an alternative is the roof. In Europe some equipment is roof mounted including HVAC units, yes can fit in slim units as roof can be lower if floor is low (and there are units like 350 / 450 with roof HVAC) , but still stuck with some equipment tending to be packaged at vehicle ends shortening usable floor space. So whilst a vehicle might be 23m long, the saloon might be metre or two shorter.

 

[D365]

Of course if th space under the floor is used, an alternative is the roof. In Europe some equipment is roof mounted including HVAC units, yes can fit in slim units as roof can be lower if floor is low (and there are units like 350 / 450 with roof HVAC) , but still stuck with some equipment tending to be packaged at vehicle ends shortening usable floor space. So whilst a vehicle might be 23m long, the saloon might be metre or two shorter.

Roof mounting is suitable for batteries (especially on a low floor vehicle) but definitely not suitable for diesel power units.

 

[Dspatula]

Very interesting, though I wonder what the 52 station figure is (915mm tall platforms?), and a "sliding step gap filler" suggests low floor, presumably.

But what's most notable is how that seat count is really quite low - a 3 car 195 seats 204 and a 158 has 207. This is more akin to the very low density Class 197s or 170s.

Surely a "sliding step gap filler" is exactly what it says it is a step that slides out towards the platform but still a step?
Lower seat count is better, things like 150s and 323s are dire for dwell times in the peaks and half empty at best the rest of the time other than 2 coach short forms.
Something like a 730 essentially turned into a 769 would probably please most people but I suspect they'll be basically a 195 with a hybrid gen sets.

 

[GWVillager]

Surely a "sliding step gap filler" is exactly what it says it is a step that slides out towards the platform but still a step?
Lower seat count is better, things like 150s and 323s are dire for dwell times in the peaks and half empty at best the rest of the time other than 2 coach short forms.
Something like a 730 essentially turned into a 769 would probably please most people but I suspect they'll be basically a 195 with a hybrid gen sets.

The gap filler implies, to me, FLIRT style level boarding where platforms are compatible. Otherwise it's hard to see the point in the step sliding.

I am not so sure on the ideal seating layout. These trains will have a real variety of services to run, and something like the 195/331 is admittedly a very good all-rounder. But the fleets are large enough for there to be some changes to make each class better suited to their environments - there are plenty of routes that need the 158's high density, high comfort combination, etc.

 

[Dspatula]

The gap filler implies, to me, FLIRT style level boarding where platforms are compatible. Otherwise it's hard to see the point in the step sliding.

I'd ask why use the word 'step' if it's level boarding especially as they've ruled it out as a requirement. Having a step fill the horizontal gap between the platform and the doors would surely be improvement over the current fleet.

I am not so sure on the ideal seating layout. These trains will have a real variety of services to run, and something like the 195/331 is admittedly a very good all-rounder. But the fleets are large enough for there to be some changes to make each class better suited to their environments - there are plenty of routes that need the 158's high density, high comfort combination, etc.

I'd agree that verity of door layouts and seat arrangements would be better, but as they're already giving exact seat numbers the one size fits all approach seems more likely.

 

[py_megapixel]

I'd ask why use the word 'step' if it's level boarding especially as they've ruled it out as a requirement. Having a step fill the horizontal gap between the platform and the doors would surely be improvement over the current fleet.

I'd not read too far into the precise wording - it's a quote from a summary given in a magazine interview, so not a formal technical specification and certainly not anything approaching a final design!

It's referred to as a "sliding step" on the Stadler units as well, and those are certainly able to offer level boarding from appropriately equipped platforms.

I am not so sure on the ideal seating layout. These trains will have a real variety of services to run, and something like the 195/331 is admittedly a very good all-rounder. But the fleets are large enough for there to be some changes to make each class better suited to their environments - there are plenty of routes that need the 158's high density, high comfort combination, etc.

In principle it would be nice, but Northern has that variety today and I'm not sure how much difference it really makes. I know the phrase annoys some on here, but "random unit generator" is actually quite a good description of what a regular passenger can expect to experience. (There are of course a few exceptions, such as the Sheffield-Hull-Scarborough runs almost always being Turbostars, and obviously diesel and electric diagrams are fairly separate).

I'm not actually opposed to the approach Northern takes - I'm glad the controllers appear to have plenty of flexibility with unit allocations, because more flexibility means more room to make changes that keep the service running well when otherwise it might fail. I assume Northern would (quite rightly) not want to give up that flexibility, and as such keeping the "right" interior layouts on the "right" routes will always come below a million other priorities... when it goes wrong the variety might actually be worse than everything having a well-thought-out uniform design would have been.

Plus, slightly selfishly, the inconsistency of what stock turns up from day to day is mildly annoying (and, less selfishly, presenting to the public an image of inconsistency is not ideal) so I think moving away from that will be a positive thing.

 

[themiller]

I'd ask why use the word 'step' if it's level boarding especially as they've ruled it out as a requirement. Having a step fill the horizontal gap between the platform and the doors would surely be improvement over the current fleet.


I'd agree that verity of door layouts and seat arrangements would be better, but as they're already giving exact seat numbers the one size fits all approach seems more likely.

The word ‘step’ would be appropriate because not all platforms have yet been altered to be correct height for their full length - even those with Harrington Humps.

 

[Spartacus]

I'd not read too far into the precise wording - it's a quote from a summary given in a magazine interview, so not a formal technical specification and certainly not anything approaching a final design!

It's referred to as a "sliding step" on the Stadler units as well, and those are certainly able to offer level boarding from appropriately equipped platforms.

Is it just be or do people seem to be reading it a tad wrong?

People seem to be reading it as "sliding step, gap filler", so a sliding step, whereas I'm reading it as "sliding step-gap filler", so a step gap filler that slides, which would be more appropriate because I've never on a Northern train just encountered a horizontal gap, there's a always a vertical one too, often quite significant too, so there's not just a gap, there's a step-gap.

 

[superkev]

With the lack of space below the floor on dmus perhaps a low floor accessible trailer car could be a good solution to the level boarding requirement
The 3 car 195s seem to have no problem running around with an engine out.
K

 

[Dspatula]

I'd not read too far into the precise wording - it's a quote from a summary given in a magazine interview, so not a formal technical specification and certainly not anything approaching a final design!

It's referred to as a "sliding step" on the Stadler units as well, and those are certainly able to offer level boarding from appropriately equipped platforms.

fair enough, although I do suspect they are being more specific with this order than with the pervious CAF given a lot of the problems with them is because they won't specific enough.

The word ‘step’ would be appropriate because not all platforms have yet been altered to be correct height for their full length - even those with Harrington Humps.

I was disagreeing with the idea that level boarding was a given because the quote mentioned 'sliding step gap filler' my focus on the word step is however incorrect as py_megapixel said that's what Stadler call it as well.

Is it just be or do people seem to be reading it a tad wrong?

People seem to be reading it as "sliding step, gap filler", so a sliding step, whereas I'm reading it as "sliding step-gap filler", so a step gap filler that slides, which would be more appropriate because I've never on a Northern train just encountered a horizontal gap, there's a always a vertical one too, often quite significant too, so there's not just a gap, there's a step-gap.

That was the impression I was getting from the quote.

 

[alexl92]

Glad to see that 2-car units aren't in the spec. I'd say 'why not all 4-car', but the potential for 6 car formations is useful.
Five more years to get rid of the 150s is way too long IMO, I can see them being particularly unpleasant in time.

That's exactly it - there are plenty of places on the network where 2 x 3 would be feasible but 2 x 4 isn't.
150s are already particularly unpleasant for me.

I'd not read too far into the precise wording - it's a quote from a summary given in a magazine interview, so not a formal technical specification and certainly not anything approaching a final design!

It's referred to as a "sliding step" on the Stadler units as well, and those are certainly able to offer level boarding from appropriately equipped platforms.


In principle it would be nice, but Northern has that variety today and I'm not sure how much difference it really makes. I know the phrase annoys some on here, but "random unit generator" is actually quite a good description of what a regular passenger can expect to experience. (There are of course a few exceptions, such as the Sheffield-Hull-Scarborough runs almost always being Turbostars, and obviously diesel and electric diagrams are fairly separate).

I'm not actually opposed to the approach Northern takes - I'm glad the controllers appear to have plenty of flexibility with unit allocations, because more flexibility means more room to make changes that keep the service running well when otherwise it might fail. I assume Northern would (quite rightly) not want to give up that flexibility, and as such keeping the "right" interior layouts on the "right" routes will always come below a million other priorities... when it goes wrong the variety might actually be worse than everything having a well-thought-out uniform design would have been.

Plus, slightly selfishly, the inconsistency of what stock turns up from day to day is mildly annoying (and, less selfishly, presenting to the public an image of inconsistency is not ideal) so I think moving away from that will be a positive thing.

Whilst yeah, in theory any 15x can turn up on any diagram (and in some cases any 15x or a 170, or a 15x or a 195 for example), in actual fact most diagrams do have set regular traction. For example, 2T05 the 0716 Leeds - York via Garforth stopper is almost always a 2-car 158, but if not it's generally a 150/2 (very rarely a 155) and 2T91 the 0707 YRK - LDS is a 2-car 195 but if not will be a 158, but 2T22, 1608 YRK - LDS is almost always a 3-car 195. Naturally swaps will happen to cover for unit failures but it's not like it was 10 years ago.

The new stock will all be urban layout from what I understand, doors at thirds rather than intercity layout.

 

[trawler]

Trains operate on set diagrams with set traction. Variations as mentioned do happen regularly but traction is set. Train crews cannot only work the traction they are approved. In the case of Northern 155 and 170s almost exclusively work on their set diagrams while 150 and 158 can cover their duties.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Trains operate on set diagrams with set traction. Variations as mentioned do happen regularly but traction is set. Train crews cannot only work the traction they are approved. In the case of Northern 155 and 170s almost exclusively work on their set diagrams while 150 and 158 can cover their duties.

Exactly so, and DfT can fine some operators for delivering short formed trains, For example fleet is under pressure so a 3 car unit is allocated instead of 2x2 cars. The trains are shortformed - and it is because DfT know the diagrammed stock for each train that they do this. Although I don't ho many "TOCs" are penalised for this.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Whilst yeah, in theory any 15x can turn up on any diagram (and in some cases any 15x or a 170, or a 15x or a 195 for example), in actual fact most diagrams do have set regular traction. For example, 2T05 the 0716 Leeds - York via Garforth stopper is almost always a 2-car 158, but if not it's generally a 150/2 (very rarely a 155) and 2T91 the 0707 YRK - LDS is a 2-car 195 but if not will be a 158, but 2T22, 1608 YRK - LDS is almost always a 3-car 195. Naturally swaps will happen to cover for unit failures but it's not like it was 10 years ago.

The new stock will all be urban layout from what I understand, doors at thirds rather than intercity layout.

Not true. There are multiple places where 158s aren't able to run due to gauging issues (for example); furthermore traincrew can only work the traction they sign. I sign 158s but not 156s, for example.

 

[Geeves]

The dream of Northern management is that every depot will be able to drive or work at least one of the others core traction, of course at the moment we have the situation where some depots cannot work trains that pass right through their own home station due traction knowledge.

I still think the 195s will find a home in the NE so unfortunately Northern will forever be running as two connected entities.

As for Northern being fined for short forms and delays the powers that be have an issue where the government is now fining itself!

Looking forward to more details being released soon on the new fleet!

 

[tfw756rider]

So, just to be clear, the units replacing the 170s will be a "phase 3" order? And is that optional, rather than definite?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

So, just to be clear, the units replacing the 170s will be a "phase 3" order? And is that optional, rather than definite?

I don't see how they wouldn't be part of phase 2

From the numbers I have (which may be a little out of date but I think they're about right) the new order will total 904 carriages (across phase 1 and 2), and Northern currently have 944 carriages (290 of which 195/331), meaning with the Civities retained and new units in, that'd be a 26% increase in fleet size

 

[tfw756rider]

I don't see how they wouldn't be part of phase 2

From the numbers I have (which may be a little out of date but I think they're about right) the new order will total 904 carriages (across phase 1 and 2), and Northern currently have 944 carriages (290 of which 195/331), meaning with the Civities retained and new units in, that'd be a 26% increase in fleet size

Ah thanks, so the 16x Northern 3-car 170/4s (built 2004-05) could be replaced in 2031?

That would give them up to another 13 years with another operator, as they'd start to turn 40 in 2044 (not to be discussed here of course).

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Ah thanks, so the 16x Northern 3-car 170/4s (built 2004-05) could be replaced in 2031?

That would give them up to another 13 years with another operator, as they'd start to turn 40 in 2044 (not to be discussed here of course).

2031 is the expected timeline for the earliest of phase 1, hopefully the end of the line for the 150s, 155s and 156s, phase 2 and 170 replacment will be much later.

 

[tfw756rider]

2031 is the expected timeline for the earliest of phase 1, hopefully the end of the line for the 150s, 155s and 156s, phase 2 and 170 replacment will be much later.

Oh gosh yes. How much later do we reckon? About what year?

 

[3RDGEN]

Oh gosh yes. How much later do we reckon? About what year?

The recent Modern Railways article quotes Phase 1 replacing 150, 155 & 156 along with additional units for the TPE services they are taking on with TRU, it's not mentioned but you would hope the 769 will also be replaced. Phase 2 replaces 158, 323 & 333 and Phase 3 would see off the 170's, if they happen, so years away.

 

[D365]

2031 is the expected timeline for the earliest of phase 1, hopefully the end of the line for the 150s, 155s and 156s

To clarify - 2030 is the anticipated delivery for Phase 1 Lot 1, which is 12 x 3 car EMU for TransPennine electric service. Phase 1 Lot 2, which is the MMU replacement for Class 150, 155, 156, will indeed be delivered from 2031. But neither of these years are for entry into service - they are only indicative timescales for commencement of testing and training.

Replacement of Class 769 will be Phase 1 Lot 3, which is 8 x 4 car BEMU.

 

[Mollman]

To clarify - 2030 is the anticipated delivery for Phase 1 Lot 1, which is 12 x 3 car EMU for TransPennine electric service. Phase 1 Lot 2, which is the MMU replacement for Class 150, 155, 156, will indeed be delivered from 2031. But neither of these years are for entry into service - they are only indicative timescales for commencement of testing and training.

Replacement of Class 769 will be Phase 1 Lot 3, which is 8 x 4 car BEMU.

Sorry if this is going off topic, but surly TransPennine electrification, at least Leeds to York and hopefully Leeds to Huddersfield will be finished before 2030, does that mean those stoppers will still be diesel under new wires or will there be some interim electrics?

 

[GraphitProjekt]

i thought the completion dates were 2036-2040. It's possible Leeds-York might happen earlier than that though

 

[tfw756rider]

The recent Modern Railways article quotes Phase 1 replacing 150, 155 & 156 along with additional units for the TPE services they are taking on with TRU, it's not mentioned but you would hope the 769 will also be replaced. Phase 2 replaces 158, 323 & 333 and Phase 3 would see off the 170's, if they happen, so years away.

Thanks, so in say 2034-ish?

Thanks to others for their replies also.

 

[D365]

Thanks, so in say 2034-ish?

Replacement of Class 170s? Absolutely not. As per the post you are replying to; Phases 2 and 3 will be years away.

 

[tfw756rider]

Thanks, so in say 2034-ish?

Replacement of Class 170s? Absolutely not. As per the post you are replying to; Phases 2 and 3 will be years away.

So even later than that?

 

[HJ10001]

What about that trial involving the former London Northwestern Railway class 350/2 between Manchester Piccadilly and Hadfield/Glossop?

 

[tfw756rider]

What about that trial involving the former London Northwestern Railway class 350/2 between Manchester Piccadilly and Hadfield/Glossop?

Future of the 350/2s

The only potential certain taker for the 350/2s was Northern and it appears they have ruled themselves out. I think the comments by Northern have been misunderstood, they didn't rule themselves out but haven't said they are taking them, which is what any company would say until things are...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[3RDGEN]

Sorry if this is going off topic, but surly TransPennine electrification, at least Leeds to York and hopefully Leeds to Huddersfield will be finished before 2030, does that mean those stoppers will still be diesel under new wires or will there be some interim electrics?

NR's Enhancements Plan has Huddersfield - Leeds due Feb 2030 and Leeds - Church Fenton due April 2030, given the Phase 1 EMU's are expected first it's possible they could be in service late 2030 if all goes well. The DfT procurement spreadsheet had the Northern contract due in the first half of 2026 but from the article it now appears to be late 2026 and may go into 2027 so it will be tight to get the new EMU's in passenger service during 2030.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2025 ==

So even later than that?

No rush to replace the pride of Northern's fleet, the 170/4's can stay for another 10 years easily.