Northern Unit Refurbishments and depot allocations.

[tamesidedepot]

Latest changes are underlined.

Units in red are in the Northern Rail livery or their former operator's livery.
Units in blue are in the Northern or Northern base livery.
Units in bold are refurbished.
Units with a ^ are out of service for repaint/refurbishment/PRM mods.
Units with a * have received PRM modifications.
Units with a $ are currently stored/out of service.
Units in italics have not arrived yet.

Class 150s
150101, 150102^, 150103, 150104, 150105, 150106, 150107, 150108$, 150109, 150110, 150111, 150112, 150113^, 150114, 150115, 150116^, 150117, 150118, 150119, 150120$, 150121, 150122, 150123, 150124*, 150125, 150126*, 150127, 150128$, 150129$, 150130, 150131, 150132, 150133, 150134*, 150135, 150136*, 150137*, 150138, 150139, 150140*, 150141, 150142*, 150143, 150144^, 150145, 150146, 150147, 150148, 150149*, 150150.



If anyone sees any mistakes or has any additional information, please let me know.

150129 was on the 1602 Manchester Victoria - Clitheroe today (2N55) (8/3/18)

 

[507021]

150129 was on the 1602 Manchester Victoria - Clitheroe today (2N55) (8/3/18)

Thanks, I'll update the list.

 

[PHILIPE]

Move from GWR to Northern land booked this Saturday, another route after Birmingham area via Derby and Hope Valley previous runs via Crewe/Warrington Bank Quay and from Crewe via Stockport.. Should be 150121 postponed from last week and possibly 104 and 106

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K55583/2018/03/10/advanced

 

[IanXC]

Are 158s going to Newcastle before the next timetable change or do you mean at some point in the future when the Pacers start getting withdrawn?

I've not seen any reports of a 158 heading North for training so I guess it must be later?

As should 158782, still with ScotRail as far as I'm aware.

Indeed, only 158870 and 158871 have arrived so far as far as I have seen.

We also know some Yorkshire Pacer routes will get 150s instead and others will be lucky and get 195s (Sheffield to Lincoln and Sheffield to Leeds) so Heaton won't need to send 156s down to run those services in the same way they currently send 142s down.

Your Sheffield to Leeds routes have gone a bit wonky there! Currently there is a Leeds-Nottingham, Leeds-Sheffield express and the various stoppers. The Leeds-Nottingham is already typically formed of 158s, as is the Leeds-Sheffield express. The various local stoppers granted are usually formed of 142s, 144s or 150s, but other than the Sheffield-Lincoln element being joined to the Leeds-Sheffield express, the 195s will only work routes currently operated by 158s according to the franchise benefits map (remember that!).

 

[TEW]

It wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to take some of the seats being replaced in the 158s (the original ones rather than the horrid ex-Central Trains/W&W Alphaline ones that some of Northern's fleet has) and put them in the 155s with the loss of a pair on either side of each car.

Yes it would! Been done before with Wales & West 153s. They got the seats out of their 158s when they were refurbished, and they were widely regarded as awful. The 158 seats were far too low and you couldn't see out the windows.

 

[northwichcat]

Your Sheffield to Leeds routes have gone a bit wonky there! Currently there is a Leeds-Nottingham, Leeds-Sheffield express and the various stoppers. The Leeds-Nottingham is already typically formed of 158s, as is the Leeds-Sheffield express. The various local stoppers granted are usually formed of 142s, 144s or 150s, but other than the Sheffield-Lincoln element being joined to the Leeds-Sheffield express, the 195s will only work routes currently operated by 158s according to the franchise benefits map (remember that!).

I haven't been in Yorkshire for a while but last time I was there was a 144 on a semi-fast diagram.

While what you say about the Lincoln service being semi-fast is probably correct, your source doesn't actually confirm it.

Lincoln-Sheffield will become part of the Northern Connect network, operated by new trains, with a minimum of 10 trains per day in each direction running through to Meadowhall, Barnsley, Wakefield and Leeds

http://maps.dft.gov.uk/northern/index.html

It doesn't say 'only calling at' or give a maximum journey time for Leeds-Sheffield. In another section it also talks about giving Elsecar twice as many services to Leeds as currently.

 

[northwichcat]

Allerton will gain more EMUs as Liverpool - Blackpool services will go electric, although admittedly that won't replace all 28 of the 156's reported as currently being there.

Northern do plan to use trains with 23m carriages on various non-Connect North West routes and a lot more doubled up as indicated by the request to Network Rail for platform lengthening. The fact that their home is Allerton doesn't mean they are mainly used on Merseyside routes, many trains don't return to their 'home' every night.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes it would! Been done before with Wales & West 153s. They got the seats out of their 158s when they were refurbished, and they were widely regarded as awful. The 158 seats were far too low and you couldn't see out the windows.

There isn't a huge difference in the height of the seat bases between 155s and 158s. The issue is that the cushions get compressed over time, but the refurbished original seats fitted to the first two or so 158s as an interim would be fine in the 155s providing that the pitch was adequate.

Failing that, perhaps staffed Northern stations could offer a booster seat rental service?

 

[driver_m]

Northern do plan to use trains with 23m carriages on various non-Connect North West routes and a lot more doubled up as indicated by the request to Network Rail for platform lengthening. The fact that their home is Allerton doesn't mean they are mainly used on Merseyside routes, many trains don't return to their 'home' every night.

I think everyone probably knows this already that trains dont routinely go back to their home depot. I'd respectfully say that you are trying to come across as an authority on all things to do with Northern's stock and service and it might be helpful to just stop telling us on every other post what Northern are going to do with their trains. Lets just wait and see! Plans do change.

 

[TEW]

There isn't a huge difference in the height of the seat bases between 155s and 158s. The issue is that the cushions get compressed over time, but the refurbished original seats fitted to the first two or so 158s as an interim would be fine in the 155s providing that the pitch was adequate.

Failing that, perhaps staffed Northern stations could offer a booster seat rental service?

Did you ever travel in one of the Wales & West refurbished 153s? It just didn't work at all. I haven't come across anyone who thought it did.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Did you ever travel in one of the Wales & West refurbished 153s? It just didn't work at all. I haven't come across anyone who thought it did.

I didn't, but if the cushions hadn't been replaced on them since 1992 I don't doubt that they'd have been compressed so much that any carbon atoms in the padding would now be diamonds! The seats they were replaced with in the 158s were also terrible though.
The first 2 158s that were part-refurbished for the current Northern had the original seats but with excellent new cushions (maybe a little firm for some, but they will soften up over time), they were what I'd had in mind for the 155s, as they aren't staying in the 158s. At first I was disappointed that the (ex-Trans-Pennine) centre-cars were no longer a sort of "stealth first-class" but the new cushions actually brought the whole unit up to that standard.

 

[northwichcat]

I think everyone probably knows this already that trains dont routinely go back to their home depot. I'd respectfully say that you are trying to come across as an authority on all things to do with Northern's stock and service and it might be helpful to just stop telling us on every other post what Northern are going to do with their trains. Lets just wait and see! Plans do change.

Given what a couple of different posters (with fairly low post counts) have said in this thread I don't think what seems like the obvious to you is obvious to everyone. I'm not the one posting pure speculation, like the suggestion that Allerton losing it's 156s means they are all going to Heaton and I'm providing information that has been made public such as the plans to use 4 x 23m car formations in the North West or plans for Northern Connect standard 158s to be used in the North East. If you don't want to discuss things that may change then presumably you don't want to discuss anything in relation to the proposed 769s.

 

[capital12]

Having seen 158871 still in ScotRail livery in Sheffield yesterday, alongside a new Northern brown liveried 150 - I can’t help but think/wish Northern had gone for a similar livery!

With the white dots at the ends removed the remaining livery would go quite well with the new seat covering!

 

[TEW]

I didn't, but if the cushions hadn't been replaced on them since 1992 I don't doubt that they'd have been compressed so much that any carbon atoms in the padding would now be diamonds! The seats they were replaced with in the 158s were also terrible though.
The first 2 158s that were part-refurbished for the current Northern had the original seats but with excellent new cushions (maybe a little firm for some, but they will soften up over time), they were what I'd had in mind for the 155s, as they aren't staying in the 158s. At first I was disappointed that the (ex-Trans-Pennine) centre-cars were no longer a sort of "stealth first-class" but the new cushions actually brought the whole unit up to that standard.

I'm not sure if the cushions were replaced or not, but they were certainly not the only problem. I am also a fan of the Chapman seats that were put in the 158s instead, and have been fitted to many 15x fleets across the network. The problem with the 153s and 155s is not the seats as far as I am concerned, there are just too many rows of seats squeezed in.

 

[M1544]

Things seem somewhat inconsistent and does that mean that not all 156's will get new seats?

Looks like 156420 has the same
existing Chapman seats, not ironing boards, but with new seat covers.
They haven’t even painted the seats backs black or put yellow grabhandles on the seat tops, still blue.
So very inconsistent to other refurbs.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm not sure if the cushions were replaced or not, but they were certainly not the only problem. I am also a fan of the Chapman seats that were put in the 158s instead, and have been fitted to many 15x fleets across the network. The problem with the 153s and 155s is not the seats as far as I am concerned, there are just too many rows of seats squeezed in.

That just shows that seat preferences are largely subjective, because I always sigh if the 158 that turns up is one of the ones with those seats! (Note to self: those horrible seats are Chapmans, try to remember that when discussing seating!)

I totally agree that the main problem with the seats on Leyland super-sprinters is the spacing. Problem is that it isn't usually politically expedient to reduce seating numbers more than is required for 2020-compliance, even though reducing 3+2 to 2+2 is generally popular with travellers. I'd rather the 150s went 2+2, even if it was just the centre-cars in the 3-car units.

 

[Chester1]

Looks like 156420 has the same
existing Chapman seats, not ironing boards, but with new seat covers.
They haven’t even painted the seats backs black or put yellow grabhandles on the seat tops, still blue.
So very inconsistent to other refurbs.

Some people don't like bright yellow grab handles and prefer ones matching the seats. They can't please everyone.

That just shows that seat preferences are largely subjective, because I always sigh if the 158 that turns up is one of the ones with those seats! (Note to self: those horrible seats are Chapmans, try to remember that when discussing seating!)

I totally agree that the main problem with the seats on Leyland super-sprinters is the spacing. Problem is that it isn't usually politically expedient to reduce seating numbers more than is required for 2020-compliance, even though reducing 3+2 to 2+2 is generally popular with travellers. I'd rather the 150s went 2+2, even if it was just the centre-cars in the 3-car units.

I agree, seats are a lose-lose issue for ToCs, perhaps with the exception of replacing pacer bus seats or 700 seats. I think cushions have been replaced on some Northern units but people have complained they are too hard and slightly reduce leg room because the orginals have been compressed by long use. Unless seats are unpopular or in a bad state its just not worth the hassle of doing more than replacing the covers.

If they chose 2+2 they would be ironing board seats like the e-pacer prototype refurb. There isn't enough legroom on 150s for slightly taller than average men and they would be under pressure to limit seat losses making ironing boards the only option. Its lose-lose.

 

[driver_m]

Given what a couple of different posters (with fairly low post counts) have said in this thread I don't think what seems like the obvious to you is obvious to everyone. I'm not the one posting pure speculation, like the suggestion that Allerton losing it's 156s means they are all going to Heaton and I'm providing information that has been made public such as the plans to use 4 x 23m car formations in the North West or plans for Northern Connect standard 158s to be used in the North East. If you don't want to discuss things that may change then presumably you don't want to discuss anything in relation to the proposed 769s.

769’s? My only opinion on them is that they’ll not work as hoped and probably end up scrapped still as 319s. Its endlessly repetitive though on here, like the chair wibble on here. It’s boring when you read about for the 30th time that such a train is getting such a seat. Who cares as long as it isn’t wet and caked in crap from some selfish numpty putting their feet on them. I just want to read and see actual progress.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Some people don't like bright yellow grab handles and prefer ones matching the seats. They can't please everyone.

I agree, seats are a lose-lose issue for ToCs, perhaps with the exception of replacing pacer bus seats or 700 seats. I think cushions have been replaced on some Northern units but people have complained they are too hard and slightly reduce leg room because the orginals have been compressed by long use. Unless seats are unpopular or in a bad state its just not worth the hassle of doing more than replacing the covers.

If they chose 2+2 they would be ironing board seats like the e-pacer prototype refurb. There isn't enough legroom on 150s for slightly taller than average men and they would be under pressure to limit seat losses making ironing boards the only option. Its lose-lose.

People often moan about leg-room on the standard 144s, including me. However I'm on one right now and if I adopt a good posture (which I seldom do, but should) I have about 2.5" of clearance from the indenture on the back of the seat in front, which is fine, just. Though I'm 5'8" so anyone taller would probably find them a bit uncomfortable. As much as people dislike the ironing boards, they're fine on 144012 and can be provided with thicker cushions if needed. My main criticism of them is the bolt-upright angle of the backrests.

 

[northwichcat]

People often moan about leg-room on the standard 144s, including me. However I'm on one right now and if I adopt a good posture (which I seldom do, but should) I have about 2.5" of clearance from the indenture on the back of the seat in front, which is fine, just. Though I'm 5'8" so anyone taller would probably find them a bit uncomfortable. As much as people dislike the ironing boards, they're fine on 144012 and can be provided with thicker cushions if needed. My main criticism of them is the bolt-upright angle of the backrests.

I've never had an issue with leg room on the 144s, it's not ample but it's OK for a short journey. The same can't be said about certain 142s or the ex-ATN 156s. With the 155s I've found the leg room is inconsistent, so if the train has very few passengers when you board and you find the seating cramped, my suggestion would try sitting somewhere else.

 

[Chester1]

People often moan about leg-room on the standard 144s, including me. However I'm on one right now and if I adopt a good posture (which I seldom do, but should) I have about 2.5" of clearance from the indenture on the back of the seat in front, which is fine, just. Though I'm 5'8" so anyone taller would probably find them a bit uncomfortable. As much as people dislike the ironing boards, they're fine on 144012 and can be provided with thicker cushions if needed. My main criticism of them is the bolt-upright angle of the backrests.

The average british man is 5"9/10 and that will only rise. For the IET and Thameslink the DfT specified sufficient legroom for 95% of men which is apparently 6"1 or below. It is a reasonable standard for seat replacements too.

 

[superkev]

The average british man is 5"9/10 and that will only rise. For the IET and Thameslink the DfT specified sufficient legroom for 95% of men which is apparently 6"1 or below. It is a reasonable standard for seat replacements too.

I think they have got it wrong to go on height .I've met some short people with long legs as well as tall people with short legs. Inside leg or thigh length measurement perhaps
K

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I've never had an issue with leg room on the 144s, it's not ample but it's OK for a short journey. The same can't be said about certain 142s or the ex-ATN 156s. With the 155s I've found the leg room is inconsistent, so if the train has very few passengers when you board and you find the seating cramped, my suggestion would try sitting somewhere else.

I agree with this post, in particular the bit I've bolded. The airline legroom on the 144s (which are of course not long for this world) should be the minimum standard (though ideally with an extra inch (and I'm being conservative there), for the lanky mutants who always seem to be directly in front of me at concerts! ) For journeys of around maximum 80 minutes.

Earlier today I had 144017 from Huddersfield to Batley: a journey of 22 minutes*. The overall journey time for that service is 40 minutes* so I have no problem with that level of legroom (preferably +1" minimum as mentioned above) for services of that nature. The 144s are also the dominant traction on Huddersfield to Sheffield: a journey of 78 minutes**. I do hope that the 3-car 150s which are the future of that service will provide adequate leg room as suggested above, though I don't expect that they will.

*= timings given are for the 2001 departure. Timings for the service I used (the 1501) may differ slightly.
**= timing taken from the 1918 departure. Future services will call additionally at Elsecar so will presumably hit the 80 minute mark.
All timings from National Rail Enquiries.

The average british man is 5"9/10 and that will only rise. For the IET and Thameslink the DfT specified sufficient legroom for 95% of men which is apparently 6"1 or below. It is a reasonable standard for seat replacements too.

What do the DfT define as "sufficient" though? One inch of clearance between knee and seat in front? More than that? I'd hope for at least two inches for the 95% they consider worthy***... though again I don't expect it.

***= For those isolated projects. If there isn't already there should be an overall nationwide standard set for the space allocated for passengers whether seated or standing. Though with variations for length and type of service.

I think they have got it wrong to go on height .I've met some short people with long legs as well as tall people with short legs. Inside leg or thigh length measurement perhaps
K

I am one of those short-a***s with slightly disproportionate long legs, which perhaps explains my conservatism with estimates above. I guess even a well-run DfT would be limited in the variations of shapes and sizes of people they can consider when setting standards. Though flawed as you suggest, using height as the basis is probably the most sensible metric. Inside-leg or thigh measurement might be a better figure to use but I'd guess that accurate data is harder to come by!

 

[507021]

As 170476/7 are now with Northern, I have added these to the list. I'll add any further updates to the next list.

As ever, thank you to everyone who has provided updates.

 

[1D53]

170477 has already gone to Crewe for Refurb.

 

[1D53]

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K55583/2018/03/10/advanced - 150104/106 coming North today.

 

[jonesy3001]

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K55583/2018/03/10/advanced - 150104/106 coming North today.

and 121.

 

[NORMAN471]

Latest changes are underlined.

Units in red are in the Northern Rail livery or their former operator's livery.
Units in blue are in the Northern or Northern base livery.
Units in bold are refurbished.
Units with a ^ are out of service for repaint/refurbishment/PRM mods.
Units with a * have received PRM modifications.
Units with a $ are currently stored/out of service.
Units in italics have not arrived yet.

Class 150s
150101, 150102^, 150103, 150104, 150105, 150106, 150107, 150108$, 150109, 150110, 150111, 150112, 150113^, 150114, 150115, 150116^, 150117, 150118, 150119, 150120$, 150121, 150122, 150123, 150124*, 150125, 150126*, 150127, 150128$, 150129, 150130, 150131, 150132, 150133, 150134*, 150135, 150136*, 150137*, 150138, 150139, 150140*, 150141, 150142*, 150143, 150144^, 150145, 150146, 150147, 150148, 150149*, 150150.

150201, 150203*, 150204*, 150205*, 150206*, 150207, 150210, 150211*, 150214, 150215, 150218, 150220*, 150222*, 150223*, 150224, 150225, 150226, 150228, 150268, 150269, 150270^, 150271, 150272, 150273, 150274*, 150275*, 150276*, 150277.

Class 155s
155341, 155342, 155343, 155344, 155345*, 155346*, 155347^.

Class 156s
156420*$, 156421, 156423, 156424, 156425, 156426, 156427, 156428, 156429, 156438*, 156440, 156441, 156443*, 156444*, 156448*, 156451*, 156452^, 156454*, 156455, 156459, 156460, 156461, 156463*, 156464, 156466, 156468, 156469*, 156471*, 156472*, 156475^, 156479*, 156480, 156481*, 156482*, 156483*, 156484*, 156486*, 156487*, 156488*, 156489*, 156490*, 156491*, 1564??, 1564??, 1564??, 1564??, 1564??.

Class 158s
158752*, 158753*, 158754*, 158755*, 158756*, 158757*, 158758^, 158759.

158782*, 158784, 158786*, 158787, 158789*, 158790, 158791, 158792, 158793, 158794, 158795, 158796, 158797, 158815, 158816, 158817, 158842, 158843, 158844, 158845*^, 158848*, 158849*, 158850*, 158851, 158853, 158855^, 158859*, 158860*, 158861, 158867*, 158868*, 158869*, 158870*, 158871*, 158872.

158901, 158902, 158903, 158904, 158905, 158906, 158907, 158908, 158909, 158910.

Note: 158906 is fitted with WiFi, charging points and a PIS in one carriage.

Class 170s
170453*, 170454*, 170455*, 170456*, 170457*, 170458*, 170459*, 170460*, 170461*, 170472*, 170473*, 170474*, 170475*$, 170476*$, 170477*$, 170478*$.

Class 319s (All are now PRM compliant)
319361*, 319362*, 319363*, 319364*, 319365*, 319366*, 319367*, 319368*, 319369*, 319370*, 319371*, 319374*, 319375*, 319376*, 319377*, 319378*, 319379*, 319380*, 319381*$, 319382*, 319383*, 319384*, 319385*, 319386*.

319424*, 319431*^, 319434*^, 319442*, 319448*, 319450*, 319456*^, 319458*$.

Class 333s
333001*, 333002*, 333003*, 333004*, 333005*, 333006*, 333007*, 333008*, 333009*, 333010*, 333011*, 333012*, 333013*, 333014*, 333015*, 333016*.

Class 769s (Undergoing conversion)
769424*, 769431*, 769434*, 769442*, 769448*, 769450*, 769456*, 769458*, 7694??, 7694??, 7694??.

If anyone sees any mistakes or has any additional information, please let me know.

150120, 128 and 129 have been photographed working around Preston and Manchester by Steven Taylor on Flickr last Monday 5th March.

150120 - 08.38 Preston - York
150128 - 18.14 Manchester Piccadilly to New Mills Central with 142062
150129 - 10.14 Sheffield - Man Picc

 

[Chester1]

What do the DfT define as "sufficient" though? One inch of clearance between knee and seat in front? More than that? I'd hope for at least two inches for the 95% they consider worthy***... though again I don't expect it.

***= For those isolated projects. If there isn't already there should be an overall nationwide standard set for the space allocated for passengers whether seated or standing. Though with variations for length and type of service.

I don't know how they judge what is sufficient for someone of 6"1 but I remember reading "95th percentile males" and that was 6"1. I agree comfort for taller people could be varied but the 153 legroom were my knees are forced against the seat in front is unacceptable. At 6ft I am not much above the average height for a bloke, especially for my generation.

 

[djpontrack]

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K55583/2018/03/10/advanced - 150104/106 coming North today.

Just gone through Bristol Parkway 158 minutes late. They are already getting into the Northern way of life.