Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
This order ideally needs to be gangwayed stock as standard, for both the electric and diesel units. Plus also, they need to be a design already in service on the UK railways - such as the Class 730's or Class 196. No more of this lengthy delayed "testing" of yet more new types of stock that just delay and delay, hold up after hold up of entry into service and being of no benefit to anyone.
I would say the Class 730/0 as is but with the middle coach dropped between the bogies to provide level boarding in that vehicle would be absolutely ideal for most Northern services. The design is incredibly effective both in the West Midlands and on the Euston locals and people generally seem to like them - they are markedly superior to the 777s for instance. The one thing I'd do is add spacers between the pairs of seats as the 700s have, and perhaps a second small toilet.
Perhaps you'd want a "wider seats and armrests" version for the long Barrow/Windermere runs, but for everything else they'd be great.
I'm hoping for something similar to the 755s, with 3/4/5-car variants- hopefully with room for some variation in interior specification for different service groups rather than the "one size fits all" fudge we got with the 195s & 331s.
The Northern route I'm most familiar with is the Huddersfield to Sheffield service, which mostly uses 3-car 150s currently. Platforms on this line have been extended in recent years to accommodate the 150/0s and I'd expect that any requirement for further extensions would not be viewed favourably by Network Rail or the Department for Transport, at least not for a good while. A quick look at the Wikipedia page for the 755s tells me that the /3s are 65m long, which when allowing for the power pack is somewhat similar to a 3-car 150. This does not allow much room for growth however, without another round of platform extensions. It's not a route that's likely to be a priority for wiring, so some sort of self-powering capability (presumably batteries) will be required.
I'm not overly keen on the idea of units with a mixed floor height between vehicles, though I accept that such a compromise might be the least-worst way of achieving some degree of level boarding. My concern with such a solution (leaving aside aesthetics for now) is that by having different floor heights between vehicles, there's a risk that in making one section of the train truly accessible to those using wheeled mobility aids, it could make the rest of the train less accessible for those with other disabilities.
They're great trains but the limited seated capacity holds them back; 231/755/756s all have fewer seats than a double 150, even in GWR's 2+2 seated layout.
Agreed - I think metro trains (e.g., class 555) should have a fully flat floor throughout, but I think having a low floor in just the section with the disabled spot and toilet on Northern is satisfactory.
I would say the Class 730/0 as is but with the middle coach dropped between the bogies to provide level boarding in that vehicle would be absolutely ideal for most Northern services. The design is incredibly effective both in the West Midlands and on the Euston locals and people generally seem to like them - they are markedly superior to the 777s for instance. The one thing I'd do is add spacers between the pairs of seats as the 700s have, and perhaps a second small toilet.
Perhaps you'd want a "wider seats and armrests" version for the long Barrow/Windermere runs, but for everything else they'd be great.
They're great trains but the limited seated capacity holds them back; 231/755/756s all have fewer seats than a double 150, even in GWR's 2+2 seated layout.
There is a difference between published seating capacity and real-world capacity though. The official number of seats on a Northern 150 is a bit of a false figure given the lack of legroom in many seats and the 3+2 layout. When I looked up the figures for the 755s I noticed a large number of tip-up seats, so presumably there's some degree of flexibility on layout?
Class 756 trimode units in formations of 3 or 4 cars long would make sense for longer off the wire routes.
For shorter off the wire routes would seem suitable for using just a battery bi mode version of the Stadler flirt. It might make sense to just make the whole fleet trip mode for additional flexibility in deployment through?
Transpennine want ‘Intercity’ style trains with features similar to the Nova fleet whereas Northern are ordering ‘metro’ style trains for frequent stopping services
I doubt they're fixated on end doors, not least because a low floor unit can't have end doors because end doors are above the bogies.
WMT demonstrates how the same platform can offer two styles of unit, with the 730/0s being metro-style with narrow seats, easy access and lots of standing space, while the 730/2s have a more long distance like layout with wider seats with armrests and First Class (albeit 2+2, though that's hardly difficult to change).
TPE is a hybrid service, carrying a lot of commuters, so I'd argue that as per the 185s a "doors at quarters" unit (allowing a long centre section) but with an intercity-style seating layout is what they need. End doors are very much sub-optimal for cramming in Manchester<->Leeds commuters, just as they are between Paddington and Reading. We also don't know TPE's planned future service pattern under GBR/post-electrification - one could argue for something like 2tph "true IC" fast Liverpool-Newcastle with proper long end-doored EMUs (something like the Avanti 807s) and the rest more like fast commuter services not conceptually much different from Barrow/Windermere.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm hoping for something similar to the 755s, with 3/4/5-car variants- hopefully with room for some variation in interior specification for different service groups rather than the "one size fits all" fudge we got with the 195s & 331s.
The Northern route I'm most familiar with is the Huddersfield to Sheffield service, which mostly uses 3-car 150s currently. Platforms on this line have been extended in recent years to accommodate the 150/0s and I'd expect that any requirement for further extensions would not be viewed favourably by Network Rail or the Department for Transport, at least not for a good while. A quick look at the Wikipedia page for the 755s tells me that the /3s are 65m long, which when allowing for the power pack is somewhat similar to a 3-car 150. This does not allow much room for growth however, without another round of platform extensions. It's not a route that's likely to be a priority for wiring, so some sort of self-powering capability (presumably batteries) will be required.
I'm not overly keen on the idea of units with a mixed floor height between vehicles, though I accept that such a compromise might be the least-worst way of achieving some degree of level boarding. My concern with such a solution (leaving aside aesthetics for now) is that by having different floor heights between vehicles, there's a risk that in making one section of the train truly accessible to those using wheeled mobility aids, it could make the rest of the train less accessible for those with other disabilities.
There is a difference between published seating capacity and real-world capacity though. The official number of seats on a Northern 150 is a bit of a false figure given the lack of legroom in many seats and the 3+2 layout. When I looked up the figures for the 755s I noticed a large number of tip-up seats, so presumably there's some degree of flexibility on layout?
Much as I'm a fan of Stadler's European products, the more I've used the UK versions of these they just don't strike me as very good - too many compromises. Apart from the 777 which has a custom bodyshell they're narrow and very low (when the floor is at normal height you bang your head on the luggage rack, for instance) and there are lots of awkward steps within the vehicle. The seat cantilevers are oddly positioned and reduce legroom compared to other designs where they are under the seat, and the actual seats (I know you can spec anything you like) are the awful FISA LEAN with a thick back that means poor legroom. They're also overlit, the ride is decidedly variable and the low number of relatively narrow doors tends to result in slow boarding/alighting, plus the emergency windows make the views less good.
I do wonder, though, if part of this is because Stadler's offering is so flexible and thus they require more speccing than an Aventra where the options are basically "what's the top speed/gearing, what colour do you want it and what seats do you want" and TOCs just aren't very good at that speccing? I'd certainly say that of the 777 which is just packed from top to bottom with bizarre and poor design decisions.
I think I'd favour sticking with 24m bodyshells (and to be fair Stadler can do that - the new Scandinavian sleeper FLIRTs are decidedly conventional bogied vehicles on the FLIRT platform) and dropping between the bogies of the middle vehicle (perhaps both of them in the 4-car variant) to provide level boarding, with steps up to above the bogies the other side of the doors*. The wheelchair spaces and accessible toilet should obviously be in this bit. The rest would benefit from a fully flat floor as high floor vehicles do.
The other thing to bear in mind with the Stadlers is the short vehicles. A 3.755 is basically equivalent to a 2-car 24m unit. Thus if you're going for Stadler, the lengths should really be 4 and 6 section or you're either going to lose capacity (or at least have none for potential growth) or have a very cramped seating layout indeed.
* One piece of feedback I've heard on the 777s is that the constantly changing floor height and small ramps confuse people and often cause slips and trips. My Dad for one, now getting on a bit, commented that he prefers the way low floor buses just have a set of obvious steps at the back which you can go up or not depending on how mobile you feel that day rather than random ramps.
The 755s and the 745s are some of the best units on the UK network from a passenger perspective, and I suspect whatever northern get would be a lot closer to those than to the 777s.
Also, I really don't get why people complain about the 777s so much, they're clearly an improvement over the 507/508s from a passenger perspective. Sure, they're not as good as they could have been, but I think that is more an issue with the spec than with the manufacturer, and they're still an improvement.
Are they? I think they're rubbish to be honest. Terrible legroom, badly placed seat supports, massive radiator conduit, limited number of narrow doors, poor headroom in high floor sections and iffy ride (the latter of course being an issue with almost all new stock). They *look* nice but when you actually use them they're just a bit mediocre.
I'm a European Stadler fan but they really haven't scaled down well at all. Which is surprising, as UK loading gauge is very similar to the Swiss narrow gauge lines they cut their teeth on.
People like them because they're better than 150s and 153s, but as per 507/508 that's hardly a high bar. I'd certainly take a 170 over them, and probably a decent Civity (e.g. the 197) too.
Also, I really don't get why people complain about the 777s so much, they're clearly an improvement over the 507/508s from a passenger perspective. Sure, they're not as good as they could have been, but I think that is more an issue with the spec than with the manufacturer, and they're still an improvement.
I think the issue with the UK Stadlers is that TOC staff aren't competent at specifying the larger number of things you have to specify when ordering from Stadler. As I said if you're ordering Aventras the number of options are very limited and so there's not massive scope to get it wrong (though whoever thought 3+2 worked in a 2.7m wide body really doesn't deserve their job - the 720s must be the worst rolling stock currently on the UK rail system).
The 777s are better than 507/508s, yes, but that's hardly difficult - the 507/508 is a superb piece of engineering but like the Mk3 EMUs the passenger cabin was designed by someone who really didn't give a monkey's about passengers, with such lovely features as not one single seat having an acceptable window view. No rolling stock is perfect, but I find both the LU S-stock and the 730/0 vastly, vastly better examples of outersuburban metro rolling stock than the 777 with far fewer serious design flaws. And we really should be aspiring to the best in this kind of area (given that doing it right isn't costly), not the mediocre.
I hope they are not 3 + 2!! If they were, I'd be happy to pay a premium for a first-class 2 + 1 or a smaller premium for 2 + 2 on longer routes; currently they are using (some) 3 + 2's on Manchester Airport to Blackpool run. Horrible!!
Also hope there's space for an on-board catering trolley, would be a nice plus if Northern could introduce them on their longer routes. And finally I'd like the on-board displays to show the speed we are travelling at and possibly, like Thameslink, a display of where the least-used areas are if the length is gonna be 5 or more cars.
I would say the Class 730/0 as is but with the middle coach dropped between the bogies to provide level boarding in that vehicle would be absolutely ideal for most Northern services. The design is incredibly effective both in the West Midlands and on the Euston locals and people generally seem to like them - they are markedly superior to the 777s for instance. The one thing I'd do is add spacers between the pairs of seats as the 700s have, and perhaps a second small toilet.
Perhaps you'd want a "wider seats and armrests" version for the long Barrow/Windermere runs, but for everything else they'd be great.
I wouldn't object to the 730 suggestion, despite the reputation Bombardia/Alstom stock from Derby has, as a regular user of the Cross-city, I've yet to see a 730 fail and they seem to be generally well built...
Obviously it could be totally different behind the scenes!
They're great trains but the limited seated capacity holds them back; 231/755/756s all have fewer seats than a double 150, even in GWR's 2+2 seated layout.
I know it's risky to rely on Wikipedia, but that gives the capacity of a 755.3 as 144 + 23 tip-up, and a 150 has anywhere between 124 and 147 depending on specification. In contrast, a 195.2 has 124 seats on a 2×24m vehicle. With all the changes to the requirements around accessibility and seating over the years, all trains have seen a reduction in seating capacity on vehicles of a similar size.
For me they should have:
An equal proportion of airline & table seats.
Adequate luggage space.
A flat entrance for buggies & wheelchairs & a bicycle space.
USB charging ports at each seat & plug in spaces at tables.
A well padded comfortable seat.
No rolling stock is perfect, but I find both the LU S-stock and the 730/0 vastly, vastly better examples of outersuburban metro rolling stock than the 777 with far fewer serious design flaws.
For me they should have:
An equal proportion of airline & table seats.
Adequate luggage space.
A flat entrance for buggies & wheelchairs & a bicycle space.
USB charging ports at each seat & plug in spaces at tables.
A well padded comfortable seat.
Can't argue with that, though would phrased it as "better" luggage space. I often see people wheeling their suitcase-with-a-body-inside, through the doors, ignoring the spaces near the doors and wheeling them into the cab ends, blocking the driver door or trying to squeeze them into an airline seat. Winds me up somewhat.
Would add in wide doors and standing areas. One of which in each carriage could have a suitcase rack.
I would say the Class 730/0 as is but with the middle coach dropped between the bogies to provide level boarding in that vehicle would be absolutely ideal for most Northern services.
Could you drop one out of three and still have space for engines, batteries and 25kv gubbins?
Presumably the restricted vertical space means the tank under the accessible bog takes up a lot of that coach‘s underfloor.
The south WCML (even the Trings) and Amersham aren't innersuburban locations and nor are the outer reaches of the Cross City. The 730/0 is really a bit of a hybrid. Semantics, though. (I know the 730/0s weren't built for the south WCML but they work on it very well, and have a similar layout to the 700 which definitely isn't an innersuburban unit, jokes about Brighton being Camden-on-Sea aside).
I'd call the London Overground units more of an innersuburban nature.
1. No trains shorter than 3 coaches.
2. 2+2 seating only.
3. Mostly i am content with 331 / 195 style bodywork.
But - at curved stations, e.g. Earlestown (Platform 4), use of doors at 1/3 & 2/3 coach length creates a very wide gap between platform and train**.
Therefore, I would suggest the doors at the outer ends of each unit should be located above the bogies, which ought to reduce the gap between platform & train.
** In my opinion, the gap between platform is potentially unsafe at Earlestown, especially if there was ice on the platform surface.
They have the same number of door leaves as an end-doored unit of a similar length. However what Northern needs isn't end-doored units. They are an operator of regional and regional express services. For this purpose, you want wide doors at thirds or quarters, or Stadler equivalent.
Bad legroom, bad headroom and narrow. So poor on the key things I'm bothered about. I'd take an 80x any day, particularly an Avanti one. They haven't scaled down well to UK loading gauge. And the FISA LEAN seat really is a bad design - its thick back saps legroom and it just isn't that comfortable to me. I'm very glad Northern didn't spec it for the 195/331 in the end, it'd have been impossible for anyone other than a child to fit in the airline seats. I suspect they realised that when they changed their mind in favour of "ironing boards".
Of course because Stadler offers near-infinite customisation Northern could fix all these things, and I hope they do if they decide to go with Stadler.
Somthing from the alstrom adeissa family, it's basically a flirt but biult but a mildly competent manufacturer. I'd hope for 2+2 seating and some with end doors & vestibules some with 1/3 2/3, and a generally nicer interior than the dark colours & packed in seats of the civities
1. No trains shorter than 3 coaches.
2. 2+2 seating only.
3. Mostly i am content with 331 / 195 style bodywork.
But - at curved stations, e.g. Earlestown (Platform 4), use of doors at 1/3 & 2/3 coach length creates a very wide gap between platform and train**.
Therefore, I would suggest the doors at the outer ends of each unit should be located above the bogies, which ought to reduce the gap between platform & train.
** In my opinion, the gap between platform is potentially unsafe at Earlestown, especially if there was ice on the platform surface.
Bad legroom, bad headroom and narrow. So poor on the key things I'm bothered about. I'd take an 80x any day, particularly an Avanti one. They haven't scaled down well to UK loading gauge. And the FISA LEAN seat really is a bad design - its thick back saps legroom and it just isn't that comfortable to me. I'm very glad Northern didn't spec it for the 195/331 in the end, it'd have been impossible for anyone other than a child to fit in the airline seats. I suspect they realised that when they changed their mind in favour of "ironing boards".
Of course because Stadler offers near-infinite customisation Northern could fix all these things, and I hope they do if they decide to go with Stadler.
It's funny how different our experiences are, but the "bad headroom" comment in particular surprises me - I'm 6'4" and I never experienced any headroom issues on a UK FLIRT, unlike on a pendolino where I've hit my head a few times. Of course, clearly not an issue on an 80x either. I quite like the seats on the GA FLIRTs (haven't travelled on the TfW ones, so can't comment), unlike the terrible seats on a GWR 80x. Obviously, seats are something that is easily changed, and northern isn't getting IC units in any case.
For northern, as long as what they pick is level-boarding, and has the option to have the diesel engines removed easily in the future, and there is enough of them to enable passenger growth, I'm mostly happy. Obviously a nice interior would be good.
It's funny how different our experiences are, but the "bad headroom" comment in particular surprises me - I'm 6'4" and I never experienced any headroom issues on a UK FLIRT, unlike on a pendolino where I've hit my head a few times.
Are they? I think they're rubbish to be honest. Terrible legroom, badly placed seat supports, massive radiator conduit, limited number of narrow doors, poor headroom in high floor sections and iffy ride (the latter of course being an issue with almost all new stock). They *look* nice but when you actually use them they're just a bit mediocre.
Somthing from the alstrom adeissa family, it's basically a flirt but biult but a mildly competent manufacturer. I'd hope for 2+2 seating and some with end doors & vestibules some with 1/3 2/3, and a generally nicer interior than the dark colours & packed in seats of the civities
Alstrom's current offering for the GB market is the Aventra, switching to Adeissa would be a dawn out process that if the Aventra's history is anything to go are likely to have many issues during their introduction. As far as I can tell Stadler is just as competent of a manufacturer as others when it comes to the GB market if not more so (I don't recall the UK Flirts having anywhere near as many issues as Alstom Coradias or Aventras.), they are also the only manufacturer that has proven itself capable of building train that are compliant with GB standards for platform height.
Alstrom's current offering for the GB market is the Aventra, switching to Adeissa would be a dawn out process that if the Aventra's history is anything to go are likely to have many issues during their introduction
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
