What should Northern's new units be like?

[pokemonsuper9]

Surely the solution is longer trains rather than cramming people in.

Given that most stations in and around Manchester can only fit 4 carriages, lengthening would be very expensive, and the infrastructure is too congested to run more trains, so fitting more people onto the same train is the only way.

 

[stevieinselby]

But surely you'd prefer a seat and not to stand?
It's not a tube train

I would rather stand than sit in discomfort.
Sitting 3-abreast, especially with strangers, is likely to be in discomfort.

They are outer suburban and are more like the SW metro or Southern right?

Last time I checked Hadfield was in Derbyshire and outside of Manchester? Isn't it more like taking a train to Dorking or Cobham?

Manchester Piccadilly to Hadfield is 38 minutes. That's a similar journey time and similar or shorter straight-line distance to plenty of journeys using metro trains, such as Elizabeth Line LLS to Shenfield, Central Line LLS to Epping, Northern Line KXSP to Morden and many other extremities of the Underground, Merseyrail LVC to Southport, and plenty of centre-to-suburb journeys on the Tyne & Wear Metro. The fact that it's across an administrative boundary makes no difference to the passenger experience or expectation.

 

[YorksLad12]

The above discussion just reinforces my belief that a "one size fits all" specification is not the way to go. Though that does depend on what services the new units will actually be used on. Whilst we know they'll "replace" the legacy DMUs, this may not be a direct like-for-like replacement- it could trigger an internal cascade, at least initially. The 150s will go but may be replaced by 158s, 170s or 195s, or a mixture of those types depending on the specific requirements or constraints of a particular route. Leeds to Morecambe will want a different sort of unit compared to the mid-Cheshire line or the Calder Valley.

I take that point. There are 'pure' commuter routes, and there are semi-fast (we can't call them "express"!) routes. Do they all need the doors in the same place? But then, how do you handle stock availability? One size fits all might be the better way.

Would it be possible to modify the existing 195s to match the gangwayed units? My understanding was that it wasn't that the position had changed as such, just that the gangways meant rotating the couplers 180⁰. It reminds me a little of the situation between 15x and 16x units, which would be able to work in multiple had NSE not been worried about Provincial "borrowing" their units, and thus specified them with the electrical connection part of the couplers configured differently.

Disclaimer, I have no idea if that's actually true or simply a "railway myth". I'd have thought that if it was a simple fix it would make sense to rectify so that the units now operating in Bristol and Devon could all work in multiple with each other.

Honestly - no idea! I was surprised to see in Wiki that the class 196 and 197 sets only allow multiple working "within class", even though they look the same to me.

Interestingly, the 197s replaced classes 150, 153 and 158 in Wales, which is similar to Northern's list.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Honestly - no idea! I was surprised to see in Wiki that the class 196 and 197 sets only allow multiple working "within class", even though they look the same to me.

I wonder if that's down to software differences, or even something like differently specified passenger information systems? Things were obviously much simpler back in the 1980s!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd agree one size fits all is probably best avoided. Barrow and Windermere really need an intercity like seat layout and lots of luggage space while east Manchester locals need a more 730 like setup with standing and accessibility prioritised.

The 195s are a surprisingly good compromise for both purposes, that said.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd agree one size fits all is probably best avoided. Barrow and Windermere really need an intercity like seat layout and lots of luggage space while east Manchester locals need a more 730 like setup with standing and accessibility prioritised.

The 195s are a surprisingly good compromise for both purposes, that said.

The 331s aren't though. I'm sure people enjoy the tables up Airedale off-peak, but they're terrible when it gets busy. The units they replaced were far better at swallowing the crowds, even allowing for most bays of 6 only comfortably fitting 5.

 

[Russel]

The 195s are a surprisingly good compromise for both purposes, that said.

I've always found the 195s to be quite a decent unit, though I've never been on one that has been full and standing.

I'd go as far as saying that in an ideal world, I'd like to see XC get some in 4 car formation for the 170 routes!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 331s aren't though.

They're exactly the same.

I'm sure people enjoy the tables up Airedale off-peak, but they're terrible when it gets busy. The units they replaced were far better at swallowing the crowds, even allowing for most bays of 6 only comfortably fitting 5.

In standee terms I don't agree. It's much easier to move through a crowded 195/331 and to stand in one due to the standback arrangement than it is a Class 319/320/321 (forget which it was). It might be easier to get in and out of the bays if they didn't have tables and maybe the seats were a little narrower, but overall the layout works fairly well as a compromise hybrid.

3+2 is largely dead because once the seats are all taken adding more people really doesn't work well at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2025 ==

Do many people move up and down the crowded train once boarded?

In my experience almost not at all on 350s but a lot do on 730s. That does show that the much more open layout encourages people to walk down the train because it is much easier to do so. People do on 195s too, so this open-gangway layout should absolutely be a requirement for all the units, even if different seating layouts are used for the urban commuter units compared to those doing stuff like Barrow/Windermere.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

3+2 is largely dead because once the seats are all taken adding more people really doesn't work well at all

Even on 2+2 people start standing once it's half full to avoid sitting next to anyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even on 2+2 people start standing once it's half full to avoid sitting next to anyone.

This does happen, but unlike 3+2 it's still easily possible to move through the train when all seats are taken. Try moving down the corridor of a 720 when all seats are taken and the person in the aisle has only one cheek on the seat because they are so narrow. That's why 3+2 is bad even if 2+2 results in more standees.

3+2 can be OK when occupancy is three across, but that's not a good way to design a train because you're designing something for well below maximum occupancy.

One thing I'm very firm in my view on is that there should never, ever be another UK train built with 3+2 seating (and that at refurbishment the third seat should be removed from existing ones like the 720, at least in the centre section, as Merseyrail did a long time ago now - mid 80s I think that was done). It's just inferior to the 700/730 like narrow 2+2 arrangement for busy trains, and for less busy or longer distance ones conventional 2+2 with tables and armrests is better.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They're exactly the same.

Yes I know- but the use cases are different. That's exactly why they should have had differently specced interiors.

I agree with your stance on 3+2 seating, but the 331s with their "regional express" interior are not ideal for their use on all-stops commuter services.

 

[RailWonderer]

One thing I'm very firm in my view on is that there should never, ever be another UK train built with 3+2 seating (and that at refurbishment the third seat should be removed from existing ones like the 720, at least in the centre section, as Merseyrail did a long time ago now - mid 80s I think that was done). It's just inferior to the 700/730 like narrow 2+2 arrangement for busy trains, and for less busy or longer distance ones conventional 2+2 with tables and armrests is better.

I use the 720s in the peaks sometimes and the third seat is well used - it gives smaller people (almost always women, rarely men) an option not to stand. People don't always like to stand and even if I half hang off an end seat it's easier for me to read or use my phone than it is when standing. I prefer 2+2 of course (who woudn't?) but 2+2 would be unpopular on GA I'm sure. If we see 3+2 again depends on the spec chosen following passenger feedback and/or DfT directives. The 720s needed a certain number of seats per coach when ordered.

 

[Dspatula]

Have you drawn those up yourself or is it a spec that stadler offer

Drawn up myself, but it's based off the plan in the broacher for the class 755 on Stadler's website.

 

[biggerisbetter]

I'd agree one size fits all is probably best avoided. Barrow and Windermere really need an intercity like seat layout and lots of luggage space while east Manchester locals need a more 730 like setup with standing and accessibility prioritised.

The 195s are a surprisingly good compromise for both purposes, that said.

I think this could be solved in part by combining Northern and Transpennine in a post GBR world. This could allow better allocation of units to services with an expansion of ‘Intercity’ services without introducing microfleets. With for example a Barrow service served from a common pool of 802s based in Manchester serving other ex-TPE routes.

Hopefully the new Northern units are ordered with any potential future TOC/division/region in mind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this could be solved in part by combining Northern and Transpennine in a post GBR world. This could allow better allocation of units to services with an expansion of ‘Intercity’ services without introducing microfleets. With for example a Barrow service served from a common pool of 802s based in Manchester serving other ex-TPE routes.

True, Barrow/Windermere have been TPE before and could be again.

 

[Meerkat]

I think this could be solved in part by combining Northern and Transpennine in a post GBR world. This could allow better allocation of units to services with an expansion of ‘Intercity’ services without introducing microfleets. With for example a Barrow service served from a common pool of 802s based in Manchester serving other ex-TPE routes.

Hopefully the new Northern units are ordered with any potential future TOC/division/region in mind.

Or TPE takes the services that were to be Connect ones with regional style trains, and Northern serves the Mayors with inner commuter stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or TPE takes the services that were to be Connect ones with regional style trains, and Northern serves the Mayors with inner commuter stock.

Or you recast the service somewhat, and InterCity runs the true long distance stuff (e.g. a 2tph Liverpool-Manchester-Hudds-Leeds-York-Darlington-Durham-Newcastle, and the Manchester Airport to Scotland which now very much is a true long distance service) with long 80x formations, and "Regional Railways" runs the regional stuff as regional stuff. There's not really much conceptual difference between the former NorthWest Express services to Barrow/Windermere and the Cleethorpes TPE, for one example - the different branding had more to do with BR (like most European railways) applying branding to service concepts, and the use of 156s on those services wouldn't quite fit the TPE/Alphaline service propositions.

 

[Blackpool boy]

who then runs the blackpool - york servies which are nearly a 3 hour journey?

 

[Bletchleyite]

who then runs the blackpool - york servies which are nearly a 3 hour journey?

These are like the Liverpool to Norwich - they're long regional services with most people not making the end to end journey but rather operated like that because it's convenient operationally and offers lots of potential for overlapping local trips. They aren't intercity services just because they operate over a long distance any more than Leeds-Settle-Carlisle or the Cumbrian Coast is an intercity service.

So they would be operated by Northern using regional-style stock as now.

Of course because of how the service works you're going to get odd uses of unsuitable stock for something if you do this. For instance the Windermere-Oxenholme locals don't merit a separate 2-car 195 being left up there while the IC goes there and back - you might as well have the IC unit do the shuttle before it heads back south as well, as I believe has been the case for the entire time a through service has operated on the branch. But you get that elsewhere, e.g. some trips on the perhaps-comparable Berchtesgaden-Freilassing branch are done with an InterCity set that originates from/goes to Hamburg.

 

[Blackpool boy]

I think you would be quite surprised just how many of us do use these services end to end

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you would be quite surprised just how many of us do use these services end to end

Some people will, which is one reason why it's good to create those services rather than having it as separate Blackpool-Burnley, Burnley-Bradford and Bradford-York services (say), but it doesn't make it any more an intercity type service because it's not, it's a long distance regional stopping service like the other examples I mentioned.

 

[biggerisbetter]

Or you recast the service somewhat, and InterCity runs the true long distance stuff (e.g. a 2tph Liverpool-Manchester-Hudds-Leeds-York-Darlington-Durham-Newcastle, and the Manchester Airport to Scotland which now very much is a true long distance service) with long 80x formations, and "Regional Railways" runs the regional stuff as regional stuff. There's not really much conceptual difference between the former NorthWest Express services to Barrow/Windermere and the Cleethorpes TPE, for one example - the different branding had more to do with BR (like most European railways) applying branding to service concepts, and the use of 156s on those services wouldn't quite fit the TPE/Alphaline service propositions.

Perhaps one for another thread but I have often wondered what the benefit of having a separate 'Intercity' TOC/Sector/Division is? Would it not be better for GBR Intercity branded services to be operated by regional divisions or sectors? I would transfer the Manchester Airport to Scotland services to a West Coast Sector/Division though rather than being run by the new, larger 'Northern'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps one for another thread but I have often wondered what the benefit of having a separate 'Intercity' TOC/Sector/Division is? Would it not be better for GBR Intercity branded services to be operated by regional divisions or sectors? I would transfer the Manchester Airport to Scotland services to a West Coast Sector/Division though rather than being run by the new, larger 'Northern'.

There is such a thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rail-nationalisation-look-like.280730/page-2 - might want to post that there?