Am I misreading/mis comparing various stats?
That 300 for the 150x2 is surely assuming 2+3 seating (the Wikipedia entry gives 147 seats for GWR vs. A max of 149 for Northern).
Makes sense.
you're comparing an old unit built to no longer relevant crash standards with 3+2 seating with multiple 2+2 units built to modern crash and accesibility standards - obviously all the 2+2 trains will have a significantly lower density. If you were to replace the 3+2 layout with 2+2 seating at the same pitch you would get ~240 seats (removing 1 out of every 5 seats), which really isn't that big a difference anymore
Is that desirable? all else being equal, a fixed 80 metre train is cheaper than 2 40 metre ones, and has more seats. In my view, Northern has enough short trains with the 195s for the routes that justify it, and the aim should be passenger growth - which requires having the capacity to transport those passengers
If UK manufacture is a requirement stadler is highly unlikely to win - and adding a 5th UK manufacturer doesn't seem like a great idea in the current situation either
it has 3+2 seating, and so do at least some of the northern 150s. Also note that the wikipedia seat number entries are out of date and/or inaccurate. I do not know where you could get accurate numbers short of finding the units and counting (note there's at least a few seating layouts around!)
that may be true, or a mix of 4 and 6 car FLIRTs, or whatever other manufacturers come up with.
That’s the issue if it causes platforming problems compared to the current trains.
Earlier discussion indicated that there wouldn't be platform issues, though. Are you aware of platforming issues that wouldn't fit a 100 to 120 metre train somewhere on the northern network, and if so, where? Remember SDO exists!
Though the GA regionals are growing in popularity so much now that, at times they need longer or more frequent services now!
The 150s will be in a 3+2 formation, while the 75X units will be in a 2+2, but it has more standing room.
| Unit | Cars | Length (m) | Seats | Standing | Total |
| 150 | 2 | 40 | 124 | 80 | 204 |
| 150 | 4 (2x2 car) | 80 | 248 | 160 | 408 |
| 158 | 2 | 45 | 138 | 81 | 219 |
| 158 | 4 (2x2 car) | 90 | 276 | 162 | 438 |
| 756 | 3 | 65 | 142 | 148 | 290 |
| 756 | 4 | 80.7 | 190 | 204 | 394 |
| 756 | 6 (2x3 car) | 130 | 284 | 296 | 580 |
| 756 | 8 (2x4 car) | 161.4 | 380 | 408 | 788 |
Simply put, the UK manufacturers should come up with a level-boarding design each. Every mainland europe manufacturer has level boarding options. If they can't or won't, they shouldn't get anymore orders for passenger stock
Unfortunately, the lack of robust stock interoperability standards makes this extremely difficult.
It really doesn’t, not to the public (And therefore the press). ’yeah but it’s level boarding’ will not out shout ‘killing a factory to buy fewer seats for crowded trains’.
For all units, end carriages have lower capacity than centre carriages, while also being more expensive. Therefore, if you're mostly going to run double sets, it is likely better to just order longer units, so 6-cars instead of 3 cars for example, and use those throughout.The 150s will be in a 3+2 formation, while the 75X units will be in a 2+2, but it has more standing room.
Unit Cars Length (m) Seats Standing Total 150 2 40 124 80 204 150 4 (2x2 car) 80 248 160 408 158 2 45 138 81 219 158 4 (2x2 car) 90 276 162 438 756 3 65 142 148 290 756 4 80.7 190 204 394 756 6 (2x3 car) 130 284 296 580 756 8 (2x4 car) 161.4 380 408 788
If all the 2 and 3 car 15X units were replaced by 3 and 4 car 75X units, then I guess we’d see a lot of 6-car trains operating, because the 15X trains tend to operate as double units.
British Rail Class 756 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I think the person you're replying to was talking about any new trains. I certainly have been.
you may not have noticed, but at GA the FLIRTs are a lot better received - because they are much nicer units. 2+2 seating, easy access, good build quality, etc.
Much nicer than 150s - hardly a surprise.
Who said same priorities? The press know what will play - and closed factory and fewer seats will get attention far far more than level boarding.
I was comparing against the other new fleet at GA - the 720s, which as you know have more seats due to their 2+3 seating and were built in the UK, therefore being preferable by the standards you listed, yet the 755s and 745s are preferred by everyone in the area I know who uses trains. I think any new stock will beat the 150s and similar trains, simply because they are new and shiny.
you did, but that may be because I misinterpreted what you said.
I think a large part of this is that many people don't experience level boarding compared to the high steps - in places where people do, the places without level boarding generate complaints (e.g. the Elizabeth line in london, where the central core offers level boarding but the outer stations have big gaps - this was recently in the press as a major safety issue)
That was a minor deal when the factories were busy, not 450 units over many years (with the bigger factory implications and national attention).
I do agree. End Gangways is a must
Correct me if I'm wrong, But I think Level Boarding would be unworkable without Modernisation works to existing Platforms. Wouldn't the height of the Platforms need to be raised (and Maybe Extended outwards slightly) so they can be inline with the New Trains?
It's already entirely possible to build trains that offer level boarding from a UK standard height platform. Of the platforms on Northern's network, plenty will already meet the standard height, and plenty more will be capable of modification reasonably easily, as has been carried out on Merseyrail and Greater Anglia.
It's the procurement mentioned in the first post that has been discontinued. On the same day as the discontinued notice Northern published a new procurement with broadly similar scope. There's a whole host of potential reasons and anyone close enough to the specific process shouldn't be posting here about it. It's far from uncommon for competitions to be restarted and I don't want to speculate on why.Anyone know why the following has been published, procurement discontinued for 8 year award of new trains to 2032 covering Supply of New Rolling Stock and Maintenance Support Services
Was it a different tender to one now running, and what is happened now with the procurement
New Rolling Stock and Maintenance Support Services [Award]
This Award Notice relates to the previously published notice 2023/S 000-022810. No contract has bee... A Utilities Contract Award Notice by Northern Trains.bidstats.uk
Phase 2 is estimated at 126 units with various options of who they order from:
Existing trains, and existing platforms, come in a multitude of lengths. Rarely do you have a service where the standard train length exactly matches the platform lengths, especially on a diverse network like Northern. So yes, the power pack does take up some platform length, but the chances that that power pack will make the difference between a train fitting and not fitting into the platform is relatively small. On any one route, there might be some stations where 20m carriages would maximise platform availability and others where 24m carriages would.
Yes – that is generally because of less space needed for driving cabs (as a proportion of the total train), and also often proportionally less space given to wheelchair bays, cycle bays and accessible toilets. While there are some advantages in having small units that can operate in multiple, for the most part it is better to have units that are the right size for the services they will be used on.
