Merseyrail new stock

[baldyman26]

I don't understand where the costs relating to the procurement come into it. It's a staggering amount of money. Surely Mersey rail put out their requirements, train companies come back with the options after all, Merseyrail are the customer... Where is the justification to spending millions of pounds that no doubt the tax payers and passengers will be donating.. Forgive my ignorance but I just can't see how its justifiable.

 

[Bevan Price]

The interlocks, I dont mind them, its a practical safety feature. Ive been on pacers before which have been moving while the doors were still open or not fully closed, once I even had my arm stuck in the door when the train set off. I just wish they wernt so noisy!

I find that surprising - the problem I sometimes encounter with 142s is that the train won't start because the doors have not closed properly - a problem usually remedied by use of the conductor's boot.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Dreadful planning; plus the article suggest that they will have spent £4.3M on procurement without any outcome - sounds like jobs for the boys again.

If they went for a generic product, perhaps in common with the Rail North initiatives, there would be more options around feet size and make up.

It is possible they are dragging this out until after the next general election, but I am not sure what that would achieve.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The article is fairly accurate on the back story; a position was created for someone to look at the options for the replacement fleet about two to three years ago. Nothing came of that, but they managed to spend £1.3M on it. Last year, or earlier this year they announced a life extension program to the existing fleet to tide it over, but as yet there is still no outcome from the procurement exercise with the suggestion that expenditure expected to reach £4.3M at end of last financial year. That is an extraordinary rate of burn with nothing to show for it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


IIRC that the work on the platforms was only intended as an interim step, with the RUS indicating that more extensive work would be required in CP6. The latest wish-list mentions possible options for Central station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.

and this post

I don't understand where the costs relating to the procurement come into it. It's a staggering amount of money. Surely Mersey rail put out their requirements, train companies come back with the options after all, Merseyrail are the customer... Where is the justification to spending millions of pounds that no doubt the tax payers and passengers will be donating.. Forgive my ignorance but I just can't see how its justifiable.

The subject of the renewal of the Merseyrail fleet has been around for several years so I suspect the figure of 4.3M may have built up over some time but I agree it does seem on the high side. The post for the Project Director was advertised in May 2012 as this link below shows but I think the vacancy was only filled last year.

http://appointments.thesundaytimes.co.uk/job/418733/project-director

I seem to recall something in the press suggesting they had done some considerable work on drawing up various options with their existing team, but needed the Project Director to take the process forward to the next level. I also suspect the combined effects of government cuts and the changing political landscape and franchise arrangements has not helped either.

I'm tempted to say that Merseytravel only have themselves to blame.
They wanted a concession to give them "local control", but are now not in a position to procure a new fleet.
If Merseyrail was a regular franchise, there would now be proper industry focus on what to do with the operation.

Over the next 12 months, some kind of new deal will be formulated for Northern electric stock for the new franchise.
It's most likely to involve refurbishing and upgrading about 40 units from the class 319 fleet (with more available).
Merseyrail could piggy back on that to derive a dual-voltage unit suitable for them.
Among other synergies Abellio has a finger in both operations.
Maintenance costs could also be shared with Northern - Allerton depot interfaces with both networks after all.
That presumes a 319-type unit will work in the tunnels and round the network.
Maybe Merseytravel are just waiting for the cascade options to firm up before deciding what to do.
They are part of Rail North, after all.

I certainly would expect an announcement within the next 12 months, perhaps after the Chancellors Autumn Statement which might contain further news on more electrification schemes.

I still think Merseyrail will order new stock, but not perhaps as many units as to totally replace the existing stock. Instead it will top the order up with refurbished stock, perhaps the 319's or even 313's allowing their dual voltage capability to be used on some newly extended routes, perhaps the CLC route to Warrington and Manchester, and Chester etc via the Halton Curve. The 319's high speed capability would be more suitable than 75 mph metro stock. In the meantime, I could see a few sets of 313's being cascaded north as soon as they become available, given a lick of paint and pressed into service with the 507/508s until the new stock is available. This would spread out the funding of new stock and give the newly electrified routes time to gain from sparks effect and coordinate long term replacements for the refurbished 319's with their Rail North partners.

 

[WatcherZero]

I was told a long time ago there was some electrical incompatability in the slightly different implementations of 3rd rail DC technology between London and Merseyside such that units built for Merseyside could operate in London but not vice versa, dont know if true and they would require replacement components?

Theres the tunnels issue as well of course, and Merseyrail does rotate its fleet to ensure even wheel wear on the tight corners, less uniform fleet would hinder that.

 

[martynbristow]

Well the next election and the budget statement don't have anything to do with this
Merseyrail is independent of central government and controlled by councilers which have not long had an election
They launched a whole study and decided on wifi and seating :/

 

[Wavertreelad]

Well the next election and the budget statement don't have anything to do with this
Merseyrail is independent of central government and controlled by councilers which have not long had an election
They launched a whole study and decided on wifi and seating :/

On the contrary I would suggest that both political events are very important to the future of rail services in the region and in turn the stock that Merseyrail use post 2018/2019.

The autumn statement will almost certainly include some mention of "balancing the economy" and restoring the North of England's power through improved infrastructure, including HS2 & HS3. Whilst Higgins first alluded to an HS3 scheme in this HS2 report, it was the Chancellor that proposed the HS3 idea earlier this year. I would find it hard to believe that with an election in May next year due, that the present administration would not try to woo votes with grand schemes, Labour would do the same thing. The difference of course is how the schemes are paid for but that is an entirely different discussion. And then there is the existing NW electrification scheme, these threads are full of possible suggestions for additional schemes and infils, some of which could influence the choice and or number of units ordered by Merseyrail.

The election will determine the next government probably in theory to 2019, and will likely have to make the final the decision on HS2. Whilst Labour currently supports HS2 there is no guarantee it would to do so if it were to form the next government, but assuming it went ahead and a line beyond Birmingham and hopefully Crewe were given the go ahead, a decision on whether Liverpool is directly connected would also be required. Assuming HS2 and/or HS3 were to be approved to Liverpool, Lime Street would require considerable expansion which would leave less space for existing services, let alone any new services which Liverpool is anxious to develop. The Wapping Tunnel scheme linking the City Line to the Northern Line south of Central linked to an expansion of Central itself would potentially open up a whole raft of new direct journey opportunities and thus in turn the type and number of stock that Merseyrail require to meet the expanded network.

 

[455driver]

I was told a long time ago there was some electrical incompatability in the slightly different implementations of 3rd rail DC technology between London and Merseyside such that units built for Merseyside could operate in London but not vice versa, dont know if true and they would require replacement components?

Theres the tunnels issue as well of course, and Merseyrail does rotate its fleet to ensure even wheel wear on the tight corners, less uniform fleet would hinder that.

The 508s were built and used on the Southern before having a coach removed and the remaining 3 coaches moved to Merseyside. So I dont think that is the case.

 

[Domh245]

I think that there was something were that the merseyside 3rd rail was less powerful than the southern system, and so wouldn't able to run things like Air Con and 75% motored vehicles - although the only reason the southern network can is because all of the trains were delivered with these features and the substations were improved so that they could actually run!

 

[alex17595]

The 507/508s could go on for a fair while longer if they're given an extensive programme of life-extension work, but there is a significant need for additional trains on existing overcrowded services.

The Great Northern 313s surely have to be considered as an option for the future from 2018 onwards if the 507/8s are retained a significant period beyond 2020. From a personal point of view, I do hope the 507/8s stay as long as they are mechanically upgraded, but the Southport line can't go on without a full complement of six car trains on weekdays as it is now.

It's funny that they are older than the current stock.

 

[WatcherZero]

The 508s were built and used on the Southern before having a coach removed and the remaining 3 coaches moved to Merseyside. So I dont think that is the case.

The 508's were actually built for Merseyside and diverted south.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could the whole of the Merseyrail network apart from the tunnel loop section be converted to overhead (probably not enough room in the tunnels to convert that section), then things like air con could be introduced?

If there physically isn't the room for overhead in the tunnel loop section, could the substations be upgraded?

 

[MCR247]

Surely upgrading the substations would be considered before wiring everywhere? :?

 

[Wavertreelad]

Could the whole of the Merseyrail network apart from the tunnel loop section be converted to overhead (probably not enough room in the tunnels to convert that section), then things like air con could be introduced?

If there physically isn't the room for overhead in the tunnel loop section, could the substations be upgraded?

As it now appears Merseyrail is likely to order dual voltage stock, and/or receive cascaded similar stock the possibility of converting the network gradually over a period of time is an option. As far as the tunnels are concerned I am not totally sure. Certainly the main tunnel under the River Mersey is capable of OHLE as it is much larger than the 70's constructed tunnels, but on these I am not sure.

 

[martynbristow]

I think that there was something were that the merseyside 3rd rail was less powerful than the southern system, and so wouldn't able to run things like Air Con and 75% motored vehicles - although the only reason the southern network can is because all of the trains were delivered with these features and the substations were improved so that they could actually run!

I'm assuming this is just a c\pacity problem at the substation. Dind't the Southern region have this problem when they got new stock

 

[WatcherZero]

They had a problem of other trains on the line stalling from under voltage when 12 car trains were running.

More substations might be needed and there would have to be upgrades to allow regen braking but dont think Merseyrail would have a particular problem, the max line speeds are pretty low.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

As it now appears Merseyrail is likely to order dual voltage stock, and/or receive cascaded similar stock the possibility of converting the network gradually over a period of time is an option. As far as the tunnels are concerned I am not totally sure. Certainly the main tunnel under the River Mersey is capable of OHLE as it is much larger than the 70's constructed tunnels, but on these I am not sure.

How practical and financially viable would it be to enlarge the smaller diameter tunnels?

 

[Nym]

How practical and financially viable would it be to enlarge the smaller diameter tunnels?

Not, and not...

It would be cheaper to provide specialist rolling stock for the next three cycles than upgrade the tunnels. (At a minimum)

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is there any method they could use to squeeze in overhead?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Overhead conductor rail might do it, but it still needs a bit of clearance!

 

[Nym]

Is there any method they could use to squeeze in overhead?

Possibly, but since they have just installed a significant amount of slab track and with the humidity issues down there then anything over 1500Vpk ground it would be difficult to engineer in.

 

[Wavertreelad]

How practical and financially viable would it be to enlarge the smaller diameter tunnels?

As posted earlier the answer is not and not, but before we get carried away with proposing alternatives, let us remember as far as I know the 507 & 508's are full size stock, and height wise are identical to the 313's.Wikipedia states on the record for 508's

"The class was developed for Merseyside following extensive trials and testing of the 4Pep/2Pep stock built in the early 1970s. Testing of Class 313 took place on the Northern Line on Merseyside, using 313003/005/013/063 loaned from the Great Northern Line of the Eastern Region to Hall Road depot."

One assumes this testing used the third rail capability of the 313's whilst the units were still fitted with pans, and that the Wirral Loop tunnel is the same diameter as the Northern Line terminal. Therefore, the one unanswered question is whether there is sufficient clearance for a working pan, and that is something I cannot answer, but in a worst case scenario if the new stock and/or replacement stock is dual voltage there would appear to be no major reason why the third rail could not be retained within the tunnels and approaches.

 

[MCR247]

Why would they bother re-electrifying the rest of the current network? Surely just wiring any extensions would do?

 

[Wavertreelad]

Why would they bother re-electrifying the rest of the current network? Surely just wiring any extensions would do?

I wasn't suggesting that the network was rewired initially, but over a period of time. The present "franchise" does not expire until 2028 whilst any new stock will likely be required to operate for 30 to 40 years by which time much of the present electrical infrastructure will be life expired and increasing more difficult to main. As these life expired sections become due for renewal, it should be possible to convert sections of each route with wires which would future proof the network and avoid the need to replace the new stock in said 2050 ish with dual voltage stock that by then could be considered non standard is the south east network is converted in the meantime. Furthermore, some of the extensions proposed would have to be wired anyway to allow other operators including freight to use the route, so it might economically viable to replace some sections earlier, assuming the present UK network electrification policy is maintained.

 

[razor89]

As posted earlier the answer is not and not, but before we get carried away with proposing alternatives, let us remember as far as I know the 507 & 508's are full size stock, and height wise are identical to the 313's.Wikipedia states on the record for 508's

"The class was developed for Merseyside following extensive trials and testing of the 4Pep/2Pep stock built in the early 1970s. Testing of Class 313 took place on the Northern Line on Merseyside, using 313003/005/013/063 loaned from the Great Northern Line of the Eastern Region to Hall Road depot."

One assumes this testing used the third rail capability of the 313's whilst the units were still fitted with pans, and that the Wirral Loop tunnel is the same diameter as the Northern Line terminal. Therefore, the one unanswered question is whether there is sufficient clearance for a working pan, and that is something I cannot answer, but in a worst case scenario if the new stock and/or replacement stock is dual voltage there would appear to be no major reason why the third rail could not be retained within the tunnels and approaches.

Height wise they are identical to 313s, however the PEP stock has a lower roof profile from other mainline trains which means 313s don't have the roof 'well' for the pan that other trains do. When the pan is lowered the equipment still protrudes above the roofline.

Are you sure the Wirral line tunnels are the same diameter as the Northern line tunnels? There is a metal walkway attached to the tunnel wall of the Northern line tunnels but not on the loop tunnels.

 

[jopsuk]

Height wise they are identical to 313s, however the PEP stock has a lower roof profile from other mainline trains which means 313s don't have the roof 'well' for the pan that other trains do. When the pan is lowered the equipment still protrudes above the roofline.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZ


class 313-315 do in fact have a well for the pantograph- granted though it is shallow. Quite clear here. and here

 

[SpacePhoenix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDxl7A0tECw

At time 2:27 it looks like there might be the room to fit the overhead in but it's going to be down to if the overhead can safely operate with the pan down so low

 

[apk55]

Most modern 3rd rail EMU designs include passive provision to dual voltage operation. In most cases this would invove adding a pantograph and transformer rectifier car and a changover relay. In many units a trailer car has a lowered roof and monting brackets to fit the transfomer. In many respects the 507s are like this being just a 313 with the transformer omited.

With modern 3 phase drives it is easily possible to limit the maximum current demand to any level below the maximum by the software control. The starting and low speed tractive effort would be unchanged, so it still climb hills, but at speed the tractive effort would be much less and maximum speed may be limited. Therefore any Southern region design could be used assuming it fits the tunnels.

 

[jopsuk]

Most modern 3rd rail EMU designs include passive provision to dual voltage operation. In most cases this would invove adding a pantograph and transformer rectifier car and a changover relay. In many units a trailer car has a lowered roof and monting brackets to fit the transfomer. In many respects the 507s are like this being just a 313 with the transformer omited.

The likes of the electrostars and desiros that are "third rail only" do simply have an empty pantograph well (and in some cases, ballast to replace the transformer and rectifier). The three-phase motor systems take a DC input anyway- the AC-only versions rectify to DC then invert to AC on a variable frequency.

The 507 and 508 DO NOT have a the structure for a pantograph well, and the 313-315, using the same bodyshell, DO have a (shallow) pantograph well, the pantograph is NOT simply sitting on top of the roof. This idea that they don't have a well is a weird urban myth that's very easily disproved.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Are you sure the Wirral line tunnels are the same diameter as the Northern line tunnels? There is a metal walkway attached to the tunnel wall of the Northern line tunnels but not on the loop tunnels.

I am unable to provide a definitive answer to the question, but I have managed to trace an article that describes the construction of the original under river tunnel which states.

"The main tunnel is lined with a 685mm thick layer of brickwork (six courses) set in cement mortar where it runs through sandstone. The brickwork is increased to eight courses where clay was encountered. It is 7.9m wide and 7m tall overall with 5.8m clearance between the rails and tunnel roof. There are recesses at 41.1m intervals on each side. The flanking tunnels are lined in four courses of brickwork. In addition to the double standard gauge tracks, telephone cables were laid in the running tunnel to improve cross-river communications"

http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/archive/PDFs/aug07lumley.pdf


and this article which confirms the diameter of the Wirral Loop Tunnels.

"The loop tunnel was constructed as a single-bore circular tunnel, approximately 4.7 metres in diameter, and has a 30mph speed limit."

http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=1151

As we know a 313 can work the Northern Line tunnel from the third rail, the question is, could it work the route with it's pan raised as assuming the tunnels were wired assuming both sets of tunnels were of the same construction?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

That rail system was mentioned in another thread, is there enough room in the Merseyrail tunnels to use that, then the entire Merseyrail system could be converted to overhead