Multinational bidder list for Merseyrail stock

[AndyW33]

CAF have put in a bid, they evidently want to try and make inroads into the UK market outside of trams and the existing 332/333s

Since you mention the UK market, they are of course the supplier of Northern Ireland's entire DMU fleet.

 

[WatcherZero]

The S Stock is London Underground specific, the S Stock is built using the Movia family of parts, which are used on metros around the world. There is a possibility too, that their Innovia driverless kit could be offered, but that's perhaps a step too far for lines shared with other rail services.

The talk last year was that Merseytravel wernt that keen on the S Stock.

Whether its because of dimensions, performance or their desires for interoperating on the wider North West rail network is unclear.

 

[D365]

Surely, with the supposed modular design ethos of the 'Movia' platform, they can simply ask for 25kV OHLE capability

 

[edwin_m]

Movia is a Metro product platform and there ain't many 25kV metros out there. They could probably supply one with a pantograph but the transformer could be more of a problem as the vehicle structure needs to be strong enough to carry it. No doubt the designs could be modified but at that stage it might be better to start off with something from the Aventra range instead.

 

[Camden]

The talk last year was that Merseytravel wernt that keen on the S Stock.

Whether its because of dimensions, performance or their desires for interoperating on the wider North West rail network is unclear.

What talk would that be? As someone who spends a great deal of his time embedded in the Liverpool city region, that isn't something I've heard.

The seating layout will probably defer to the findings of the study carried out, however the S Stock Movia product seems pretty well suited all in all. Especially the District line variation. Were this a third rail product rather than a fourth rail product it might even run without any modification needed at all.

Movia can run via overhead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movia), I doubt that "dual voltage capable" would be an issue.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Movia platform isn't rated to exceed 100kmh (62 mph), Merseytravel want something faster if its to be used beyond Merseyrails network.

That was the primary concern though there were others.

 

[HSTEd]

Amazing that in Japan there is still a railway with its own train manufacturing business.....

 

[WatcherZero]

Several, the structure is quite similar to how it was under the Big Four in the UK though with an umbrella holding company that ensures interoperability and acts like a regulator.

 

[the sniper]

Amazing that in Japan there is still a railway with its own train manufacturing business.....

Something that the UK rail industry would scoff at, given the success our super modern, efficient sh*tshow of a railway...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Something that the UK rail industry would scoff at, given the success our super modern, efficient sh*tshow of a railway...

Don't you remember the comedy efforts of BREL and British Rail ?

 

[HSTEd]

Don't you remember the comedy efforts of BREL and British Rail ?

Clearly, all those Class 150s and Mark 3 carriages/EMUs were disasters.

Oh and clearly the Mk 1 EMU fleet was totally unreliable and worthless.

If anything the outside built stock has had more problems than the in house stuff, see the problems with the Mark 4s for example. Or the Class 323s.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Clearly, all those Class 150s and Mark 3 carriages/EMUs were disasters.

Oh and clearly the Mk 1 EMU fleet was totally unreliable and worthless.

If anything the outside built stock has had more problems than the in house stuff, see the problems with the Mark 4s for example. Or the Class 323s.

BREL and British Rail were just as bad as the outside contractors.

The Mark 3 EMU stock isn't bad, but it was built in the most ridiculous way, to the most idiotic specifications - motor coaches came in from a different works to the unpowered coaches, just as an excuse to keep York works open at the time.

The Mark 3 coaches have bogies which short on the third rail and needed a redesign (the LSL/SSL bogie conundrum) and they have some utterly crap motor alternator sets, and the gangway design is a comical effort.

Wiring on everything is a comical, have baked effort. I've had one engineer suggest, only half jokingly, that Blindcraft were involved in the wiring, different colours on different units for the same circuits, endless troubles with diagnostics (PEPs were seemingly the worst). HSTs managed the occasional split when new because they had been wired up incorrectly too, fine when in as delivered sets, swap a PC and both would try to pull.

Class 158s are another fine mess - bogies designed for the Mark 4 which BREL and BR couldn't agree terms for, engine swapped during production to stop Perkins going bust (but they were bought by Caterpillar and it didn't matter) and obstructive, moronic behaviour about making relatively minor changes to the surplus Class 158 Regional Railways units which had been 'bought' by Network SouthEast resulting in them going to Rosyth for modification (in NSE colours, as I recall).

They do have an enviable reputation for quality when compared against the North British Locomotive Works though, so they've got that going for them.

 

[Clip]

Is no thread sacred from having to revert to the BR defence?

 

[HSTEd]

BREL and British Rail were just as bad as the outside contractors.

But not worse?
It seems that once initial faults with these trains were fixed they seem to be rock solid - leaving aside things like no air con due to lack of CFCs.
Then again that is probably because they are about as sophisticated as a cast iron skillet - there is a lot to be said for the 'Soviet' model I think.

The Mark 3 EMU stock isn't bad, but it was built in the most ridiculous way, to the most idiotic specifications - motor coaches came in from a different works to the unpowered coaches, just as an excuse to keep York works open at the time.

Did this actually have any significant effect on the price or build of the units?
That might seem a reasonable thing to do if there were space/staff limitations at one of the works - concentrating one production line at each would save problems switching back and forth between two different vehicle types. (The wiring/equipment fit of a motor vehicle being obviously vastly different from that of a trailer)

The Mark 3 coaches have bogies which short on the third rail and needed a redesign (the LSL/SSL bogie conundrum) and they have some utterly crap motor alternator sets, and the gangway design is a comical effort.

Don't SSL bogies have worse ride characteristics than the long link ones?
And we do have to compare them to 70s stock abroad, like Corail - how do they compare there?
(Can't really compare them to modern stuff that is 40 years more advanced can we? - That would be like comparing Mark 3s to 4LAVs and expecting the latter to measure up)

Wiring on everything is a comical, have baked effort. I've had one engineer suggest, only half jokingly, that Blindcraft were involved in the wiring, different colours on different units for the same circuits, endless troubles with diagnostics (PEPs were seemingly the worst). HSTs managed the occasional split when new because they had been wired up incorrectly too, fine when in as delivered sets, swap a PC and both would try to pull.

Wiring faults are notoriously hard to run down - I know as I've been wiring systems and taken years to diagnose faults that seem obvious in hindsight - and nothing I have done compares to the complexity of a pre microchip trainset.

Class 158s are another fine mess

I challenge you to do better in your garden shed :P

Is no thread sacred from having to revert to the BR defence?

Apparently not, I will now desist however.
Just interesting to see Vertical Integration has not been done away with entirely.

 

[Haydn1971]

The Movia platform isn't rated to exceed 100kmh (62 mph), Merseytravel want something faster if its to be used beyond Merseyrails network.

Out of interest, where is that said - I've not seen mention on the Movia webpage. I'd agree that the Aventra would be the better baseline to bid with though, especially with the outer urban routes.

 

[Camden]

The Movia platform isn't rated to exceed 100kmh (62 mph), Merseytravel want something faster if its to be used beyond Merseyrails network.

That was the primary concern though there were others.

Again, where did you hear this "concern"? Answering a call for substantiation with just more unsubstantiated statements doesn't back up your claims. As I say, as someone who spends a lot of his time embedded in the Liverpool city region, given I haven't heard anyone express these views or concerns, or any concerns, I don't think that this is coming from anyone in the know.

The Merseyrail stock doesn't need to exceed 62mph. Either presently or with any approved or seriously planned extensions. If you're referring to Crewe, I refer you simply to the word "politics". If Bidston even reaches Deeside it will be a miracle. It won't ever go to Wrexham, let alone when the situation there is post Halton Curve. Those are the only two "extension" locations where more than 62mph might be useful. It's irrelevant. And totally overwhelmed by the wider network's requirements (including the requirements of any other possible, more realistic extensions).

The purchase needs to prioritise the features that the system currently needs and is likely to need, and the number of units ordered demonstrates those priorities. 100mph, which you wouldn't reach, between stations just one to two minutes apart? No, only the characteristics shown by metro stock (as has been explicitly referred to) can give the network desired with increased frequencies with the number of rolling stock specified.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Again, where did you hear this "concern"? Answering a call for substantiation with just more unsubstantiated statements doesn't back up your claims. As I say, as someone who spends a lot of his time embedded in the Liverpool city region, given I haven't heard anyone express these views or concerns, or any concerns, I don't think that this is coming from anyone in the know.

The Merseyrail stock doesn't need to exceed 62mph. Either presently or with any approved or seriously planned extensions. If you're referring to Crewe, I refer you simply to the word "politics". If Bidston even reaches Deeside it will be a miracle. It won't ever go to Wrexham, let alone when the situation there is post Halton Curve. Those are the only two "extension" locations where more than 62mph might be useful. It's irrelevant. And totally overwhelmed by the wider network's requirements (including the requirements of any other possible, more realistic extensions).

The purchase needs to prioritise the features that the system currently needs and is likely to need, and the number of units ordered demonstrates those priorities. 100mph, which you wouldn't reach, between stations just one to two minutes apart? No, only the characteristics shown by metro stock (as has been explicitly referred to) can give the network desired with increased frequencies with the number of rolling stock specified.

Electric units with an AC traction system and 8 motored axles would manage 75mph and still provide a reasonable increase in performance over the Class 507/508 fleet. 75mph is less of an issue if the units see service elsewhere outwith the core network.

The tender also has options for another 60 x 60 metre nominal length units, there's no reason why the initial fleet couldn't be geared for 75mph or even 60mph, and a second batch, delivered into a sub-class, be geared for 100mph operation, with an interior suited to longer distance services.

Pathing won't be all that easy, but skipping alternative stops and intelligent pathing options should allow the two sub-classes to interoperate without significant difficulties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Skip-stop would ruin the fact that Merseyrail is a metro and is used for a lot of intermediate journeys. It is not just a to/from Liverpool service. I thus could not support it.

Some semifasts may be of benefit, but that is different, and the scope is probably limited to the long Southport and Chester lines. Even so, if dwell time could be reduced and acceleration increased to match the deep Tube, or a German U-Bahn, even this may not be strictly necessary.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Skip-stop would ruin the fact that Merseyrail is a metro and is used for a lot of intermediate journeys. It is not just a to/from Liverpool service. I thus could not support it.

Some semifasts may be of benefit, but that is different, and the scope is probably limited to the long Southport and Chester lines. Even so, if dwell time could be reduced and acceleration increased to match the deep Tube, or a German U-Bahn, even this may not be strictly necessary.

I think you're not understanding my suggestion.

The existing 'metro' services continue unchanged, but additional to/from Liverpool services are added on top of the current services, these are the semifasts that you describe, but to fit them in and around the current metro services, it may be necessary to stop at alternating stations, or 1 in 3 stations or 2 in 3 stations or whatever, just depending on the difference in acceleration and any dwell time differences between the two sub-fleets.

 

[Camden]

I doubt it would happen. The extensions/adoptions that are seriously considered would carry on using the same stock in the same way.

There are limited direct expansion opportunities: Wigan Wallgate/Skelmersdale, Deeside, Warrington Central (unlikely, and if it did happen it would be on dedicated tracks), Liverpool airport.

The follow on order needs to be seen in the context of this, and the future needs for increased frequencies on some of the lines.

That the follow on is larger than the initial order can be accounted for in the above plus the possibility of adopting and integrating the "city lines" to Wigan North Western, Newton Le Willows, and Warrington Central.

No need for 100mph trains, skip stopping, or anything other than running regular modern metro style trains.

 

[northwichcat]

Warrington Central (unlikely, and if it did happen it would be on dedicated tracks)

Why? If the CLC is electrified the Liverpool-Oxford Rd stopper could be split up with part of it going to Merseyrail if Merseyrail had dual voltage trains.

Extending Chester services to Crewe could also be an option again if overheads are put up and dual voltage stock is secured.

 

[Camden]

Why? If the CLC is electrified the Liverpool-Oxford Rd stopper could be split up with part of it going to Merseyrail if Merseyrail had dual voltage trains.

Extending Chester services to Crewe could also be an option again if overheads are put up and dual voltage stock is secured.

I see perhaps CLC conflicting with priorities to bring the airport online, and then "city line" electrified services creating issues of duplication. I could well imagine instead the northern line terminating at the airport (calling at liverpool south parkway on the way to it), with instead a vastly improved city line service passing through liverpool south parkway from Warrington Central. Each line having six trains an hour perhaps.

Merseyrail won't reach Crewe, I feel fully confident in believing. A wildcard, you have to follow the politics.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you're not understanding my suggestion.

The existing 'metro' services continue unchanged, but additional to/from Liverpool services are added on top of the current services, these are the semifasts that you describe, but to fit them in and around the current metro services, it may be necessary to stop at alternating stations, or 1 in 3 stations or 2 in 3 stations or whatever, just depending on the difference in acceleration and any dwell time differences between the two sub-fleets.

Ah, I see. Understand now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are limited direct expansion opportunities: Wigan Wallgate/Skelmersdale, Deeside, Warrington Central (unlikely, and if it did happen it would be on dedicated tracks), Liverpool airport.

Preston, or more sensibly Burscough Bridge via the South Curve.

 

[Camden]

Doubt it, with the city line route being electrified.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I see perhaps CLC conflicting with priorities to bring the airport online, and then "city line" electrified services creating issues of duplication. I could well imagine instead the northern line terminating at the airport (calling at liverpool south parkway on the way to it), with instead a vastly improved city line service passing through liverpool south parkway from Warrington Central. Each line having six trains an hour perhaps.

Merseyrail won't reach Crewe, I feel fully confident in believing. A wildcard, you have to follow the politics.

Politics and urban geography can change - this is rolling stock with a 40 year service life, what is or isn't likely today or tomorrow may well be something that's essential in 5 or 10 years time. The redevelopment of Crewe to form the Crewe Hub, with HS2 coming, is likely to make some additional capacity and a Merseyrail Electrics connection desirable.

Crewe to Chester electrification will happen, hopefully in CP6, certainly electrification of the route (through to Holyhead) is something we've offered to the Welsh Assembly and DfT to fund, if they so desire. I'd expect Crewe-Chester to be part of the entire Crewe redevelopment at the very least.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Politics and urban geography can change - this is rolling stock with a 40 year service life, what is or isn't likely today or tomorrow may well be something that's essential in 5 or 10 years time. The redevelopment of Crewe to form the Crewe Hub, with HS2 coming, is likely to make some additional capacity and a Merseyrail Electrics connection desirable.

There is one - at Lime St. I imagine more of benefit would be an increase in frequency of Crewe-Liverpool and it being operated using quality rolling stock that isn't a 3+2 seated South East suburban EMU.

It is a real pity the 350/2s were 3+2 seated. I believe LM even regret it - shown by the Snow Hill 172s all being 2+2. Perhaps a future franchisee will replace the seats.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

There is one - at Lime St. I imagine more of benefit would be an increase in frequency of Crewe-Liverpool and it being operated using quality rolling stock that isn't a 3+2 seated South East suburban EMU.

It is a real pity the 350/2s were 3+2 seated. I believe LM even regret it - shown by the Snow Hill 172s all being 2+2. Perhaps a future franchisee will replace the seats.

I don't think it's a case or one or the other - a good case for both routes and additional capacity can be made, particularly alongside HS2, Crewe Hub and electrification of the North Wales Coast.

If the route out to Holyhead can be electrified, there's the option of extending a limited number of Wirral Line services out into North Wales too, to meet the increasing demands of commuter traffic. It would reduce demand on the M56/M53, which is what we want from an electrified railway route, ultimately.

 

[Camden]

Politics and urban geography can change - this is rolling stock with a 40 year service life, what is or isn't likely today or tomorrow may well be something that's essential in 5 or 10 years time. The redevelopment of Crewe to form the Crewe Hub, with HS2 coming, is likely to make some additional capacity and a Merseyrail Electrics connection desirable.

Crewe to Chester electrification will happen, hopefully in CP6, certainly electrification of the route (through to Holyhead) is something we've offered to the Welsh Assembly and DfT to fund, if they so desire. I'd expect Crewe-Chester to be part of the entire Crewe redevelopment at the very least.

As I say, I think you need to follow the politics. There are some fundamentals in the way, HS2 being one of them in various ways. Crewe electrification will possibly happen, however I don't believe for one second that Merseyrail will ever reach it or that there will be any serious ambition to do so.

If Crewe is electrified I expect it will be used by HS2 classic compatible trains, or west coast main line trains, but not Merseyrail metro stock trains.

As for Wirral Line out to the north wales coast, this is getting a bit crayonista now methinks. Halton Curve is being developed to serve precisely this market.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

As I say, I think you need to follow the politics. There are some fundamentals in the way, HS2 being one of them in various ways. Crewe electrification will possibly happen, however I don't believe for one second that Merseyrail will ever reach it or that there will be any serious ambition to do so.

If Crewe is electrified I expect it will be used by HS2 classic compatible trains, or west coast main line trains, but not Merseyrail metro stock trains.

As for Wirral Line out to the north wales coast, this is getting a bit crayonista now methinks. Halton Curve is being developed to serve precisely this market.

You need to look at the work we've done on electrification of the North Wales Coast, additional electric services are the only way to get a BCR close to what would conventionally be approved. That's why additional services to Llandudno have been modelled and why the extension of some services from the Wirral Line have also been modelled.

There's a bit in the Draft RUS with recommendations to funders.

One driver for these proposed outputs is emissions legislation - NOx and CO2 emissions are for various reasons, a major issue which Government has been ordered by the Supreme Court to address. Network Rail and others have been passed on a brief to see what we can do to cut down the transportation numbers, both by reducing diesel train usage and by providing capacity for modal shift.

Just because we've modelled them doesn't mean they'll happen, but it illustrates some of the reasoning that's going on at Network Rail, and the various consultancies involved at the moment.

 

[Camden]

You need to look at the work we've done on electrification of the North Wales Coast,

When you say "we" who are you speaking on behalf of?

additional electric services are the only way to get a BCR close to what would conventionally be approved. That's why additional services to Llandudno have been modelled and why the extension of some services from the Wirral Line have also been modelled.

There's a bit in the Draft RUS with recommendations to funders.

Can you supply a link to this information showing a proposal for a Wirral Line extension to Llandudno? I doubt that city region partners would be happy having their strategic priorities dictated and their network mutated, solely to take north wales over some electrification BCR finish line.