Northern Platforms (3 car EMU vs 4 car EMU)

[First class]

The local transport plan for Merseyside (valid until 2011) had the following projects listed (for possible electrification), as you will find, more than one TOC may be affected if anything progressed:

1) Ellesmere Port - Helsby
2) Burscough Curves, allowing Ormskirk-Southport and Southport-Preston
3) Kirkby - Headbolt Lane (possibility to Wigan)
4) Bidston - Wrexham via Shotton
5) Ormskirk - Preston
6) Halton Curve

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah but would it be third rail expanding a small pocket in the north west and requiring greater numbers of third rail or perhaps dual mode trains cascades, or would they go for OHLE for greater compability with the rest of the region.

The city line (run by northern) is already 25kv and so would be the expansions of it towards Wigan/Manchester.

 

[northwichcat]

1) Ellesmere Port - Helsby

Some else posted on here that 3rd rail has been ruled out on this section due to potential problems if something goes wrong at Shell's Stanlow plant.

5) Ormskirk - Preston

The North West RUS stated this would be non-ecomically viable to electrify.

 

[First class]

Some else posted on here that 3rd rail has been ruled out on this section due to potential problems if something goes wrong at Shell's Stanlow plant.

The North West RUS stated this would be non-ecomically viable to electrify.

With regards to Stanlow, if Steam trains can go through there (with hot embers) on Charters and the like, then I'm sure 3rd rail won't be a problem.

The sidings around Stanlow are now widely defunct and no petroleum trains operate there any more. There is no chemical storage facility anywhere near the trackside...

The important thing with Merseyrail is the replacement of their fleet. It is widely expected to be a dual mode electric multiple unit, (probably class 378/0). This gives a lot of scope for expansion within the next 40 years.

Liverpool-Ormskirk-Preston-Blackpool would be a lot more viable (and probably faster) as a through service, with the Liverpool-Wigan-Blackpool service curtailed to Wigan. If Blackpool receives wires then only a short stretch between Ormskirk and Preston needs OHE.

The city line (run by northern) is already 25kv and so would be the expansions of it towards Wigan/Manchester

We are talking about the Northern Line (750v DC) expanding through Kirkby to Wigan Wallgate via Rainford, not the City Line route into Wigan NW.

 

[WatcherZero]

What I was questioning when I started this line of inquiry were the implications of further NW electrification with two competing rival modes of electrification. As more schemes are eventually greenlit at some point a strategic decision is needed to be made whether to limit 3rd rail growth or that the region will need a fleet of dual-mode trains.

you need to look beyond single lines and at the bigger jigsaw.

 

[mickey]

It is an interesting question that emerges as electrification spreads around the NW, how far to expand Merseysides 3rd rail network or to switch to OHLE. I was under the impression that their was a moritorium on significant expansions of 3rd rail.

Such that for example the one stop expansion under way is fine
Expanding as far as Wigan, iffy and would be the absoloute limit
Expanding to Preston via ormskirk, absoloutley not.

Exactly right, which is why it's also unlikely Bidston-Wrexham will be 3rd rail. The trouble with the Ormskirk branch is that, despite the most logical and sensible reason for electrification being to re-open the fastest and straightest route between the two major cities, those in power at Merseytravel and the like are desperate only for the link round to Southport, and as such all the talk previously had been of DC runs only.

The plan was always to get DC units as a replacement for the 507/508s, but when it became likely that the only units they could get would be the old Thameslink ones the light bulbs went on and - to their credit, I suppose - people started thinking further afield and dual-power lines became a possibility. The trouble is that, in my opinion, such a development makes receiving brand new trains less not more likely as there would then be a need for them to be dual-power too, and therefore more expensive.

 

[First class]

Exactly right, which is why it's also unlikely Bidston-Wrexham will be 3rd rail. The trouble with the Ormskirk branch is that, despite the most logical and sensible reason for electrification being to re-open the fastest and straightest route between the two major cities, those in power at Merseytravel and the like are desperate only for the link round to Southport, and as such all the talk previously had been of DC runs only.

The plan was always to get DC units as a replacement for the 507/508s, but when it became likely that the only units they could get would be the old Thameslink ones the light bulbs went on and - to their credit, I suppose - people started thinking further afield and dual-power lines became a possibility. The trouble is that, in my opinion, such a development makes receiving brand new trains less not more likely as there would then be a need for them to be dual-power too, and therefore more expensive.

There is currently a production line knocking out dual mode commuter style trains almost perfect for Merseyrail... class 378s.

The costs would be MUCH lower if Merseyrail/PTE get their finger out and invest. If the production line is dismantled then Merseyrail would have to pay for a unit to be designed from scratch.

I do think Merseyrail may well be watching this Scotrail dispute over guards/ticket examiners with interest though.

 

[mickey]

There is currently a production line knocking out dual mode commuter style trains almost perfect for Merseyrail... class 378s.

The costs would be MUCH lower if Merseyrail/PTE get their finger out and invest. If the production line is dismantled then Merseyrail would have to pay for a unit to be designed from scratch.

I do think Merseyrail may well be watching this Scotrail dispute over guards/ticket examiners with interest though.

I agree it would be much better if they arranged and paid for it now, but how likely is it that they will given the huge public spending cuts to come? Even if they can get the money together themselves central government wouldn't allow it - they'd say they've clearly got too much money on their hands! We can hope though.

Am I right in thinking the 378s don't have access doors between units? If so they're unlikely to be allowed through the tunnel without a member of staff in each half. If they can be built with connecting doors it's definitely a possibility though - it's likely the new trains would be purchased in greater quantities than the current ones (especially if the expectation is that they'll run to Preston/Wrexham/more often to Chester), which will offer driving jobs to disaffected guards...

 

[First class]

I agree it would be much better if they arranged and paid for it now, but how likely is it that they will given the huge public spending cuts to come? Even if they can get the money together themselves central government wouldn't allow it - they'd say they've clearly got too much money on their hands! We can hope though.

Am I right in thinking the 378s don't have access doors between units? If so they're unlikely to be allowed through the tunnel without a member of staff in each half. If they can be built with connecting doors it's definitely a possibility though - it's likely the new trains would be purchased in greater quantities than the current ones (especially if the expectation is that they'll run to Preston/Wrexham/more often to Chester), which will offer driving jobs to disaffected guards...

The beauty of Merseyrail is that central government are not involved.

The PTE, Merseytravel are the ones with the responsibilities, not the DfT. Indeed, this makes Merseyrail unique from other franchises. The PTE would have to bankroll new rolling stock from PTE products and other interests they have.

The 378s DO have connecting access doors. A lot of people say that there must be a guard present on the train when entering the underground section, but AFAIK there is no evidence of this and more probably something invented to reassure guards their job is safe.

 

[WatcherZero]

Mmm, as far as im aware merseyrail is still Network rail run and owned infrastructure requiring government investment greenlighting. Merseytravel just gets the almost unique in England right to award the franchise itself and a bit more freedom in sponsoring additional services.

 

[First class]

Mmm, as far as im aware merseyrail is still Network rail run and owned infrastructure requiring government investment greenlighting. Merseytravel just gets the almost unique in England right to award the franchise itself and a bit more freedom in sponsoring additional services.

The only thing the government fully funds through Network Rail is track infrastructure.

Merseytravel pays for general station IMPROVEMENTS. Network Rail usually CONTRIBUTES to some projects, such as Liverpool Central remodelling, although the majority of projects are funded by Merseytravel and non-rail bodies, such as NWDA.

Merseytravel is responsible for sourcing the new fleet, regulating fares, imposing minimum standard upon Merseyrail, regulating performance and even to an extent dealing with unsatisfied customers of the TOC.

The government has absolutely no say in Merseyrail's fleet any longer, this responsibility is all down to Merseytravel.

For Merseyrail, Merseytravel is practically the Department for Transport, except that Merseytravel is able to be stricter!

It is also widely known that Merseytravel (PTE) are also looking for vertical integration by purchasing the infrastructure from Network Rail. That is usually met with talks of strike action etc everytime it is mentioned.

 

[CosherB]

Why is the North West getting Thameslink cast-offs? Why can't TL keep their dual voltage trains, and North West get new 25KV-only stock?

 

[royaloak]

The 378s DO have connecting access doors.

That is NOT an interconnecting door it is an emergency exit.

 

[First class]

That is NOT an interconnecting door it is an emergency exit.

Well that is the only requirement these units require as the interior allows passengers to easily move carriages, there are no internal doors:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24772733@N05/3716586284/in/set-72157621448220652/

 

[mickey]

That is NOT an interconnecting door it is an emergency exit.

That's what I thought, and puts them in the same category as the current stock.

There's discussion on another thread about the rules surrounding single-track tunnels, and, while I'll happily admit I don't know what's true and what's hearsay, I can readily predict a huge fuss if Merseyrail decides on DOO and, rightly or wrongly, the public is likely to side with the staff in the argument over safe evacuations - unless it can be shown that the member of staff on board can get to any part of the train to assist if necessary. All you'd need though is for that end door to be accessible and you'd solve the problem at a shot. The ability to disconnect units easily and automatically (as on the Southern network now) would also be a huge benefit in getting more services round the loop - e.g. Wrexham runs could be joined/detached to regular West Kirby ones to effectively run two services as one in the congested part.

 

[WatcherZero]

Why is the North West getting Thameslink cast-offs? Why can't TL keep their dual voltage trains, and North West get new 25KV-only stock?

Because Merseyrail is due a stock replacement within the next 4 years and is a 3rd rail network. After the NW 25kv electrification schemes there will still be gaps in places of no electrification between Merseyrails 3rd rail and Northerns electrified 25kv sections. Which means 3 options in 4 years time or so.

1. fund huge new 3rd rail electrification to the places 25kv electrification begins and swap trains like in Kirkby at present.

2. Same as above but acquire duel mode thameslink castoffs/new duel mode allowing interoperability with the rest of the NW electrified lines.

3.No more electrification of gaps, acquire new 3rd rail only stock either as thameslink stock derated to single mode to run only on existing network while rest of NW expands 25kv electrification and EMU cascades, meanwhile services running between the two electifications would be diesel services running mostly under/over the wires.

The 4th option which doesnt even bear thinking for cost and disruption is start converting merseyrail slowly to 25kv, life extend trains until new 25kv is available/cascaded.

edit
Whipped up a rough and ready map of whats planned, whats aspired to, and the gaps that are left.

 

[CosherB]

Thanks WZ.

 

[tbtc]

Good map that, cheers

 

[ukrob]

The ability to disconnect units easily and automatically (as on the Southern network now) would also be a huge benefit in getting more services round the loop - e.g. Wrexham runs could be joined/detached to regular West Kirby ones to effectively run two services as one in the congested part.

The loop is signalled and capable of over double the services which currently use it, so there would be no benefit whilst creating operational and rostering problems. There is no congestion on the Wirral Line.

 

[mickey]

The loop is signalled and capable of over double the services which currently use it, so there would be no benefit whilst creating operational and rostering problems. There is no congestion on the Wirral Line.

Maybe from a theoretical perspective, yes, but operationally not necessarily so. A very minor delay to a train in the afternoon peak (i.e. when services already are almost doubled and platforms packed) can easily escalate and cause knock-on effects for everything else regardless of the theoretical capacity, and without some slack the potential for serious disruption is great.

However, given what you've said, I assume the rumour of a ludicrous plan to cancel all through services from Ellesmere Port when the Chester frequency is doubled can finally be laid to rest?

 

[ukrob]

Maybe from a theoretical perspective, yes, but operationally not necessarily so. A very minor delay to a train in the afternoon peak (i.e. when services already are almost doubled and platforms packed) can easily escalate and cause knock-on effects for everything else regardless of the theoretical capacity, and without some slack the potential for serious disruption is great.

However, given what you've said, I assume the rumour of a ludicrous plan to cancel all through services from Ellesmere Port when the Chester frequency is doubled can finally be laid to rest?

It is not theoretical, it is fact. The loop has one train every five minutes with no junctions or conflicting movements. Are you saying you think it is only theoretical that more trains could be inserted into that pattern when it is signalled for 30 trains per hour?

The actual loop very rarely causes delays, and doesn't add to them.

Services are not 'almost doubled' during the peak. There are an extra four trains per hour, for two hours. The fact that platforms are packed is irrelevant - if there were more trains more frequently then they wouldn't be as busy.

More often than not it is the Chester services which suffer - due to a very short turnaround on Chester on one of Merseyrails longest services (the longest route if you take into account that the route is Chester - Chester via Liverpool). The four services per hour to Chester will help ease that with a slightly longer turnaround.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion of what I have said means laying to rest the rumour of stopping the Ellesmere Port services -as that was to free up units, not create capacity on the loop.

 

[First class]

Indeed, I've heard quite interesting rumours about the Ellesmere Port line.

Basically, the Chesters are increased to 4tph daytime, reducing back down to 2tph evening/Sunday.

There should be a couple of direct ELP services in the am/pm peaks. But a shuttle from Hooton to Ellesmere Pt.

That is pretty much very likely to happen, particularly as the interchange station, (Hooton), has received a lot of investment recently, (DP lift, shop, more ticket windows etc).

The Ellesmere Port line would be given a "shuttle" service . Now, this is the interesting bit. It has been rumoured that this "shuttle" may be ran by a diesel service between Hooton and Helsby with all electric stock being utilised elsewhere. At first, it sounds a bit strange, however, a 153 could probably run this line quite easily, (aren't LM getting rid of quite a few?). Fuelling may not be a problem as an agreement could be reached with Alstom in Chester...Again, this is all speculation and rumour in mess rooms etc... I suppose it could even be given to Northern/Arriva!

 

[mickey]

The Ellesmere Port line would be given a "shuttle" service . Now, this is the interesting bit. It has been rumoured that this "shuttle" may be ran by a diesel service between Hooton and Helsby with all electric stock being utilised elsewhere. At first, it sounds a bit strange, however, a 153 could probably run this line quite easily, (aren't LM getting rid of quite a few?). Fuelling may not be a problem as an agreement could be reached with Alstom in Chester...Again, this is all speculation and rumour in mess rooms etc... I suppose it could even be given to Northern/Arriva!

...which is how it used to be pre-electrification south of Hooton. The problem is that it would be hugely unfair to people on that line to lose their through trains except at peak times, particularly as it's obvious where they're going instead. I very much hope there'll be such a huge fuss that it'll be scrapped asap. If they really can't run 6 units an hour between Hooton and Liverpool, at the very least they should run the 'extra' Chester trains as the shuttles - that way no one loses but some people still gain, if you see what I mean. 'Improvements' should not mean the loss of services, especially given the recession and 'access to employment' and all that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is not theoretical, it is fact. The loop has one train every five minutes with no junctions or conflicting movements. Are you saying you think it is only theoretical that more trains could be inserted into that pattern when it is signalled for 30 trains per hour?
[...]
More often than not it is the Chester services which suffer - due to a very short turnaround on Chester on one of Merseyrails longest services (the longest route if you take into account that the route is Chester - Chester via Liverpool). The four services per hour to Chester will help ease that with a slightly longer turnaround.

I didn't mean to criticise you or your opinion, just to point out potential problems from a passenger's perspective. Around 5pm the number of people trying to cram themselves onto trains frequently causes trains to stop longer than expected, and it's not at all unusual for New Brighton trains especially to pick up (albeit small) delays as a result of the 'extra' trains running round the loop.

I agree that an altered turnaround pattern at Chester will help, but it remains true that during peak hours any delay with a train entering its 'slot' in the loop quickly escalates. A big help of course would be having someone on the platform (à la the Tube) yelling at people to move along and use all available doors, but that's another story.

 

[First class]

I don't want to blame all residents along the Ellesmere Port line, but anti-social behaviour, vandalism, assaults on staff and extreme levels of fare evasion have blighted that line for a couple of years now. I heard figures of around 75% of passengers joining at Ellesmere Port and Overpool were made by people with NO INTENTION OR MEANS of paying. With Penalty Fares recently being introduced, more accurate figures should appear.

The Kirkby-Wigan line doesn't get an evening service for pretty much the same reasons.

I think Ellesmere Port would actually be better of with a shuttle, so long as it is frequent. If Ellesmere Port had trains every 15mins, (all with connections to Liverpool), they've effectively got a 100% increase in trains, albeit with a need to change. With Hooton being revamped, the change should be easy!

The Ellesmere Port line isn't really that busy outside the peaks. As I've said a 153 could easily cover. It's unfair for passengers using the busier services, Chester etc, for a 3-car unit to be conveying fresh air around Ellesmere Port, whilst they're standing up for 30mins.

As for the problems with the loop, my only comment is really that to run more services into it, more places on the Wirral Line should be able to handle turn backs. The main problem with the loop is pot fires, (causing the line to be closed), and long dwell times during the peaks at Liverpool Central...

 

[mickey]

It's unfair for passengers using the busier services, Chester etc, for a 3-car unit to be conveying fresh air around Ellesmere Port, whilst they're standing up for 30mins.

As for the problems with the loop, my only comment is really that to run more services into it, more places on the Wirral Line should be able to handle turn backs. The main problem with the loop is pot fires, (causing the line to be closed), and long dwell times during the peaks at Liverpool Central...

I've never had to stand between Hooton and Chester, and I use the line frequently (and at various times of day). The really annoying thing about that line is the number of ECS movements out of Chester during the evening peak - I've never understood why at least through passengers shouldn't be allowed to board, - and that annoyance looks likely to be removed whatever happens.

I agree about turnbacks, though Birkenhead North and Rock Ferry are both easily capable of it. As I said earlier, however, having joined trains travel round the loop and split before junctions (e.g. Bidston) should at least be considered as a way of better utilising stock and capacity. They manage it without fuss in Kent and Sussex.

 

[ukrob]

I agree about turnbacks, though Birkenhead North and Rock Ferry are both easily capable of it. As I said earlier, however, having joined trains travel round the loop and split before junctions (e.g. Bidston) should at least be considered as a way of better utilising stock and capacity. They manage it without fuss in Kent and Sussex.

How is it better utilising stock? All you are doing is increasing dwell times at the station where the two portions meet and adding the potential for delays. Then after three miles they detach again?! And doing it where there are no capacity problems to start with. Quite different to how portion working is used elsewhere in the UK!

 

[First class]

I concur with ukrob, (de)coupling services on such short journeys is a waste of time in my opinion.

However, although the theoretical capacity of the network is not at its limit, adding extra services reduces reliability. Whereas a late running train can run ECS to gain time at the moment, if the "spare" capacity is being used by new services, the ECS just gets stuck behind something else and doesn't regain time.

With an aging fleet, adding new services whilst battling to keep the fleet working is going to end up with regular cancellations.

If additional frequency (on the Wirral) is an aspiration then the following need to be considered:

1) Line speed increase Birkenhead-Chester, particularly Hooton-Chester
2) Additional electrified platform at Chester
3) The loop-link signalled for passenger workings
4) Additional rolling stock / train crew
5) Possible 'express' services, already suggested as omitting Bache/Capenhurst
6) 4-aspect signalling in places

 

[northwichcat]

Weren't there more Wirral line services to Chester before DfT ordered Merseyrail to hand over some of their 508s to Connex?

 

[mickey]

Weren't there more Wirral line services to Chester before DfT ordered Merseyrail to hand over some of their 508s to Connex?

No. Chester services have been half-hourly since electrification in the mid-90s; the only change has been the extension of some of the extra Hooton services from/to Chester in the peak hours.

 

[northwichcat]

No. Chester services have been half-hourly since electrification in the mid-90s; the only change has been the extension of some of the extra Hooton services from/to Chester in the peak hours.

Then how did units become available if there wasn't a service cut back or short formed, even if it was only extra peak time services that were cut back or cut down to 3 cars?