Merseyrail Class 777 introduction updates

[507020]

I agree, it's most likely the Wrexham line will be next. It has a good business case as it requires little work to get some form of service running.

It is precisely for the reason that the least work would be required to connect the Bidston - Wrexham line to Merseyrail that this should NOT be attempted in the first instance.

It is currently possible to get from Bidston to Wrexham by rail, as well as Liverpool and West Kirby. The line will shortly enjoy a doubling in frequency to half hourly and longer trains in the form of the 230s. These should be allowed to run the route for at least 10 years, until after 150s are withdrawn, before being replaced by additional pure battery 777s.

By contrast it is not possible to get to Southport by rail from Ormskirk or Preston, or to Skelmersdale from anywhere, so the priorities for network expansion should be where work is required, but will create the most new travel opportunities.

Any extension beyond Ormskirk or Kirkby will require the partitions to be removed and an additional few feet of track to be laid in the middle. Both could also do with an additional platform for increased resiliency, so the work is not trivial. Resignalling is unavoidable for most extensions. There is no signalling of any kind north of Ormskirk, or between Southport and Burscough Bridge.

Relaying track over the unobstructed Network Rail owned trackbed of the Burscough Curves and properly integrating the Ormskirk - Preston line with the line to Southport via both reinstated Burscough Curves, as well as the WCML and existing Liverpool - Ormskirk line and increasing capacity between Southport and Burscough Bridge by a factor of 8 by installing additional signals would serve as a good test bed for the later construction of an entirely new embankment from between Rainford and Upholland to Skelmersdale, as well as the other resignalling projects and redoubling needed there and elsewhere.

On the Wirral Line, the first battery equipped expansion that should be considered is probably Ellesmere Port - Helsby, given that effectively no work would be required and it would create a proper interchange at Helsby with the TfW services to Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester. If 777s take over Bidston - Wrexham immediately, what happens to the 230s, the Burscough Curves and the Skelmersdale branch?

 

[wobman]

I agree, it's most likely the Wrexham line will be next. It has a good business case as it requires little work to get some form of service running. Though running directly into Liverpool for a non Merseyrail toc would be a challenge, not least given TFW dont have anything capable of running on 3rd rail. Not an insurmountable problem though. Which makes me wonder if Merseytravel could purchase more battery 777s and then lease them to TFW to run, or run it on their behalf.

The 230's could be adapted to run 3rd rail, that's if they are reliable enough.
One issue is the gangway door being welded shut on the 230's though, there's so much talk of 777 units running on the borderlands line but it's geography makes it far more complicated than people think.

The 777 battery units have had 1 test on a non comparable route, the batteries would need more testing and the route would need booster stations on route.

 

[D821]

It is precisely for the reason that the least work would be required to connect the Bidston - Wrexham line to Merseyrail that this should NOT be attempted in the first instance.

It is currently possible to get from Bidston to Wrexham by rail, as well as Liverpool and West Kirby. The line will shortly enjoy a doubling in frequency to half hourly and longer trains in the form of the 230s. These should be allowed to run the route for at least 10 years, until after 150s are withdrawn, before being replaced by additional pure battery 777s.

By contrast it is not possible to get to Southport by rail from Ormskirk or Preston, or to Skelmersdale from anywhere, so the priorities for network expansion should be where work is required, but will create the most new travel opportunities.

Any extension beyond Ormskirk or Kirkby will require the partitions to be removed and an additional few feet of track to be laid in the middle. Both could also do with an additional platform for increased resiliency, so the work is not trivial. Resignalling is unavoidable for most extensions. There is no signalling of any kind north of Ormskirk, or between Southport and Burscough Bridge.

Relaying track over the unobstructed Network Rail owned trackbed of the Burscough Curves and properly integrating the Ormskirk - Preston line with the line to Southport via both reinstated Burscough Curves, as well as the WCML and existing Liverpool - Ormskirk line and increasing capacity between Southport and Burscough Bridge by a factor of 8 by installing additional signals would serve as a good test bed for the later construction of an entirely new embankment from between Rainford and Upholland to Skelmersdale, as well as the other resignalling projects and redoubling needed there and elsewhere.

On the Wirral Line, the first battery equipped expansion that should be considered is probably Ellesmere Port - Helsby, given that effectively no work would be required and it would create a proper interchange at Helsby with the TfW services to Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester. If 777s take over Bidston - Wrexham immediately, what happens to the 230s, the Burscough Curves and the Skelmersdale branch?

Whilst Merseytravel has an agreement with Stadler to build an additional c.50 units, I'd be keen to know if there was an expiry period on it. 10 years may be too long.

The extension to Helsby seems a no-brainer. I think that was where they carried out some of the 777 battery operation testing.

I think that politics will come into play a bit with Merseyrail expansion - the Liverpool City Region has funded new stations at Headbolt Lane and are looking at the re-opening of St. James. If the other 4 regions of the LCR don't see stations getting funded in their own backyard there maybe mumblings of discontent. I think Wirral seeing a new station at Woodchurch might be a possibility.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed, the traction package is from ABB.

Traktionssysteme Austria is a free-standing company, not part of modern ABB.
But it is of ABB heritage, and their head office in Vienna is at Brown-Boveri-Strasse 1.
They also supply traction packages to several other manufacturers including CAF (class 331), and supplied alternators for Hitachi's class 80x series.
They also power Metrolink's M5000 trams in Manchester.

The main ABB traction suppliers were in Sweden (Västerås, ex ASEA), and found their way into Bombardier and now the new Alstom.
They supplied traction packages for most of the recent EMU output from Derby (Electrostar, Aventra).

 

[Skie]

If 777s take over Bidston - Wrexham immediately, what happens to the 230s, the Burscough Curves and the Skelmersdale branch?

Any Wrexham working is going to take 5 years to get up and running. Despite the ease of the project infrastructure wise it’s still a significant chunk of money to spend and needs a mid-point charging solution that needs to be passed by the relevant 3rd rail naysayers.

And of course, you can work on developing multiple projects simultaneously. I think Merseytravel have a good team of people working on business cases and project management (the 777 project wasn’t just buying some trains either) so they do have the ability to target multiple extensions at the same time.

Whilst Merseytravel has an agreement with Stadler to build an additional c.50 units, I'd be keen to know if there was an expiry period on it. 10 years may be too long.

There is. I can’t remember off the top of my head but I think it’s 7 years.

Edit: The option for the extra trains expires in 2028.

Initial tests of battery-powered Stadler IPEMU for Merseyrail complete

IRJ at Rail Live 2021: Merseyrail could eventually require seven battery-powered class 777s built by Swiss manufcaturer Stadler.

www.railjournal.com

 

[chiltern trev]

There is. I can’t remember off the top of my head but I think it’s 7 years.

Edit: The option for the extra trains expires in 2028.

Initial tests of battery-powered Stadler IPEMU for Merseyrail complete

IRJ at Rail Live 2021: Merseyrail could eventually require seven battery-powered class 777s built by Swiss manufcaturer Stadler.

www.railjournal.com

I think the option should be exercised in full, probably not until the last year of the option.

The 777 has level step free board - a huge improvement on the CAF units (Northern, TFW, etc). And more of the same (i.e. 777s).

Where to use - any suitable route around Merseyside spreading out until you have deployed the full fleet option. So you get one common experience in a greater single area and can build on Stadler being located at Kirkdale. Turn Allerton or Springs Branch into further base(s). In the process existing DMUs are displaced/cascaded elsewhere or scrapped - same for other EMUs.

Who pays/buys? Applying the "Great British Railways" thinking, one for Merseytravel/Northern/DfT to sort out to best advantage between them - buying and subleasing etc to suit.

If the Purchasing Officer has done the contract properly, there should be suitable transferability/reassignable clauses in the contract without penalties.

In the longer run, more EMUs will be needed, so buy more of these and cascade.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still think some people on here are sad Merseyrail didn't just go for clapped out 331s.

What's clapped out about 331s?

I'm a big Stadler fan and level boarding advocate, I'd just have fitted out the interior slightly differently, perhaps a little more like the Greater Anglia units.

 

[XAM2175]

What's clapped out about 331s?

It was clarified two posts later that the post was meant to say 313s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was clarified two posts later that the post was meant to say 313s.

Why on earth would Merseyrail replace 1970s PEP units with more 1970s PEP units that are actually slightly older?

I could see an argument for having gone for cheaper, more standard EMUs (e.g. 331s) - but not for that.

 

[XAM2175]

Why on earth would Merseyrail replace 1970s PEP units with more 1970s PEP units that are actually slightly older?

It's not my idea!
(you're welcome, though)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Why on earth would Merseyrail replace 1970s PEP units with more 1970s PEP units that are actually slightly older?

Given that there were a number of PEP variants with - as I understand it - a common body shell, there might just have been a case of assembling a fleet for somewhere like Merseyrail out of the best bodyshells with common (new?) running gear and so on.

Might just. But realistically probably not. I strongly suspect that anything saved by using existing bodyshells would be lost by having to find new kit which would fit into the old shells, and patching up even the best of the shells for another thirty or forty years in service.

(Edited to add) And I most emphatically would not want to be the Merseyrail/Merseytravel bod tasked with explaining to the Echo how this did not constitute Merseyside being fobbed off with second-hand trains that London (and Glasgow) had thrown away.

 

[wobman]

The 777 units that travel longer than 1 hour if routes are extended will need toilets fitting and retention tanks, plus facilities at kirkdale to empty the tanks.

 

[Skie]

One of the whole points of the 777 was to build something suited to the Merseyrail network. The Peps were not great at handling tight corners and the network is full of them.

 

[Djgr]

Whilst Merseytravel has an agreement with Stadler to build an additional c.50 units, I'd be keen to know if there was an expiry period on it. 10 years may be too long.

The extension to Helsby seems a no-brainer. I think that was where they carried out some of the 777 battery operation testing.

I think that politics will come into play a bit with Merseyrail expansion - the Liverpool City Region has funded new stations at Headbolt Lane and are looking at the re-opening of St. James. If the other 4 regions of the LCR don't see stations getting funded in their own backyard there maybe mumblings of discontent. I think Wirral seeing a new station at Woodchurch might be a possibility.

Is it not five? Wirral, Sefton, Halton, St.Helens, Knowsley.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Is it not five? Wirral, Sefton, Halton, St.Helens, Knowsley.

There's a little known sixth authority in the city region called 'the City of Liverpool'.

Or on an alternative reading of the post that prompted this, new stations are being proposed in two of the six authorities (St James in Liverpool, Headbolt Lane in Knowsley) leaving four authorities who should be asking for new stations in their area. Where this analysis rather breaks down is that I can't think of anywhere in Sefton that would need a new station. Or maybe Maghull North means that Sefton has already had its slice of pie and so now goes to the back of the queue.

 

[Skie]

There's a little known sixth authority in the city region called 'the City of Liverpool'.

Or on an alternative reading of the post that prompted this, new stations are being proposed in two of the six authorities (St James in Liverpool, Headbolt Lane in Knowsley) leaving four authorities who should be asking for new stations in their area. Where this analysis rather breaks down is that I can't think of anywhere in Sefton that would need a new station. Or maybe Maghull North means that Sefton has already had its slice of pie and so now goes to the back of the queue.

North Mersey branch would be a nice bit of infil and could give the Bootle stations a higher frequency service to Liverpool.

 

[Pacef8]

You could add two stations at woodchurch and leasowe on the wirral lines to get the wbc pot.

 

[Ribbleman]

I don’t think that a business case for a station can be constructed on the basis of each borough having a turn. There has to be a real identified source of potential revenue as there was with Maghull North. There has to be a suitable site and there have to be paths to accommodate additional stops. The lack of the latter is why there is no station at Vauxhall, between Sandhills and Moorfields.

Regarding extensions of existing Merseyrail services, it should be remembered that every one of the suggested destinations, be it Wigan, Preston, Warrington, Wrexham or Helsby involves running into neighbouring authorities’ areas. Some will be more interested in participating and funding Merseyrail extensions than others. The interest and resources of the Welsh Assembly Government rather outweigh those of Cheshire and Lancashire. That in itself is the reason why the Wrexham line is being talked about as the most likely to see battery trains after Headbolt Lane is commissioned. We are looking at progressive elimination of diesel powered trains over the next 20-30 years. Extending electric services to a town of 66,000 people, the largest in North Wales, is an eminently sensible step towards that goal.

Ormskirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan may seem obvious reinstatements of what were once through services from Liverpool and battery powered 777s make these goals tenable. However, there would still be considerable expenditure required on track, signalling and station alterations.
Lancashire County Council are currently preparing a bid to government for funding to carry out a study into the feasibility of re-opening Midge Hall station, between Croston and Preston, and also to look at the question of the Burscough curves. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the bid will be.

 

[MattRat]

Regarding extensions of existing Merseyrail services, it should be remembered that every one of the suggested destinations, be it Wigan, Preston, Warrington, Wrexham or Helsby involves running into neighbouring authorities’ areas. Some will be more interested in participating and funding Merseyrail extensions than others. The interest and resources of the Welsh Assembly Government rather outweigh those of Cheshire and Lancashire. That in itself is the reason why the Wrexham line is being talked about as the most likely to see battery trains after Headbolt Lane is commissioned. We are looking at progressive elimination of diesel powered trains over the next 20-30 years. Extending electric services to a town of 66,000 people, the largest in North Wales, is an eminently sensible step towards that goal.

Ormskirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan may seem obvious reinstatements of what were once through services from Liverpool and battery powered 777s make these goals tenable. However, there would still be considerable expenditure required on track, signalling and station alterations.
Lancashire County Council are currently preparing a bid to government for funding to carry out a study into the feasibility of re-opening Midge Hall station, between Croston and Preston, and also to look at the question of the Burscough curves. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the bid will be.

I think people also forget the trains can be made OHLE compatible, and 'simply' reopening the old tunnel between Lime Street underground and the mainline would open up the possibility of a lot of services.

 

[D821]

You could add two stations at woodchurch and leasowe on the wirral lines to get the wbc pot.

Leasowe already has a station, were you thinking Of Town Meadow?

 

[Bevan Price]

I think people also forget the trains can be made OHLE compatible, and 'simply' reopening the old tunnel between Lime Street underground and the mainline would open up the possibility of a lot of services.

There is no "old" tunnel between the mainline and Lime Street underground. The old tunnels from Edge Hill ran to (i) Riverside, and (ii) Canning Street/Wapping. Neither served any purpose for reaching (currently) useful passenger destinations. Some people have had ideas of connecting the Wapping tunnel to Liverpool Central (Northern Line platform), but that would be expensive, dump passengers at the already overcrowded Central, and lose main line connectivity at Lime Street.

Whilst increasing frequencies on local services via Huyton to St. Helens/Wigan, and Newton Le Willows/Manchester might seem desirable, the current infrastructure makes that almost impossible without sacrificing the express / semi-fast services to Preston/Blackpool & the Trans Pennine destinations.

 

[Djgr]

There's a little known sixth authority in the city region called 'the City of Liverpool'.

Or on an alternative reading of the post that prompted this, new stations are being proposed in two of the six authorities (St James in Liverpool, Headbolt Lane in Knowsley) leaving four authorities who should be asking for new stations in their area. Where this analysis rather breaks down is that I can't think of anywhere in Sefton that would need a new station. Or maybe Maghull North means that Sefton has already had its slice of pie and so now goes to the back of the queue.

You are correct. I forgot Headbolt Lane aka Knowsley Parkway was in Knowsley!

 

[MattRat]

There is no "old" tunnel between the mainline and Lime Street underground. The old tunnels from Edge Hill ran to (i) Riverside, and (ii) Canning Street/Wapping. Neither served any purpose for reaching (currently) useful passenger destinations. Some people have had ideas of connecting the Wapping tunnel to Liverpool Central (Northern Line platform), but that would be expensive, dump passengers at the already overcrowded Central, and lose main line connectivity at Lime Street.

Whilst increasing frequencies on local services via Huyton to St. Helens/Wigan, and Newton Le Willows/Manchester might seem desirable, the current infrastructure makes that almost impossible without sacrificing the express / semi-fast services to Preston/Blackpool & the Trans Pennine destinations.

It's just that Merseytravel stations on the City Line currently are that only in name. The only other option is reworking South Parkway which would only really open up the possibility of Warrington in terms of the City Line, although Runcorn and even Crewe could be accessed when OHLE is considered.

 

[Skie]

Some people have had ideas of connecting the Wapping tunnel to Liverpool Central (Northern Line platform), but that would be expensive, dump passengers at the already overcrowded Central, and lose main line connectivity at Lime Street.

There are fairly good reasons to do this coming up soon (in railway terms) and those are the long needed rebuild of Central to cope with demand and the arrival of HS2 into Liverpool. If you're digging a big hole to a 3rd platform and struggling for space at Lime street, then it's logical to try and make the stars align a bit and divert some local services to an even larger liverpool central and alter the entire regional local services too.

Though this is getting away from the 777s a fair old bit now!

 

[MattRat]

There are fairly good reasons to do this coming up soon (in railway terms) and those are the long needed rebuild of Central to cope with demand and the arrival of HS2 into Liverpool. If you're digging a big hole to a 3rd platform and struggling for space at Lime street, then it's logical to try and make the stars align a bit and divert some local services to an even larger liverpool central and alter the entire regional local services too.

Though this is getting away from the 777s a fair old bit now!

Well the whole point of the 777s seems to be to have more services with minimal infrastructure. The tunnel is one thing, remodelling a station is another. The costs would soon skyrocket. Sort of defeats the idea of the new trains.

 

[6Gman]

Relaying track over the unobstructed Network Rail owned trackbed of the Burscough Curves and properly integrating the Ormskirk - Preston line with the line to Southport via both reinstated Burscough Curves, as well as the WCML and existing Liverpool - Ormskirk line and increasing capacity between Southport and Burscough Bridge by a factor of 8 by installing additional signals would serve as a good test bed for the later construction of an entirely new embankment from between Rainford and Upholland to Skelmersdale, as well as the other resignalling projects and redoubling needed there and elsewhere.

What does "properly integrate" actually mean in this context? If you're committing to both curves you're presumably wanting (Liverpool) - Ormskirk - Southport and - Preston, plus Southport - Preston, but at what frequencies? Can't help feeling you'd either have thin frequencies or a lot of pretty empty trains.

 

[Ribbleman]

Well the whole point of the 777s seems to be to have more services with minimal infrastructure. The tunnel is one thing, remodelling a station is another. The costs would soon skyrocket. Sort of defeats the idea of the new trains.

The "idea" of the 777s is to replace the life expired 507 and 508 fleets. The fact that battery technology has now evolved to the point where there is an option to equip some sets to continue beyond the limits of the 3rd rail is something of a bonus. At the time that the units were ordered it was not an option but came later after separate funding was made available to develop the plan.

The opportunity to extend services brings with it the need to look again urgently at expanding Liverpool Central. The station struggles to cope at the moment when special events are taking place or normal working is disrupted and overcrowding ensues. There was a plan several years ago to construct two additional terminal platforms for services from the north, either side of the existing island, each in its own tunnel. The development on the land above, formerly the site of Central High Level, did not take place and the extra platforms have never been built.

 

[Bertie the bus]

There is no signalling of any kind north of Ormskirk

Have you informed the person at Rufford signal box of that fact?

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder this is a Traction & Rolling Stock thread to discuss Merseyrail Class 777s

The forum has plenty of spare capacity for threads to discuss any other topic

Thanks

 

[zuriblue]

Why on earth would Merseyrail replace 1970s PEP units with more 1970s PEP units that are actually slightly older?

I could see an argument for having gone for cheaper, more standard EMUs (e.g. 331s) - but not for that.

Just be grateful that nobody's suggested 442s (give it time)

Sorry, Yorkie, I'll behave now.