Merseyrail Class 777 introduction updates

[reddragon]

The 507s might not have been a new design entirely, but they certainly were new to Merseyside staff. Even the 313s, which pioneered this design, the first second-generation EMU and novel in many ways, took less than six months from first delivery to service introduction. The PEPs (i.e. the actual PEPs, the 445/6s) were substantially different from the production-run design as well.

Despite the advancements in technology, it still shouldn't be the case that the 777s are as unreliable as this over three years since the first was delivered.

When GWR received their first class 387s, 387130-131 arrived late evening, had overnight driver training and the 2 units went into service the next day!

I can only assume that as totally new units, less local enthusiasm? or creative paperwork delays matters!

 

[baldyman26]

Its clear something is wrong, it's also clear we will never know the truth of what, it was all smiles and look at my trains from the Mayor and his cronies but when it hits the fan they scarper back into their holes.

 

[Wezz]

Double or single 777s though? That's the important thing.

No, there's an issue with 8 cars so they can't run in 8 car formation for the races. I can't say what the issue is though.

 

[MattRat]

No, there's an issue with 8 cars so they can't run in 8 car formation for the races. I can't say what the issue is though.

So pandemonium then if they decide to put them on during the national.

 

[prod_pep]

If the 777s still can't run in multiple by the Grand National, there won't be any on the Ormskirk line for the race meeting. Never in a month of Sundays could they get away with single units on such a busy occasion.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

According to a high up who featured in Geoff Marshall’s video, all three Kirkby’s should now be 777, Ormskirk beginning that at the end of the month, Wirral halfway through the year, and Southport towards the end of the year or early 2024, last because they need the work done on that route for 8-777 capability.

 

[315801]

According to a post somewhere in recent pages on this thread ( possibly between page 130 and thi page to give a reasonable margin of error) it was stated ( NOT by me ) that the issue preventing 8 coach 777 running is something to do with the software carried by the odd the respective units from the 2 production locawhere they were built.

1 of the locations built the odd numbered units ( Poland I think ) and the even numbered units built at the other in Switzerland.

The issue is that an odd numbered unit cannot run coupled to an even numbered unit as the 2 software on 1 unit will not communicate with the other unit and vice versa.

I want to make it absolutely clear right now that these are not my statements and were originally posted by another member who had managed to find out why. I am just going on what has been previously mentioned and not giving my own ideas on what I think the problems are.

The only point I will make is that I think the units should have put through more fault free mileage than they were, Iahave seen figures suggesting they have done only around 500 miles of falt free running although I could have sworn blind that the original mileage requirement was higher than that but hey, who knows these days, I have given up trying to figure out what is correct.

 

[baldyman26]

What constitutes "fault free". Certainly not "fault free" now. This is tax payers money being spent. As I said before if there is a photo to be had Rotherham is there, when his master plan falls apart he is nowhereto be seen. Tax payers are being kept in the dark and are left with a sub standard service. Merseyrail is a superb network but I'm sick of turning up at Fazakerley each day with no clue if a train will get me to Central.

 

[315801]

I see your point

 

[Peter Sarf]

According to a post somewhere in recent pages on this thread ( possibly between page 130 and thi page to give a reasonable margin of error) it was stated ( NOT by me ) that the issue preventing 8 coach 777 running is something to do with the software carried by the odd the respective units from the 2 production locawhere they were built.

1 of the locations built the odd numbered units ( Poland I think ) and the even numbered units built at the other in Switzerland.

The issue is that an odd numbered unit cannot run coupled to an even numbered unit as the 2 software on 1 unit will not communicate with the other unit and vice versa.

I want to make it absolutely clear right now that these are not my statements and were originally posted by another member who had managed to find out why. I am just going on what has been previously mentioned and not giving my own ideas on what I think the problems are.

The only point I will make is that I think the units should have put through more fault free mileage than they were, Iahave seen figures suggesting they have done only around 500 miles of falt free running although I could have sworn blind that the original mileage requirement was higher than that but hey, who knows these days, I have given up trying to figure out what is correct.

I seem to recall it was not necessarily software. Software would be unlikely to have two versions. More likely a hardware difference. Thats based on recollection of earlier posts.

Conjecture but - My guess is there only needs to be one wiring difference in say a multi connector. Then all those units wired one way would to work together fine and all those wired the other way would work together. But put one of each together and some compatibility problem would arise. I would hope that once identified that wiring difference would be easy to reverse.

 

[185]

As I said before if there is a photo to be had Rotherham is there, when his master plan falls apart he is nowhereto be seen.

I don't entirely blame Rotherham. The so-called 'railway expert' who oversaw specification, procurement, design and introduction is the Chairman of Merseytravel, Liam Robinson, who by day is also a Network Rail manager.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The only point I will make is that I think the units should have put through more fault free mileage than they were, Iahave seen figures suggesting they have done only around 500 miles of falt free running although I could have sworn blind that the original mileage requirement was higher than that but hey, who knows these days, I have given up trying to figure out what is correct.

It isn’t how many miles they do that is important but what is being tested and how. Complete unit failures where the train refuses to move are rare on any type of train so they could be put through 20,000 miles of running from one place to another and back and they could still encounter problems when they are put into service.

There have been comments on this thread that replicating real life in testing is difficult and there are bound to be problems when new trains are introduced. Nobody has ever said testing of software is easy, which is why relatively high paid professionals are involved and not just random people off the street, but because it isn’t an easy task doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done or done well and they have had 3 years to do it. Whilst some issues are to be expected the fleet being withdrawn from service twice in a few weeks suggests more than a couple of minor problems.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It isn’t how many miles they do that is important but what is being tested and how. Complete unit failures where the train refuses to move are rare on any type of train so they could be put through 20,000 miles of running from one place to another and back and they could still encounter problems when they are put into service.

There have been comments on this thread that replicating real life in testing is difficult and there are bound to be problems when new trains are introduced. Nobody has ever said testing of software is easy, which is why relatively high paid professionals are involved and not just random people off the street, but because it isn’t an easy task doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done or done well and they have had 3 years to do it. Whilst some issues are to be expected the fleet being withdrawn from service twice in a few weeks suggests more than a couple of minor problems.

Yes. The only real testing is when the units encounter real passengers. The Fault Free Running just irons out the more basic problems. Problems in service are usually of an unpredictable nature and so are harder to make test plans for. But its taken sooo looong !.

 

[Pacef8]

The wrong type of passenger and the wrong type of rain . I feel for the passengers of green lane who where promised an improved regular new service asap.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Yes. The only real testing is when the units encounter real passengers. The Fault Free Running just irons out the more basic problems. Problems in service are usually of an unpredictable nature and so are harder to make test plans for. But its taken sooo looong !.

The point is much of it can be replicated. It just takes time and effort and they have certainly had plenty of time.

 

[DJH1971]

None out in service today I take it?

 

[Wezz]

The wrong type of passenger and the wrong type of rain . I feel for the passengers of green lane who where promised an improved regular new service asap.

Believe it or not, passengers are the main cause of delays.

 

[OutdoorM]

Believe it or not, passengers are the main cause of delays.

LOL, victim blaming?

 

[Bertie the bus]

LOL, victim blaming?

He is right though. When they were trundling around the network empty they were quite successful. If only someone had warned them they would carry passengers eventually.

 

[Bikeman78]

Yes. The only real testing is when the units encounter real passengers. The Fault Free Running just irons out the more basic problems. Problems in service are usually of an unpredictable nature and so are harder to make test plans for. But its taken sooo looong !.

Some problems are entirely predictable of course. When the class 357s were new, seemingly no one guessed that passengers would hold the doors open.

 

[baldyman26]

So reported software issues are as a result of passengers?, same software same trains.

 

[Sam 76]

It appears to be a software issue looking at the Facebook page regarding the train data monitor recorders not showing the correct dates and times. So hopefully won’t be too long until they are back. Whilst annoying can’t imagine it’s a big fix

 

[Bertie the bus]

If that is true, and I do mean if, then I'm struggling to work out how that is down to passenger behaviour. Is Kirkby in a different time zone to the rest of the country or full of hackers messing with the time/date on the units?

 

[MattRat]

If that is true, and I do mean if, then I'm struggling to work out how that is down to passenger behaviour. Is Kirkby in a different time zone to the rest of the country or full of hackers messing with the time/date on the units?

It's probably more about where it gets that information from, and what it talks to for that information, and some of the stuff Merseyrail rail use are incredibly antiquated. Like plugging a laptop into a telegraph line, something is bound to go wrong or just refuse to work.

 

[Liverpool 507]

I had a trip up to Southport today and took a walk down to the foot bridge over the main sidings.

777003, 777004, 777007, 777010 and 777012 were visible amongst another 777 at the far end of No. 10 siding, which I suspect to be 001 or 016, as well as 507009, 507024, 508112, 508141 and an unknown 507/8.

777012 has now received Metro branding.

 

[Luke McDonnell]

Hi just asking if any 777s have been out today?

Luke

 

[Geeves]

None on the Kirkby circuit currently as of 1524 anyway.

 

[DJH1971]

They seriously need to get a handle on whatever the problem is, especially as 507019 and 508122 have now gone for scrap.

 

[315801]

Your absolutely right DJH1971, at this rate we'll have no rail service soon if this keeps up the way it is.

 

[Demic Lovato]

The issue is in regards to the OTDR/OTMR not working correctly on the 777s.