What could/should Merseyrail have ordered instead of Class 777s?

[Bletchleyite]

Taking into account the relative unpopularity of 777s and their many faults, what might have been the alternatives?

A 3-car DC Desiro city would have been the sort of crowd buster that Merseyrail needed, - robust yet compact enough for the tunnels. Geared down for northern infrastructure speeds and only a quarter of the traction power needed.

I'd certainly agree that the Desiro City would have been a good option, and a layout similar to the 700s would have worked just fine. Personally I would have gone for fixed-formation 5-car units with an option to extend to 6 (I think due to the curves it would have had to be 20m vehicles) and ideally a between-bogie drop in one vehicle for low floor accessibility, though given that Merseyrail is self-contained level boarding to one vehicle via Harrington humps would have been an option.

 

[AM9]

Taking into account the relative unpopularity of 777s and their many faults, what might have been the alternatives?



I'd certainly agree that the Desiro City would have been a good option, and a layout similar to the 700s would have worked just fine. Personally I would have gone for fixed-formation 5-car units with an option to extend to 6 (I think due to the curves it would have had to be 20m vehicles) and ideally a between-bogie drop in one vehicle for low floor accessibility, though given that Merseyrail is self-contained level boarding to one vehicle via Harrington humps would have been an option.

Thanks, I didn't know what the platform length limitations were. So looking at the class 717s, they would be a perfect drop-i, e.g.:
reduced loading gauge (as were the MK111 319s)

3rd rail DC equipped​

very high capacity, (over 850 including standing)​

85mph gearing and good acceleration​

fast wide doors (and more than one in all cars​

projected long service life (typical of Siemens stock)​

smaller wheelbases on bogies (2200 motor/2100 trainer vs 2400 on 777s)​

They would also come with some bonus features:

25KV OLE operation, (at some point the CLC line will be electrified)​

three trailer cars with space for batteries underneath (Siemens are developing battery traction for the Verve range)​

fit outs for ETCS should they need to use NR routes​

don't look and feel like trams​

So it looks like such an alternative might have been a better option, especially considering through-life costs (I have no idea of the relative costs of Siemens v Stadler products).

​

​

 

[Bletchleyite]

The platforms are largely 120m or thereabouts, i.e. 6x20m as has run for years. The original idea with the 777s was that the back end could hang off but in reality they've actually lengthened them, presumably to make life easier for guards etc.

I think the issue with 24m vehicles would be the tight curves on the Loop line. Otherwise I'd propose 4 car 730/0s - they're much nicer than 700s and already have an end door (required for evacuation in the tight tunnels) designed in. There's always the 701, but this shortened, squashed Aventra has largely not met with success.

 

[NCT]

As an aside, was there ever a proposal to DOO Merseyrail?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an aside, was there ever a proposal to DOO Merseyrail?

Yes, the 777s were intended to be DOO, but industrial action caused them to reconsider and create an OBS-like (but safety critical) role to keep them instead (rather than fitting guard panels as might be more conventional). I had expected this to be funded by way of ticket office closures, but this doesn't seem to have happened so I have no idea where the money came from.

This gave rise to the odd "train manager" role (I think it's called that) which involves basically acting as a pseudo-dispatcher (tapping a proximity card to signal to the driver platform duties are complete, then they depart DOO) and wandering around looking bored the rest of the time.

 

[NCT]

So the issues weren't to do with 777 specification but buckling to unions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the issues weren't to do with 777 specification but buckling to unions.

The dispatch issue relates to that, yes. There is a lot more wrong with the units than that!

A recap of the problems with 777s...

• Dispatch method (noted above)
• Poor reliability
• Door problems
• Slow door cycle
• Single door on end coaches
• Relatively narrow doors
• Lack of bodyside hazard indicators (which are useful to passengers in seeing if the doors have been locked yet)
• Clumsy layout with poor legroom and different spacings of seats from the wall
• Cigarette end disposal, sorry, odd holes in the top of the bodyside conduit that accumulate rubbish
• Oddly shaped seat backs force your back into a hunched curve (this was a workaround due to the protruding headrests)
• Lighting unpleasantly bright (far worse than the 700)
• Multiple floor levels with ramps that people trip over (yet the S-stock has a single floor height throughout)
• Badly designed PIS with excessively small text
• Lots of different window sizes making hassle for parts departments (to be fair the 700 also has this)
• Drab interior colour scheme

Did I miss any?

 

[Failed Unit]

Surely a follow on build of the 717s would be perfect. Not knowing the region the level boarding is a big plus, but what about station access? If know the 717s need ramps, but if you look at Welwyn Garden City to Moorgate currently the only stations a wheelchair user can use are. Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Potters Bar, Hadley Wood (northbound) and Finsbury Park. Not much good getting on the train if you can't get out the station. Is Merseyrail better access into the station itself?

I must be swallowing the Merseyrail spin about how good these trains are for access...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely a follow on build of the 717s would be perfect. Not knowing the region the level boarding is a big plus, but what about station access? If know the 717s need ramps, but if you look at Welwyn Garden City to Moorgate currently the only stations a wheelchair user can use are. Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Potters Bar, Hadley Wood (northbound) and Finsbury Park. Not much good getting on the train if you can't get out the station. Is Merseyrail better access into the station itself?

Yes, a large number of Merseyrail stations including the city centre ones are accessible in some form (though often not between platforms without quite a long road route). Not quite all (e.g. Aughton Park isn't) but a lot are.

The upside of a manual ramp is that the member of staff deploying it can ask the destination and make sure they'll be able to get out...

 

[AM9]

.... and already have an end door (required for evacuation in the tight tunnels) designed in.

The 717s also have through cab egress in tunnel evacuations, - which is why I suggested them instead of a modified 700.

 

[Mikey C]

I always thought the London Underground S stock a cracking design, and a real shame that it wasn't reused anywhere else in the UK.

 

[danielnez1]

If the problems continue with the 777s and the 555s perhaps Mersytravel and Nexus could start legal action. From what I've heard from inside Nexus, the 555s fall under the "Cheap but not cheerful" category Maybe then both systems can get something better!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2025 ==

I always thought the London Underground S stock a cracking design, and a real shame that it wasn't reused anywhere else in the UK.

Absolutely. The Bombardier Movia platform has proven itself.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Aside from cost, the need to have useable batteries beyond emergency power was obviously a big consideration when procuring - no idea what Siemens can offer on their designs which are ready to go in the UK market.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I always thought the London Underground S stock a cracking design, and a real shame that it wasn't reused anywhere else in the UK.

Agreed. It really is hard to come up with much to criticise these.

 

[AM9]

Agreed. It really is hard to come up with much to criticise these.

The Met structure gauge has long been quite generous, and recently expanded for all the SSLs, so it would probably not fit Merseyrail's tight spots.

 

[Helvellyn]

Surely a follow on build of the 717s would be perfect. Not knowing the region the level boarding is a big plus, but what about station access? If know the 717s need ramps, but if you look at Welwyn Garden City to Moorgate currently the only stations a wheelchair user can use are. Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Potters Bar, Hadley Wood (northbound) and Finsbury Park. Not much good getting on the train if you can't get out the station. Is Merseyrail better access into the station itself?

I must be swallowing the Merseyrail spin about how good these trains are for access...

The 717s replaced 313s, so woukd have been ideal to replace the similar 507s/508s. As others have said, they could have been built as 5-car units. They could have even considered a Universal Access Toilet in the centre coach.

 

[AM9]

The 717s replaced 313s, so woukd have been ideal to replace the similar 507s/508s. As others have said, they could have been built as 5-car units. They could have even considered a Universal Access Toilet in the centre coach.

Are there any significant gradients on Merseyrail's routes. If so then the 717s have a similar power to weight ratio to the 700s which romp up the 1:27 slopes in the TL core.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Are there any significant gradients on Merseyrail's routes. If so then the 717s have a similar power to weight ratio to the 700s which romp up the 1:27 slopes in the TL core.

The Wirral Line Mersey Tunnel is also about 1:27 both ways/sides.

 

[Mr. SW]

The Met structure gauge has long been quite generous, and recently expanded for all the SSLs, so it would probably not fit Merseyrail's tight spots.

A train of Met stock was taken off the scrap line and refurbished during the war to help out the Wirral Railway when it lost several cars in a raid, but it was never used. This was long before the Loop and Link scheme though.

Correction from further research: Four 6-car trains of Hammersmith and City Joint Committee and some Met saloon stock were sent up to the Mersey Railway, and then probably not used. (Source: Steam to Silver, J Graeme Bruce, London Transport 1970)

 

[AM9]

A train of Met stock was taken off the scrap line and refurbished during the war to help out the Wirral Railway when it lost several cars in a raid, but it was never used. This was long before the Loop and Link scheme though.

Presumably that would be 'T' stock which was 55ft compartment cars. I don't believe that they were as wide as the A60 EMUs, nor the current 'S'stock.

 

[Wolfie]

Surely a follow on build of the 717s would be perfect. Not knowing the region the level boarding is a big plus, but what about station access? If know the 717s need ramps, but if you look at Welwyn Garden City to Moorgate currently the only stations a wheelchair user can use are. Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Potters Bar, Hadley Wood (northbound) and Finsbury Park. Not much good getting on the train if you can't get out the station. Is Merseyrail better access into the station itself?

I must be swallowing the Merseyrail spin about how good these trains are for access...

Personally 710s would have been my starting point.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2025 ==

The 717s also have through cab egress in tunnel evacuations, - which is why I suggested them instead of a modified 700.

Ah, good call, l forgot that. Perhaps a 717 with a 710 interior.

 

[AM9]

Ah, good call, l forgot that. Perhaps a 717 with a 710 interior.

Unlikely as the 710s are Aventras. The 717s are basically the same internal layout as the 700s and 707s, in a 6-car unit. The traction system is the equivalent of a half (12-car) 700. Given some of the criticism here of longitudinal seating, the 2+2 seating of the Desiro Citys might be favoured, the extra wide through gangway certainly leaves adequate total capacity for anything that Merseyrail demand might justify.

 

[Mr. SW]

I did toy with the idea they could have acquired some D stock trains on a temporary basis and dump the PEPs in the worst condition while they prototyped and trialled the 777s more thoroughly. I suspect if they had, the D stock would have to be restricted to the Northern Line to avoid clearance issues on the Wirral loop.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Presumably that would be 'T' stock which was 55ft compartment cars. I don't believe that they were as wide as the A60 EMUs, nor the current 'S'stock.

I feel that the S Stock and the 777s are both 2.82 metres wide.

 

[Energy]

Here is the CGI mockup Bombardier prepared for its bid. [Credit - IFS Design]

Image Description - CGI mockup of Bombardier's new rolling stock for Merseyrail, shown at Moorfields station.

Interesting to see that Bombardier was proposing 4 short vehicles, though they look to be closer in length to each other.

I'm still not particularly sure why Merseyrail wanted short units to couple together, rather than a single 120m long train.

Bombardier and Stadler were the final two bidders. Bombardier sued Merseytravel but later settled, with the settlement confidential.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Thanks, I didn't know what the platform length limitations were. So looking at the class 717s, they would be a perfect drop-i, e.g.:
reduced loading gauge (as were the MK111 319s)

3rd rail DC equipped​

very high capacity, (over 850 including standing)​

85mph gearing and good acceleration​

fast wide doors (and more than one in all cars​

projected long service life (typical of Siemens stock)​

smaller wheelbases on bogies (2200 motor/2100 trainer vs 2400 on 777s)​

They would also come with some bonus features:

25KV OLE operation, (at some point the CLC line will be electrified)​

three trailer cars with space for batteries underneath (Siemens are developing battery traction for the Verve range)​

fit outs for ETCS should they need to use NR routes​

don't look and feel like trams​

So it looks like such an alternative might have been a better option, especially considering through-life costs (I have no idea of the relative costs of Siemens v Stadler products).

​

​

Another benefit is you don't have centre cabs taking valuable passenger space.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

It would have been good to see further “Movia” examples ordered for the UK rail network around that time. Bombardier could have been in prime position to supply Movia trains to Glasgow Subway, Tyne & Wear metro and Merseyrail. It would also have helped satatsfy a lull in orders around the early 2010s. It was surprising how no further examples of Movia stock were ordered? As they are a proven and reliable design in service with many countries. In retrospect that mass early 2010s order of Movia trains would have allowed for the earlier retirement of ex BR stock of the likes of Class 508s/507s Tyne & Wear Metrocars and Glasgow Subway 1980s DM (last two not ex BR) After a gap of around five years Stadler was selected by Merseyrail. They subsequently won the smaller more bespoke orders for Metro and suburban trains out of London. I am surprised Alstom didn’t offer its X’Trapolis UK originally offered for Thameslink. Were they still offering it in around 2016? Anyway a more proven design either the Siemens Desiro City, Alstom X’Trapolis UK and Bombardier Movia would have been better choices than the Stadler METRO, because they are proven reliable designs. Whereas is the METRO a new design? Only small fleets were ordered for Berlin U Bahn and Minsk Metro. However the Stadler METRO family appears to have significant reliable and build issues as seen in the less than ideal introduction of Class 777s and Class 555s.

 

[D365]

Here is the CGI mockup Bombardier prepared for its bid. [Credit - IFS Design]

Image Description - CGI mockup of Bombardier's new rolling stock for Merseyrail, shown at Moorfields station.

Interesting to see that Bombardier was proposing 4 short vehicles, though they look to be closer in length to each other.

I’m not a track engineer, but from what I have understood, the tight curves of the loop line necessitated short ’metro’ vehicles. The Class 50x were not well suited.

 

[Mikey C]

The Met structure gauge has long been quite generous, and recently expanded for all the SSLs, so it would probably not fit Merseyrail's tight spots.

The S stock cars are shorter than the 20m 507/508s though, which might help on the curves?

And making them slightly smaller would hardly have been difficult. The Victoria Line 2009 stock is another Movia derivative.

Indeed it seems a shame that this successful Bombardier design wasn't used more widely, whereas a less successful one in the Aventra was...

 

[Mr. SW]

Hmm... S Stock: Three car units, two doors per side, more transverse seating. An order could have been piggy-backed onto the London order without much trouble. Kirkdale phoning Neasden for spare parts would have been interesting.