I think because the Aventra is a mainline platform whereas Movia is largely a metro platform for isolated systems like London Underground or Tyne and Wear Metro. Merseyrail is a bit of an oddball in that sense since it's technically a heavy rail suburban network but operates like a metro and even shares less track with the National Rail network than the Bakerloo Line (if you count the Watford DC Overground line as National Rail). But ultimately it seems like the Aventra just had a larger market and basically became to regional and suburban units what the 80x series became to InterCity units.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What could/should Merseyrail have ordered instead of Class 777s?
- Thread starter Bletchleyite
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
danielnez1
Member
Merseyrail and the Tyne and Wear Metro have far more overlaps in terms of how they were modernised/converted in the 1970s into what they are today. BR's own proposal for the Metro was to have extensive 4 aspect signalling, and I imagine a "BR Tyne and Wear Metro" would have received PEP stock too. The gotcha for Merseyrail was that the 507/508s were not best suited to the loop line (as discussed here: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/derailment-near-liverpool-central-underground-station). I suspect a PEP style EMU for Tyne and Wear would have been a better fit (if the tunnels had a larger gauge) due to the generally gentler curves (perhaps excluding the Manors stock curve) and far less egregious water ingress issues in the tunnels.
Anyhow a Movia platform train influenced by the S-Stock for both Merseyrail and the T&W Metro (tweaked for the specific needs of both systems) would have resulted in a better new fleet for both systems than what we are dealing with right now.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This might also be why the 777 is at least in appearance more of a METRO-FLIRT hybrid than just a METRO - its body looks much more FLIRT like using some of the latter's components compared to other METRO designs.
cactustwirly
Established Member
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...
Did I miss any?
- 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
A lot of these are down to customer specification right?
Bombardier Aventras aren't that reliable, always been the bottom of the reliability tables
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Pretty much all of them. The spec was led by an individual (who did for a bit post here until the criticisms started once we'd seen the things) who appears, bluntly, not to have done a particularly good job.
danielnez1
Member
It is astonishing how such people "fall up" into such positions - but the manufactures are equally guilty of suppling subpar products, likely a combination of trying to appease the customer (in this example Merseytravel rather than actual passengers) and cutting costs. I use this pictogram to introduce large scale software engineering to my students as (sadly) it is always true...
Attachments
That pictogram has been around for decades and it doesn't mention one of the biggest issues that bugs large contracts, - particularly when systems are involved. On large scale projects, the customer (or that part that doesn't fully understand the operational needs) only see's cost and programme performance. Then when so much design is commited the penny drops and the end user says that what is half there isn't suitable. Cue requirement changes and of course, escalating costs.
A prime example was the Nimrod 3 AEW radar system. The supplier of course costed the impact of change.
Truthfully in my single experience with the 777s I didn't have an issue, and I find it a little disheartening that the new fleet isn't so well received by some. I genuinely thought Swiss quality units with level boarding could've been a real game changer, especially when Stadler were able to build great units like the 745/755.
RacsoMoquette
Member
Are the troubles with the Stadler Class 777 units related to poor specification or poor build quality? Were they poorly specified by Merseyrail? Has this led to design problems? Or is it just shoddy build quality on Stadlers part. It is a shame really; as the FLIRT varieties on GA and TFW seem so solid and well built. How are the Glasgow Subway G3 units doing in terms of reliability? The Tyne & Wear Class 555s don’t seem great either. Problems such as leaking air conditioning and level ramp jamming/ door problems door really doesn’t seem reassuring.
I wonder how the forthcoming CAF Inneo DLR B23 Stock trains will compare to the large orders of Stadler Stock for most Metro/Commuter/Light Rail in urban areas outside London? The CAF “Inneo” family seems of a similar spec and design to the Stadler METRO offering. They are also not exactly”Off the Shelf” products CAF or Stadler mainly custom build using said names as broad platforms. E.g all Stadler METRO trains in the UK are very different and show little family resemblance. The Class 777s look nothing like Class 555s or Glasgow G3s.
Would a customized CAF “Inneo” train be more suited to Merseyrails needs? From a Metro style to more of a short distance commuter style? So far the hasn’t seemed to have been any major gripes with the DLR B23 Stock during testing. The extensive delays have been due to infrastructure complications and I understand not the actual trains themselves.
I wonder how the forthcoming CAF Inneo DLR B23 Stock trains will compare to the large orders of Stadler Stock for most Metro/Commuter/Light Rail in urban areas outside London? The CAF “Inneo” family seems of a similar spec and design to the Stadler METRO offering. They are also not exactly”Off the Shelf” products CAF or Stadler mainly custom build using said names as broad platforms. E.g all Stadler METRO trains in the UK are very different and show little family resemblance. The Class 777s look nothing like Class 555s or Glasgow G3s.
Would a customized CAF “Inneo” train be more suited to Merseyrails needs? From a Metro style to more of a short distance commuter style? So far the hasn’t seemed to have been any major gripes with the DLR B23 Stock during testing. The extensive delays have been due to infrastructure complications and I understand not the actual trains themselves.
Indeed. Short vehicles allow them to increase the vehicle width as well.
It’s more interesting that Bombardier were also proposing short sets, so it’s clearly what Merseytravel wanted.
I’d rather order S7 length and S8 interior than short sets.
The glaring spec issue is the decision to go DCO before an agreement with the unions was met. The software had issues at introduction and the RFID readers being modified in I doubt helped. The lack of door hazard lights makes dispatch slower if a door is blocked.
Seats are extremely hard and the layout isn’t great, with airline seats having poor legroom. Somehow the interior just feels cluttered to me.
Going for ~64m and letting the back overhang has lead to the poor door layout on the driving vehicles, and platforms at Southport were extended anyway.
PIS setup is odd. The dot matrix displays can’t display much information and is in a position which is often blocked by other passengers. I’m not sure why they didn’t copy the class 700s overhead displays.
Less build issues and more design problems. The platform edge fillers don’t seem to handle passengers stood above their storage area well. The PIS software was pretty bad at the start.
To be fair, the 555s issues seem to be mostly air con condensation leaking, which isn’t uncommon on new trains.
I prefer them to the 507/508s and did enjoy my journey, but out of the trains I’ve ridden I wouldn’t put the 777s at the top.
The 777s just don’t feel game changing when the S stock is better and a decade older.
bramling
Veteran Member
I’ve only been to Liverpool once since the new trains took over, but could immediately see issues especially with the door layout, comparatively cramped interior, and differing floor levels, all of which are quite fundamental issues which won’t be able to be changed. I also found the interior and lighting harsh, though that’s more of a personal preference. If I had to choose, I’d say I prefer the 507/508 from a user perspective.
All three types are flawed. Level boarding great - Interior floor level fudges poor. On the 777 very able-bodied fall upwards on the slopes, and on 745/755 people on the pedestal seats headbut the luggage racks.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
To be fair the cramped interior and bad seats COULD be changed, as could the PIS, though money won't be forthcoming to do so for 20+ years now as is the norm.
There's too much bad stuff that can't be changed, though, like the interior ramps and the door layout.
I feel much the same. I liked riding on them, especially since the 507/508 fleet needed a good replacement eventually, but I'm not sure they'd qualify for the top 10 spots for most people. As a commuter train I don't think they need to be anything special, though I do understand the criticisms relating to the lack of toilets on the long Southport route.
Interior lighting I can understand, they are unreasonably bright on some new stock, but the interior floor height changing is an inherent trade-off for level boarding which shouldn't really be too much of an issue in my opinion. The door layout is only really an issue on the end coaches where there's only one pair on each side. To be fair maybe I also just need to ride on them a bit more, especially since I've been on the old fleet so much it'd be unfair to make a comparison based on one single experience against multiple.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Not on a metro train. The London Underground S stock (superior in near enough every way in my book) has a completely flat floor throughout.
You can't avoid it on a 100+mph unit, but these are not they.
Are the subsurface London Underground platforms the same as the National Rail standard? I kind of assumed that because of our mixed-traffic system we couldn't implement the same kind of level boarding as the Underground and would therefore have to contend with differing floor heights.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes (near enough).
Merseyrail isn't a mixed traffic system, it is very close to fully segregated and is only even part of NR for historical reasons. Indeed it has less overlap with other operations than London Underground or Tyne and Wear Metro does!
In that case I stand corrected. Even though I would opt for level boarding over level floors if I had to pick one, I would certainly like both if possible.
Sorry I didn't mean to suggest Merseyrail was mixed traffic, I was referring more to the National Rail system as a whole with relation to platform heights. Merseyrail could very well implement higher platforms to match train floor heights to the same level as the Underground subsurface lines.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It indeed could, and I do wonder as a result if something like Thameslink (high floor, fairly standard rolling stock like Aventras or something, but with part of the platform raised to meet the wheelchair spaces) might have been a suitable option instead of a seriously compromised and hellishly expensive custom rolling stock design.
The 777s might not last muchch beyond their 20y 'mid -term' refit.
All UK rolling stock will be expensive custom designs when part of a continental platform really. In a way it's quite impressive that Stadler have been able to scale down designs without changing too many core features. I still don't think the 777s are that bad to be honest but I have only rode on them once. The seating could be a bit comfier but otherwise I quite like them. It's good to at least have some form of level boarding regardless of how it comes about.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
To an extent, but the Aventra is pretty standard as far as the UK goes and is available in modular options e.g. vehicle length and number of doors.
True, and maybe a 710-derived Aventra could've worked for Merseyrail as well. The Overground network is much more akin to Merseyrail than the subsurface Underground lines after all.
- Status