Northerngirl
Member
I must admit I haven't been on them too much, but they do seem to be copeing far better with the weather than last year, its all infrastructure issues thats throwing up the trouble
-
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!
Merseyrail 777 introduction
- Thread starter karlbbb
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
MR-507508
Member
Anyone know what is up with 777024. Still appears to be out of action and has been for sometime now?
jamesst
Established Member
How do you think they put 004 back together...
Bit of a mess on the Wirral Line this morning. 0731 from Ellesmere Port (formed of 777028 according to RTT) terminated at Bebington with a door fault and as of now is still there with a queue of trains behind it. Bus replacements between Rock Ferry and Hooton.
A colleague was waiting for this train. I've only heard third-hand, but it seems one of the steps didn't retract at the previous station, extended to its full extent during the run to Bebington, then hit the platform edge with a bit of a clatter and could no longer retract.
Things look to be moving now, judging by the various live maps.
jamesst
Established Member
Lets just say the sliding step had an argument with Bebington platform and the platform won!!
Northerngirl
Member
I really hope they have some engineers on overtime for the open next week, otherwise its going to get a bit messy with so many units out if action
Sam 76
Member
Assuming the unit will be out of a long period then ?
Polarbear
Established Member
024 was sat on the same road as 004 occupied for many months when I passed Kirkdale a few days back. Coincidence?
jamesst
Established Member
Nah only damage to the step, should be a fairly quick fix
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Maybe that's where they'll get a replacement step from!
Sam 76
Member
That’s good news then wasn’t sure how complex it was to fix these things.
Also hoping 024 will be back out soon. Assuming they will be keen to get it done for the Open
jamesst
Established Member
Id be very surprised if it was to be honest
Bus replacement (or more accurately, telling people to make other arrangements) was oddly between Hooton and Hamilton Square, not sure why they didn't run through the loop to Rock Ferry which is one of the places they often terminate during disruption.
NormalPerson7
Member
I suspect all of the Chester/Ellesmere Port line trains were stuck south of Rock Ferry so they didn't have enough units/staff to arrange a Rock Ferry to Liverpool service in a pinch, and only the West Kirby and New Brighton services would have been serving the Liverpool loop.
jamesst
Established Member
There was only one unit on the Liverpool side of Bebington which did indeed run a Rock Ferry to Liverpool shuttle
MR-507508
Member
What has happened to the 8 car operation on the Ormskirk to Hunts Cross line?
An 8 car ran at the start of last month for a few days, with Selective Door Operation at play, calling at all stations including Cressington but no sign of this running anymore?
An 8 car ran at the start of last month for a few days, with Selective Door Operation at play, calling at all stations including Cressington but no sign of this running anymore?
TheSel
Member
There was at least one 8 car formation out yesterday (Sunday). I personally witnessed 2U39 (1521 Ormskirk - Hunts Cross) at Liverpool Central whilst I was waiting for 2S40 (1602 Liverpool Central - Southport). There was a 'live' announcement from the platform microphone that passengers for Cressington should use the front four cars only.
Did they actually call at Cressington? There were extra services yesterday for a rugby event at Hill Dickinson Stadium but the 8-car services are shown on RTT as "service stop unadvertised" at Cressington.
Brian1947
Member
There were certainly no extra trains/eight car train when I got to Sandhills at 20-00 yesterday. 30 minute wait for an Ormskirk train then everyone had to squash into a four car. Pathetic. You could see from RTT what was likely to happen and it did. I am not normally one to criticise Merseyrail but they got it badly wrong last night. Saturday night not an issue. This could easily have been foreseen with two local teams playing the final game of the weekend.
Sam 76
Member
On a general note but 777 related.
It’s a shame on a Sunday it’s not at least a 20 min service on all lines. 30 mins is not enough for the growing demand and I hope with the 777 recast and shaved time savings it becomes a reality
MR-507508
Member
I heard the plan was to have an 8 car on one of the Ormskirk to Hunts Cross circuits Mon to Friday but it seems to have only lasted a few days at the start of June.
There was an additional service to Ormskirk from Sandhills at 2046, formed of 022+037. Maybe it needed to be a little bit earlier to soak up the crowds.
It was pulled from service two days in a row with a "door fault" and seems to have not run since. Hopefully it won't be another 18 months before they try again!
MR-507508
Member
777024 is back out working on the West Kirby line this morning, replacing 021 which had a fault earlier. Been sometime since all units were operational with no long-term absentees. Good to see!
RichardAsh1981
Member
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 251
Do we know which unit sat down at James St. Today, causing Wirral line services to reverse in platform 2 (according to RTT) and quite a lot of late running?
FireSpotter24
New Member
Looked like it was 777035 on the Ellesmere Port,
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,156
From the TfW Class 398 thread:
I find myself a little puzzled by your post. Are you saying that the Class 777s have Door Control Units (DCUs) which operate more than one set of doors?
What has happened to the selective door opening on the Hunts Cross line? The reduction in service this weekend to every 20 minutes owing to the golf tournament is made worse for Cressington passengers because only alternate trains (one assumes four-car) are stopping there. Not good enough, but I wonder what the excuse will be?
Polarbear
Established Member
It was a bit of a mess around 15:00 this afternoon. Indicators on the platforms @ Moorfields (Northern Line) were only showing Southport services northbound, and Hunts Cross services southbound!
Cue an Ormskirk service rolling in to confuse all concerned!
Not sure the information displayed at Sandhills was much better either.
It is really that difficult to amend the platform displays to reflect the amended service pattern?
Cue an Ormskirk service rolling in to confuse all concerned!
Not sure the information displayed at Sandhills was much better either.
It is really that difficult to amend the platform displays to reflect the amended service pattern?
Sam 76
Member
Staff at Central were saying that the screens went down this morning and have been causing trouble all day.
They seem at Central to be showing the regular timetable instead of the open one
The door modules only operate one set of doors and sliding step each, i.e. each vestibule has a left and right door module. The door control panels are not directly connected to the door control modules, however - they are on the CANbus network which communicates to the train control computer.
The normal method of working is that the doors are locked while in motion. When the train stops at a station, the driver presses the button to release the doors on the side the platform is on. The train control computer then sends messages to each of the door control modules on that side of the train to unlock, and sends messages to all the door control panels on that side of the train to illuminate. If a passenger pushes the button to open the door at a particular vestibule, the train control computer knows from the CANbus address of the message from the panel which door module it relates to, and sends a message to that door module to open.
When the Pre-Arm feature was working, passengers could press the 'open' button while the doors were still in the 'locked' condition. The train control computer did not know which side of the train the platform was on at the next station, so on receipt of the message from the door panel it just registered it as a demand at that vestibule. When the train stopped and the driver released the doors for the side of the train the platform was on, the train control computer sends an Unlock message to all the door modules on the side that was released, followed immediately by an Open message to the door modules on the side that was released where a demand had been registered for a vestibule.
As the demand was only registered against a vestibule and not a specific door, if the driver selected the wrong side to release the doors the train control computer would send the 'Open' messages to the door modules on the wrong side as well.
In software terms, the Pre Arm feature was using a one dimensional array (one element per vestibule) to record the demand. For example, if the door module and door control panel CANbus addressing used the scheme <vestibule>.<side>, the Pre Arm feature was only using the <vestibule> part of the address as the index into the array to record the demand. In code terms, this would look like:
Code:
define MaxVestibules 6; // Number fo vestibules on a Class 777
deftne MaxSides 2; // A Class 777 only has two sides...
define Left 0;
define Right 1;
define DoorRelease 4; // Message type for driver Door Release request
define OpenReq 5; // Message type for an 'Open' button press
define UnlockReq 6; // Message type to unlock a door module
define DoorOpenReq 7; //Message type to request door module to open
// Basic structure of a CANbus message
struct CanMsg{
integer Vestibule;
integer Side;
integer MsgType;
};
struct CanMsg IcCanMsg; // Structure to hold an Incoming CANbus message
struct CanMsg OgCanMsg; // Structure to hold an Outgoing CANbus message
integer i; // General purpose variable
integer DemandArray[MaxVestibules]; // Array to store Pre-Arm door demands
// Initialise all elements of DemandArray to FALSE
for (i = 0; i < MaxVestibules; i++)
{
DemandArray[i] = FALSE;
}
// Code to handle Pre-Arm door requests
if (IcCanMsg.Type == OpenReq)
{
// Register a demand against this vestibule
DemandArray[IcCanMsg.Vestibule] = TRUE;
}When the train stops, the driver presses the door release button (Left corresponds o 0, Right corresponds to 1) and the following code would be executed:
Code:
// Has the driver pressed a door release button?
if (IcCanMsg.Type == DoorRelease}
{
// Unlock the doors on the selected side and send Open Requests for
// any vestibules that have registered a demand.
for (i = 0; i < MaxVestibules; i++)
{
// Send an Unlock Request to each Door Module on the side
// that has been released
OgCanMsg.Vestibule = i;
OgCanMsg.Side = IcCanMsg.Side;
OgCanMsg.Type = UnlockReq;
sendCanMsg(OgCanMsg);
// Was there an 'Open' demand registered for this vestibule?
if (DemandArray[i] == TRUE)
{
// Send a Door Open Request to the Door Module on the side
// that has been released
OgCanMsg.Vestibule = i;
OgCanMsg.Side = IcCanMsg.Side;
OgCanMsg.Type = DoorOpenReq;
sendCanMsg(OgCanMsg);
// Clear the element of the Demand Array
DemandArray[i] = FALSE;
}
}
}If the driver releases the doors on the wrong side, the above code would tell the Door Modules on the wrong side to open the doors on each vestibule where a demand had been registered as soon as the doors on that side were unlocked
To prevent this, the DemandArray array needs to be two-dimensional, so the passenger demand is recorded against the vestibule and the side where the button on the door control panel has been pressed. The code would then become:
Code:
integer DemandArray[MaxVestibules][MaxSides]; // Array to store Pre-Arm door demands
// Initialise all elements of DemandArray to FALSE
for (i = 0; i < MaxVestibules; i++)
{
DemandArray[i][Left] = FALSE;
DemandArray[i][Right] = FALSE;
}
// Code to handle Pre-Arm door requests
if (IcCanMsg.Type == OpenReq)
{
// Record both the vestibule and the side the demand came from
DemandArray[IcCanMsg.Vestibule, IcCanMsg.Side] = TRUE;
}
// Has the driver pressed a door release button?
if (IcCanMsg.Type == DoorRelease}
{
// Unlock the doors on the selected side and send Open Requests for
// any vestibules that have registered a demand.
for (i = 0; i < MaxVestibules; i++)
{
// Send an Unlock Request to each Door Module on the side
// that has been released
OgCanMsg.Vestibule = i;
OgCanMsg.Side = IcCanMsg.Side;
OgCanMsg.Type = UnlockReq;
sendCanMsg(OgCanMsg);
// Was there an 'Open' demand registered for this vestibule
// on the side the driver released?
if (DemandArray[i, IcCanMsg.Side] == TRUE)
{
// Send a Door Open Request to the Door Module on the side
// that has been released
OgCanMsg.Vestibule = i;
OgCanMsg.Side = IcCanMsg.Side;
OgCanMsg.Type = DoorOpenReq;
sendCanMsg(OgCanMsg);
// Clear the element of the Demand Array
DemandArray[i, IcCanMsg.Side] = FALSE;
}
}
}My guess is that the Door Pre-Arm feature was originally written to interact with an Automatic Door Operation system (that uses balises to tell the train which side to release the doors on at each station). If the customer did not want to pay for ADO and manual door operation was required, it was not written to take into account that human error may occasionally result in the driver releasing the doors on the wrong side.
Last edited: