Merseyrail Fleet Replacement

[ukrob]

Now 2017 at the earliest.

THE replacement of Merseyrail’s train fleet will be postponed until at least 2017.

The organisation was due to replace its existing 57-strong fleet by 2015, when the contract for its current rolling stock with train leasing company Angel Trains runs out.

But lawyers for transport authority Merseytravel, which oversees Merseyrail, are now in talks with Angel Trains to extend that lease to 2017.

Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...two-year-delay-100252-28247324/#ixzz1FGmmpNy9

The article also states they want three more units between now and then.

 

[northwichcat]

It'll be interesting to see how well the 507s and 508s fair over the next few years considering there's been a couple of occasions where they've withdrawn a lot of units for heavy maintenaince.

Also it'll be interesting to see is Merseyrail requests funding. The expectation was that the 507/8 refurbishment would keep them in service for the first 10 years of the Merseyrail franchise and then that Merseyrail would buy new trains which would have 15 years in service before the end of the franchise. The date of ordering new trains has been pushed back a few times now with Merseyrail blaming 'poor economic climate' in the past. It now looks like Merseyrail will get the new trains less than 10 years in service before the end of the franchise so will Merseyrail be requesting DfT/Merseytravel funding for them?

 

[lm321412]

Three extra sets?

Do Angel Trains own 508301 - 508303?

 

[jopsuk]

The extra three units shouldn't be a problem surely? Overhaul three of SE the 508s to Mersey standards and you're done. Total replacement would be less cars than London Overground's 378 fleet (which is 57 4 car units)- quite a relevant example.

 

[northwichcat]

The extra three units shouldn't be a problem surely? Overhaul three of SE the 508s to Mersey standards and you're done. Total replacement would be less cars than London Overground's 378 fleet (which is 57 4 car units)- quite a relevant example.

The strange thing there is Merseyrail rejected the chance to take on 3 cascaded 508s because they said they were in a sorry state was non-econmically viable to maintain and refurbish them.

 

[yorksrob]

they said they were in a sorry state was non-econmically viable to maintain and refurbish them.

Tough Cheese. There are too many areas in need of additional rolling stock to cope with growth for companies to start getting picky about what's already there. Unless Merseyrail plans to pay for new units themselves.

 

[WatcherZero]

I cant see Merseytravel funding new stock for Merseyrail at the moment, though their tram plans are in a shambles (They thought that if they bought the Wirral tramway they would become an accredited organisation to build and operate tram services without having to build themselves up even going as far as buying a secondhand tram in anticipation, but now their lawyers have told them no) so that might make some funding available (on borrow-pruchase-lease to Merseyrail basis).

 

[northwichcat]

Unless Merseyrail plans to pay for new units themselves.

That was actually the intention of Merseytravel (who are the franchisor for the Merseyrail franchise not DfT.) A 25 year franchise was issued as they thought it would let the operator buy new units and see return on their investment through lower running costs and being able to sell on the units at the end of the franchise should they not be awarded the next franchise. However, due to new units being delayed and delayed again I can't see that happening and it could have a negative impact on all rail franchises as DfT will use what has happened at Merseyrail as an excuse for not issuing franchises longer than 10 years long.

 

[Chris125]

Am i right in thinking that both Merseyrail and FCC Moorgate services need stock built to a more restricted loading guage than the usual Electrostar or Desiro? If so, combining an order for the 507/8's and 313's could kill two birds with one stone - especially as the DC/AC capability would be handy up north as well for future extensions to Wrexham, Preston etc. Combine that with a possible order for South Wales commuter trains, where 3-car trains might also be useful, and there's a very decent sized order.

Chris

 

[northwichcat]

Am i right in thinking that both Merseyrail and FCC Moorgate services need stock built to a more restricted loading guage than the usual Electrostar or Desiro?

The only issue I'm aware of with Merseyrail is they can't run as 9 car around the underground loop in Liverpool city centre.

especially as the DC/AC capability would be handy up north as well for future extensions to Wrexham, Preston etc. Combine that with a possible order for South Wales commuter trains, where 3-car trains might also be useful, and there's a very decent sized order.

I'm not sure how you claim it will be 'handy' considering Merseyrail is a self contained franchise, like LO but on a much larger scale. If Bidston-Wrexham and Ormskirk-Preston are electrified it would be 3rd rail electrification in both cases and the Merseyrail area wouldn't be extended beyond Preston and there are no overhead wires at Wrexham anyway.

We're also set to have a number of 319s coming to the North West to run AC only services by 2019 so in the unlikely event of there being any services that run on both AC and DC it would make sense to put the 319s on those services and get brand new AC EMUs rather than new dual voltage units.

 

[Class377/5]

The only issue I'm aware of with Merseyrail is they can't run as 9 car around the underground loop in Liverpool city centre.

The Moorgate services are restricted to 6 car due to platform lengths.

I'm not sure how you claim it will be 'handy' considering Merseyrail is a self contained franchise, like LO but on a much larger scale. If Bidston-Wrexham and Ormskirk-Preston are electrified it would be 3rd rail electrification in both cases and the Merseyrail area wouldn't be extended beyond Preston and there are no overhead wires at Wrexham anyway.

We're also set to have a number of 319s coming to the North West to run AC only services by 2019 so in the unlikely event of there being any services that run on both AC and DC it would make sense to put the 319s on those services and get brand new AC EMUs rather than new dual voltage units.

319 can't be put on services around the Liverpool loop so is there many places you could use a 319? Ie Southport - Manchester via Liverpool Central?

 

[northwichcat]

The Moorgate services are restricted to 6 car due to platform lengths.

I don't know why you posted that in reply to my post saying about 9 car units on the Liverpool Loop, especially since there is a Moorfields station on the loop that could confuse some posters.

319 can't be put on services around the Liverpool loop so is there many places you could use a 319? Ie Southport - Manchester via Liverpool Central?

More than likely 319s will be used on AC only services and there will be no units using both AC and DC in the North West.

At present the only service that could use both AC and DC would be if the Birmingham-Liverpool service was diverted to Liverpool Central and possibly extended to Southport.

There are no plans to put AC wires between Hunts Cross and Manchester or to extend the third rail so in reality that is the only option that could involve AC and DC and in reality what is the likelyhood of Southport being added in to the LM area?

 

[tom1649]

Tough Cheese. There are too many areas in need of additional rolling stock to cope with growth for companies to start getting picky about what's already there. Unless Merseyrail plans to pay for new units themselves.

Exactly. If FCC can acquire a few unrefurbished 313s from LO to strengthen services to Moorgate I don't see what Merseyrail have to complain about. Surely scruffy trains is better than no trains at all. They could even restrict the unrefurbished examples to peak hour use only. Are they just being snobbish about the fact that they might have to return low backed seats to their Network?

The worst case scenario is that the stored 508s will never see service again, and the longer you leave them in storage the more likely they are to need work doing on them.

 

[ukrob]

At present the only service that could use both AC and DC would be if the Birmingham-Liverpool service was diverted to Liverpool Central and possibly extended to Southport.

Not without building a spur connecting the WCML to the Merseyrail network at Liverpool South Parkway it couldn't.

 

[northwichcat]

Exactly. If FCC can acquire a few unrefurbished 313s from LO to strengthen services to Moorgate I don't see what Merseyrail have to complain about. Surely scruffy trains is better than no trains at all. They could even restrict the unrefurbished examples to peak hour use only. Are they just being snobbish about the fact that they might have to return low backed seats to their Network?

I don't think it's just a case of the internal condition. More that it's likely that they'll need to do the same extensive mantainence that they've had to do their own 507/508s. The old wheels are uncompatiable with the new underground track in Liverpool city centre, while the shoes will likely need replacing as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not without building a spur connecting the WCML to the Merseyrail network at Liverpool South Parkway it couldn't.

I thought the tracks crossed at Hunts Cross.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not sure how you claim it will be 'handy' considering Merseyrail is a self contained franchise, like LO but on a much larger scale

But, in the way that LO ordered new DMUs alongside an order from Chiltern for "sister" units (the 172s), it's not unrealistic to think that Merseyrail may be able to obtain cheaper units by tieing an order to a build of new EMUs for the (London) Moorgate services (which may well pass over to LO by then, but that's another story)

Economies of scale can make quite a difference, especially when dealing with a small-ish fleet

 

[tom1649]

I don't think it's just a case of the internal condition. More that it's likely that they'll need to do the same extensive mantainence that they've had to do their own 507/508s. The old wheels are uncompatiable with the new underground track in Liverpool city centre, while the shoes will likely need replacing as well.

Well surely they could be put to some use somewhere? Otherwise you might as well scrap them now and free up the storage space.

 

[tbtc]

We're also set to have a number of 319s coming to the North West to run AC only services by 2019

I don't think we *know* that these will be 319s, or even dual voltage, do we?

We know that Thameslink upgrades will release a number of 319s and that these will be freed up just before the Lancashire electrification, but I've not seen confirmation that the 319s will move up there. The 319s could move elsewhere (e.g. West Anglia) allowing a cascade of other stock to the Liverpool/ Blackpool/Manchester triangle

Similarly we don't know whether the 323s are sticking around, a lot of guesses are being made - some educated

 

[northwichcat]

But, in the way that LO ordered new DMUs alongside an order from Chiltern for "sister" units (the 172s), it's not unrealistic to think that Merseyrail may be able to obtain cheaper units by tieing an order to a build of new EMUs for the (London) Moorgate services (which may well pass over to LO by then, but that's another story)

Economies of scale can make quite a difference, especially when dealing with a small-ish fleet

I don't disagree with combining orders to get the best deal financially. However, I don't agree with the point about it would be 'handy for Merseyrail to have dual voltage units' made previously. Surly, like the 350s and 377s previously one set could be delivered as dual voltage (for FCC) with another as single voltage (for Merseyrail.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think we *know* that these will be 319s, or even dual voltage, do we?

We know that Thameslink upgrades will release a number of 319s and that these will be freed up just before the Lancashire electrification, but I've not seen confirmation that the 319s will move up there. The 319s could move elsewhere (e.g. West Anglia) allowing a cascade of other stock to the Liverpool/ Blackpool/Manchester triangle

Similarly we don't know whether the 323s are sticking around, a lot of guesses are being made - some educated

The original electrification document indirectly stated 319s would go to the North West. The revised one does indeed allow the option of another operator being involved in the cascade but I think that is just as much to do with DfT getting criticism for micro-managing franchises as there being a real 3rd option.

I would much prefer the 377s to come up in lieu of the 319s but I can't see that realsitically happening.

 

[WatcherZero]

Modern Railways this month has some firm cascade numbers from deals already signed via a freedome of information request but 319's wernt amongst them. What was amusing amongst the figure though was that 35 or something 172's hadnt been assigned yet and Northern was one of the bidders for the stock. There also wasnt a firm commitment that displaced pacers would be used rather than retired though there was an aspiration to use them for Northern strengthening.

 

[northwichcat]

Well surely they could be put to some use somewhere? Otherwise you might as well scrap them now and free up the storage space.

I obviously don't know exactly what Merseyrail estimated would be spent on cascaded 508s. However, if it makes more financial sense to order new units than to be maintaining old units then it would be sensible to scrap them and order new units but the problem is Merseyrail want to do neither.

 

[tbtc]

I don't disagree with combining orders to get the best deal financially. However, I don't agree with the point about it would be 'handy for Merseyrail to have dual voltage units' made previously. Surly, like the 350s and 377s previously one set could be delivered as dual voltage (for FCC) with another as single voltage (for Merseyrail.)

Ah, got ya, I thought you were arguing about combining bids, I take the point about the lack of need for dual voltage (though most Third Rail units seem to be built with potential for Pantographs, if they aren't build as Dual Voltage from new).

The original electrification document indirectly stated 319s would go to the North West. The revised one does indeed allow the option of another operator being involved in the cascade but I think that is just as much to do with DfT getting criticism for micro-managing franchises as there being a real 3rd option.

I would much prefer the 377s to come up in lieu of the 319s but I can't see that realsitically happening.

There are certainly some places which could take the 319s, and then cascade their DMUs to Northern.

I think (and I know I am going off topic here) that there are two issues with this cascade which I'd like to see resolved:

1. Will one class of DMUs run all the new services (including the TPE ones), or will Northern have a different class?
2. Will the EMUs mean the 321/323s with Northern move elsewhere?

 

[northwichcat]

Modern Railways this month has some firm cascade numbers from deals already signed via a freedome of information request but 319's wernt amongst them. What was amusing amongst the figure though was that 35 or something 172's hadnt been assigned yet and Northern was one of the bidders for the stock. There also wasnt a firm commitment that displaced pacers would be used rather than retired though there was an aspiration to use them for Northern strengthening.

That only involved the 142s and 150s released directly and indirectly by the 172 delivery. The freedom of information act only really releases old information so the new Coalition government electrification cascade plans won't be released until at least 2012.

 

[tbtc]

Modern Railways this month has some firm cascade numbers from deals already signed via a freedome of information request but 319's wernt amongst them. What was amusing amongst the figure though was that 35 or something 172's hadnt been assigned yet and Northern was one of the bidders for the stock. There also wasnt a firm commitment that displaced pacers would be used rather than retired though there was an aspiration to use them for Northern strengthening.

I need to buy a copy to read more, in that case

 

[WatcherZero]

I imagine LM would be the most likely winner however.

 

[Pumbaa]

I thought the tracks crossed at Hunts Cross.

Not WCML. At Hunts X, the ME line dives under the Runcorn line to enter S Parkway. Your proposal would involve a reversal at Sth Parkway to Hunts X before running forward, or a new spur built off the WCML.

 

[Statto]

Not WCML. At Hunts X, the ME line dives under the Runcorn line to enter S Parkway. Your proposal would involve a reversal at Sth Parkway to Hunts X before running forward, or a new spur built off the WCML.

Yes, Merseyrail connects with the Manchester via Warrington line at Hunts Cross, trains would have to reverse at Hunts Cross & reverse again at [stn]LPY[/stn] to access WCML if they want a Merseyrail service south of [stn]LPY[/stn]. Merseyrail could do with a few more EMUs, peak hour routes could easily be 6 car sets throughout most of the network.

I do agree about Merseytravel though, they wasted millions on the white elephant tram scheme[even the buses are quicker than the proposed tram network]. I've long said on other forums, Merseytravel should get rid of Dowd & Scales, both are hopeless.