Merseyrail new stock

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm sure we could get another 20 years out of the 507/508s if enough money is thrown at them. We could get another 50 years, but that would likely be a 'Trigger's broom' scenario.

 

[northwichcat]

Believe me I'm no expert and will probably be shot down for saying this, but it doesn't seem logical to be designing trains for this purpose if our politicians views towards the state of Northern England's Railways will never change.. So that is why I think the delays are happening and why Merseyrail are currently giving the fleet a lick of paint. They probably want line extensions, but know that there is every chance it won't happen.

Possible extensions to Merseyrail services aren't something which need to be considered when designing rolling stock. Look at the 450s, they were ordered as DC only but a batch got converted to dual voltage and became 350/1s. At least some of the 450s are expected to become dual voltage when the Southampton area sees 3rd rail replaced by OHE.

Going to the expense of designing a whole new fleet when they can effectively renew the current one for maybe another 20 years doesn't seem logical

Using trains over 55 years old? Really? Merseyrail isn't a couple of heritage lines with a few services per day.

I'm very doubtful of all the 507s and 508s lasting beyond 40 years. Note that some 508s have already been scrapped as the cost of keeping them in a serviceable standard wasn't economically viable.

 

[samuelmorris]

Look at the 450s, they were ordered as DC only but a batch got converted to dual voltage and became 350/1s.

Really? I thought it was the other way round - that what were to be 350s ended up being the last few 450s instead (118-127).

Using trains over 55 years old? Really? Merseyrail isn't a couple of heritage lines with a few services per day.

Neither is the Bakerloo line, but they're sweating the 72TS out to a 60 year lifespan according to the NTfL proposals. Granted, that isn't the most intensive line on the network so I see why they're doing it, but 'heritage line' is not really what they're going for there.

I'm very doubtful of all the 507s and 508s lasting beyond 40 years. Note that some 508s have already been scrapped as the cost of keeping them in a serviceable standard wasn't economically viable.

Wasn't that because they were almost surplus to requirements though? My recollection is that they were scrapped because they could do without them. If it comes down to uncomfortably expensive repairs or a cutback in service, there'd be far less outrage about the former.

 

[northwichcat]

Really? I thought it was the other way round - that what were to be 350s ended up being the last few 450s instead (118-127).

Yes really. Why do you think 350/1s were fitted with 3rd rail equipment? Just on the off chance they might have been loaned to Southern?

Neither is the Bakerloo line, but they're sweating the 72TS out to a 60 year lifespan according to the NTfL proposals.

Well there you go the stock has a 60 year shelf life opposed to the 35-40 year shelf life which the 507s and 508s had.

Wasn't that because they were almost surplus to requirements though?

Some were sent to Merseyrail with the view of Merseyrail taking them on for extra capacity but were rejected due to the very high amount of capital required to bring them up to standard when they wouldn't get that many years out of them.

LO could have used 508s instead of ordering brand new 378s if the 508s were still usable.

 

[Gareth]

Here is my though basis ref Merseyrail new stock. I firmly believe a re-work of the existing trains will happen. They are tried / tested and fairly reliable. And with similar units soon to be replaced around the country, there should be no shortage of extra stock that can be reworked in a similar fashion. And here is my reason why. Merseyrail works fine as it is. All this talk of line extensions etc are just that, talk. Any monies being spent on feasibility studies are coming from some European pot somewhere that has to be spent to satisfy a pen pusher.. Passengers don't think twice about having to change trains to get to where they are going, so for this reason money doesn't need to be spent, and with the rail network almost running to capacity, can any spare space for turnarounds be found at the likes of Warrington, Wigan and Preston etc.

Believe me I'm no expert and will probably be shot down for saying this, but it doesn't seem logical to be designing trains for this purpose if our politicians views towards the state of Northern England's Railways will never change.. So that is why I think the delays are happening and why Merseyrail are currently giving the fleet a lick of paint. They probably want line extensions, but know that there is every chance it won't happen. Going to the expense of designing a whole new fleet when they can effectively renew the current one for maybe another 20 years doesn't seem logical.

Low expectation is what help keeps the North, and Liverpool acutely so, poor and being ever left behind compared to the South East. We can just say that this is the North so expect no extensions and no replacement of expired rolling stock but then we may as well all just pack up and go home. Here's a little anecdote for you: 20 years ago, East Germany was much poorer than not only West Germany, but pretty much all parts of the UK. Now, whilst it still lags behind West Germany although less so, it's much more affluent than Northern England. Why? Investment in infrastructure and thus an increase in confidence for potential investors and those starting up businesses which in turn create wealth. I don't think it does us any good accepting the status quo, however, that goes into politics that is far broader than just railways.

For Merseyrail, you can't just have a "it ain't broke so doesn't need fixing" approach. We'd never modernise, less innovate, if we took that attitude. The 507/8s have been troopers but they are ageing. Also, they've not been without their problems, especially with coping with the harsh curves that they have to endure on the Wirral Line loop. If we run them into the ground, Merseyrail will become unreliable and its repuation (and the rolling stock's for enthusiasts) will be damaged. It's generally accepted that Merseyrail will need new rolling stock that is specifically designed for the nature of the system. This may be more expensive than either purchasing an existing off-the-shelf product or less searching for any old 3rd rail units still extant and alive to bolster the existing fleet but it will work out more economical over the lifetime of the new stock, due to better performance, fewer service disruptions and less maintenance issues.

As for converting Merseyrail to OHLE: whilst I can see some extensions being OHLE, I don't think the whole system will ever be converted. For a start, there's almost certainly clearance issues in most, if not all, of the tunnels. Some of the overground sections would also be difficult, as some, such as Central to South Parkway have plenty of overbridges which may well not have sufficient clearance. Would it be worth the disruption to both rail services and road services where bridges need adjusting? What one has to ask themselves is what are they trying to achieve with such a conversion. What's wrong with 3rd rail anyway? Yes, it requires more transformers and is less efficient for high speed but then Merseyrail is a frequently stopping metro service and so this is not such an issue. 3rd rail is still being installed occassionally throughout the world. The Copenhagen Metro, an über modern system with driverless trains built between 2002-07, uses 750V third rail.

If Merseyrail expands, then some extensions may well be OHLE. The Edge Hill spur scheme, for example, integrating some or all the stopping services on the Chat Moss line into the underground system would have to run dual voltage units; the changeover being at Edge Hill. Any extension to Warrington Central from Hunts Cross would almost certainly also be OHLE, with the stretch between Hunts Cross and South Parkway either being converted along with it or being an overlap of the two power systems. This will be because they will want to eventually electrify this stretch to Manchester so that regional and long distance trains can use it and to be a diversion route for the soon to be electrified trans-Pennine route. If the Borderlands line is incorporated completely, then this will probably also be OHLE with changeover at Bidston due to its long length. However, if only a small section is incorporated, say to Woodchurch, then it will surely be 3rd rail, as it'll still be a small distance and it's not worth changing over power type for such a short stretch. Remember, trains needing to change power source mid-journey adds yet another thing that can go wrong. The benefits it offers need to make it worth it for any particular journey.

 

[NotATrainspott]

As for converting Merseyrail to OHLE: whilst I can see some extensions being OHLE, I don't think the whole system will ever be converted. For a start, there's almost certainly clearance issues in most, if not all, of the tunnels. Some of the overground sections would also be difficult, as some, such as Central to South Parkway have plenty of overbridges which may well not have sufficient clearance. Would it be worth the disruption to both rail services and road services where bridges need adjusting? What one has to ask themselves is what are they trying to achieve with such a conversion. What's wrong with 3rd rail anyway? Yes, it requires more transformers and is less efficient for high speed but then Merseyrail is a frequently stopping metro service and so this is not such an issue. 3rd rail is still being installed occassionally throughout the world. The Copenhagen Metro, an über modern system with driverless trains built between 2002-07, uses 750V third rail.

If Merseyrail expands, then some extensions may well be OHLE. The Edge Hill spur scheme, for example, integrating some or all the stopping services on the Chat Moss line into the underground system would have to run dual voltage units; the changeover being at Edge Hill. Any extension to Warrington Central from Hunts Cross would almost certainly also be OHLE, with the stretch between Hunts Cross and South Parkway either being converted along with it or being an overlap of the two power systems. This will be because they will want to eventually electrify this stretch to Manchester so that regional and long distance trains can use it and to be a diversion route for the soon to be electrified trans-Pennine route. If the Borderlands line is incorporated completely, then this will probably also be OHLE with changeover at Bidston due to its long length. However, if only a small section is incorporated, say to Woodchurch, then it will surely be 3rd rail, as it'll still be a small distance and it's not worth changing over power type for such a short stretch. Remember, trains needing to change power source mid-journey adds yet another thing that can go wrong. The benefits it offers need to make it worth it for any particular journey.

There's third rail and there's third rail. In particular there are three major types: top, side and bottom-contact and the UK mainline and LUL systems are top contact. Because of the limited scope for shielding it is the most hazardous and most vulnerable to weather events out of the three and the cost of converting to side or bottom-contact would be on the same order of magnitude as converting to 25kV AC OHLE because of the conversion and gauging problems. New, self-contained systems are designed to be less inferior and thus acceptable from the start - the DLR for example uses bottom contact rail because of the shielding advantages and the lack of need for interoperability.

Where there would be merit in non-Merseyrail trains being able to use the tracks it's likely that the surface sections would be converted, especially if they can just piggyback off of the 25kV feeding stations needed elsewhere on the network. There will be a balance involved in whether converting all of the non-tunnel sections is a good idea though - without the surface sections there will be some loss of economies of scale without gaining that much more from the 25kV economies of scale. At the absolute least the new trains will have dual-voltage capability and will be able to transition on the move so for passengers there won't be much, if any, of a difference even during a conversion scheme. With increased use of overhead conductor bar technology it might make sense eventually just to convert all the tunnels as well if that would improve safety and reduce overall costs.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Just found this piece about the proposed order for new stock. Interestingly I hadn't picked up this before, it mentions that Merseyrail would own the stock, not a bank of Rosco, and this clearly could explain the delay in obtaining the finance. Other interesting points include extending the network, although I do note it does mention that the Ormskirk and Southport lines could be extended with third rail.

http://www.tssa.org.uk/en/whats-new...sport-future-tssa-s-liam-sets-a-new-direction
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Digging around the old internet I think I have now managed to find the reason for the delay in the placing of the order which is down to the need to appoint an engineering consultant to oversee the procurement process which also includes associated works. The appointment was advertised last year, but if you read this link at the bottom under point 2.4 the estimated start date is shown as 25 Jan 2014.

https://www.the-chest.org.uk/procont...=supplier_home

Now even without any slippage of this date, I would expect any party coming in at the stage the project seems to have reached, would want to spend some time ploughing through the details of the project especially as we are talking about 350 - 400 million pounds of public money, is involved and on which part of their fee may be dependent, subject of course to a successful implementation. Under the circumstances, I think we may be lucky to see much progress before September, and even then if any of the financing of the scheme is dependent on government funding it could be further delayed and included in the chancellors autumn statement.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Update of what Merseyrail passengers would like to see on their new trains.


http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-passengers-say-new-trains-7031169

 

[WatcherZero]

I always prefer facing seats, partly for facing companions and partly as they have more leg room, though I know people who dont like travelling backwards.

 

[mwmbwls]

Update of what Merseyrail passengers would like to see on their new trains.


http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-passengers-say-new-trains-7031169

Full report here:
http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/abou... stock what passengers want - April 2014.pdf

 

[fowler9]

Update. People like playing footsy and knocking knees with total strangers at 7 in the morning (Said no one ever).

 

[Wavertreelad]

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meets on 4th June 2014 and will receive a report from the Chief Executive of Merseytravel on the long term rail strategy for the region.

Apart from 12 projects mentioned in the report seven of which could see Merseyrail extended at some point, there is a short paragraph stating

"In addition the above schemes Merseytravel and Merseyrail are currently undertaking a review of the Merseyrail fleet and the options for replacement or refurbishment."

Could it be a rethink on replacing the 507/508 is underway, and could greater integration with the City Line and facilitating a high quality service on the CLC route etc mean that Merseytravel might opt for dual voltage stock which would almost certainly be required for such schemes?

The full report is available at

http://moderngov.merseytravel.uk.ne...rpool City Region Long Term Rail Strategy.pdf

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meets on 4th June 2014 and will receive a report from the Chief Executive of Merseytravel on the long term rail strategy for the region.

If that's the best they can do, DfT will just ignore it.
There is no detail, no costs/timeframes and no priorities.
The only good thing about it is that it is in general outward-looking (links to Warrington, Preston, Chester/N Wales etc).

On the stock front, a wider Merseytravel fleet suitable for both the tunnels and elsewhere would mean the costs could be shared with DfT TOCs.

You have to hope they will take all this to "Rail North" (which is not mentioned in the context of rail strategy) and try to develop a practical regional implementation plan.
It is on such things that (eg) CLC electrification will be based.

 

[WatcherZero]

Since their procurement director is giving a speech on the 10th to the Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transportation titled something like 'Merseyrail Rolling Stock Procurement, how Merseyrail is leading the project to replace the UK's oldest fleet'. Then I dont think replacement is quite off the table yet

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Since their procurement director is giving a speech on the 10th to the Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transportation titled something like 'Merseyrail Rolling Stock Procurement, how Merseyrail is leading the project to replace the UK's oldest fleet'. Then I dont think replacement is quite off the table yet

The 313s are two years older than the 507s and 508s...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How long will it be until the current Merseyrail stock is completely life expired?

 

[samuelmorris]

I would have guessed turn of the decade? That'd be a fraction over 40 years, which seems to be the maximum life expectancy of most EMUs, by design anyway, even if they run over that in practice. The quality of refurbishment work makes a big impact on that though - units with very cursory refreshes would typically want replacing a lot earlier than those that benefited from a thorough refurbishment (I'm thinking along the lines of the GA 315s and the 92 tube stock here as examples of units that arguably could be seeing shorter lives on this basis).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

So if the current stock is completely life expired around 2020 then they're going to have to get the process into motion fairly soon of purchasing and having manufactured new stock otherwise they might find all manufacturers at full capacity making stock for other lines with the very high risk of breakdowns by 2020.

btw could the 92 tube stock fit on the IoW line eventually as a replacement for the current IoW stock which itself must be coming towards being completely life expired?

 

[47802]

I would have guessed turn of the decade? That'd be a fraction over 40 years, which seems to be the maximum life expectancy of most EMUs, by design anyway, even if they run over that in practice. The quality of refurbishment work makes a big impact on that though - units with very cursory refreshes would typically want replacing a lot earlier than those that benefited from a thorough refurbishment (I'm thinking along the lines of the GA 315s and the 92 tube stock here as examples of units that arguably could be seeing shorter lives on this basis).

Personally I think that's bull****, everybody on here seems to be obsessed that electric stock should last 40 years, I would say if its more economic or a better business case to replace at 20 years old or 30 years old then that what should be done, not oh we must keep these trains 40 years whatever.

 

[Olaf]

How long will it be until the current Merseyrail stock is completely life expired?

The book-value is for 35 years, but they are electric vehicles so they could go for another 15 years or more (cf. Metropolitan line stock).

However, they are to go through a refresh that is mostly cosmetic which indicates a make-do extension from the present of perhaps 3-5 years. There will at present be no fixed end date given that there is nothing in place for their replacement.

 

[47802]

The book-value is for 35 years, but they are electric vehicles so they could go for another 15 years or more (cf. Metropolitan line stock).

Or 35 years D stock, 14 years 1983 Jubilee Stock.

 

[northwichcat]

Personally I think that's bull****, everybody on here seems to be obsessed that electric stock should last 40 years, I would say if its more economic or a better business case to replace at 20 years old or 30 years old then that what should be done, not oh we must keep these trains 40 years whatever.

Well as you're probably aware Thameslink are currently replacing stock that's up to around 25yr old but the current stock is being cascaded.

The smaller fleets tend to get written off earlier. Remember First North Western still operating some 101s in 2003 aged 47 years old while newer smaller fleets like the 103s and 108s had all been completely withdrawn years before? The fact that were so many 101s means there's more units which could be cannibalised for spare parts to keep small fleet of 101s in service.

The manufacturer's are supposed to build DMUs which can last 25 years and EMUs which can last 35 years. Obviously no-one has a crystal ball and can't predict what passenger numbers will be like in 30 years time or how economical new trains will be by then.

 

[47802]

Well as you're probably aware Thameslink are currently replacing stock that's up to around 25yr old but the current stock is being cascaded.

The smaller fleets tend to get written off earlier. Remember First North Western still operating some 101s in 2003 aged 47 years old while newer smaller fleets like the 103s and 108s had all been completely withdrawn years before? The fact that were so many 101s means there's more units which could be cannibalised for spare parts to keep small fleet of 101s in service.

The manufacturer's are supposed to build DMUs which can last 25 years and EMUs which can last 35 years. Obviously no-one has a crystal ball and can't predict what passenger numbers will be like in 30 years time or how economical new trains will be by then.

Yes as you say the 319's will be around for while, a business case has been made for them, The 101 survived because the railways were not getting the investment they should have, but my fundamental point is yes Rolling Stock Manufacturers probably design them for a life of around 30+ years, but at the end of the day that doesn't mean to say they will last that as long as that or possibly they might last a longer than that, it clearly depends on circumstances and not the 40 year rule which some people on here seem to think should automatically apply as a minimum, hence the god knows how many pages of wibble on here about how the 442's should be re-used

The 1983 stock went because they were not fit for purpose, the D stocks going presumably because it makes sense to order a large standardised surface fleet now rather than order another smaller fleet in 5 to 10 years time, and then there were plenty of MK2's which got the axe at around 25 years old because BR thought it more economical to run a fleet of Sprinters, many of which probably will be around for 40 years due to the reluctance to buy new diesel Units.

 

[WatcherZero]

They did originally intend to replace them a year or two ago but instead opted for a minor life extension, 2018 is the current target date for replacement.

 

[Wavertreelad]

If that's the best they can do, DfT will just ignore it.
There is no detail, no costs/timeframes and no priorities.
The only good thing about it is that it is in general outward-looking (links to Warrington, Preston, Chester/N Wales etc).

On the stock front, a wider Merseytravel fleet suitable for both the tunnels and elsewhere would mean the costs could be shared with DfT TOCs.

You have to hope they will take all this to "Rail North" (which is not mentioned in the context of rail strategy) and try to develop a practical regional implementation plan.
It is on such things that (eg) CLC electrification will be based.

I think the presentation is by the Chief Executive of Merseytravel to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) it is more of policy statement rather than a detailed plan, but would assume that some detailed planning, including costing has been completed in order to draw up the proposals rather than just being a set of schoolboy fantasies.

LCRCA is of course a new authority responsible amongst other things for strategic planning in a much larger area than the previous area covered by Mersey Travel which should make planning over the entire region easier. It is therefore not unsurprising that the tone of the presentation is outward looking.

 

[WatcherZero]

Indeed, thats just an outline not a strategy itself.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Indeed, thats just an outline not a strategy itself.

Yes and to slightly correct my previous post this quote from the Mersey Travel website.

http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/abou...-be-considered-by-Merseytravel-Committee.aspx

"A set of 12 rail priorities have been identified that will help improve links both within the Liverpool City Region and beyond and ensure the network is geared up for a significant increase in passengers and freight over the next 30 years.

This potential package of schemes will form the basis of an update on the Long Term Rail Strategy to the Merseytravel Committee of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority next week (4th June).

Members will be asked to support the progress of the strategy and approve submission of the draft for consideration at the next meeting of the Combined Authority (13th June).

The strategy, developed by Merseytravel, as strategic transport advisor to the Combined Authority, essentially offers a vision of rail over the next 30 years. It will change and adapt to reflect and support the ongoing regeneration of the Liverpool City Region."

 

[samuelmorris]

Personally I think that's bull****, everybody on here seems to be obsessed that electric stock should last 40 years, I would say if its more economic or a better business case to replace at 20 years old or 30 years old then that what should be done, not oh we must keep these trains 40 years whatever.

I'm not saying 40 years is the minimum required for electric stock, but typically that seems to be what fleets are going for these days. If it ain't broke etc...
On the other hand, if it is broke, many fleets have succumbed earlier than that. As raised, the 1983TS on the underground is a prime example - for all their deficiencies, the 83TS was scrapped instead of being refurbished to the same standard as the new build 96TS as they simply weren't good enough, whether you consider it due to the reliability issues, single-leaf doors or both.

As I've also raised, the 312s were 0 years old at replacement as still being slam-door stock they were less desirable. If you're going to scrap rolling stock and replace it with something else, there has to be a good reason. If one area wants newer, shiny trains but the old ones are still serviceable - it makes most sense to cascade, where possible. If the stock being replaced is falling to bits, rightly time to scrap them, whether they're 25 years old or 50.

 

[Olaf]

Or 35 years D stock, 14 years 1983 Jubilee Stock.

In those cases the vehicles are/have been withdrawn comparatively early because of other initiatives, not because the vehicles could not undergo further life extension.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... but at the end of the day that doesn't mean to say they will last that as long as that or possibly they might last a longer than that, it clearly depends on circumstances and not the 40 year rule which some people on here seem to think should automatically apply as a minimum ...

Correct; there is no hard and fast rule other than project planned life-cycle, product procurement contracts, operational needs and booked asset value.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Correct; there is no hard and fast rule other than project planned life-cycle, product procurement contracts, operational needs and booked asset value.

That sounds very "old-BR".
Stock is worth what the ROSCO can lease it for against the cost of maintaining it, compared to the costs for equivalent new/replacement trains.
The ROSCOs have had it easy since 1997 with all the BR stock is use for 15 years or so, but now have to work for their living to keep old assets in use.

Some other factors:
The new-build guys are pretty busy with Thameslink/Crossrail/IEP so you might not get new trains very quickly.
Financing new stock is very tricky for people without deep pockets (like Merseytravel) - the impact of the recession.
TOCs have to wait for the nod from DfT for permission to procure new stock.
Merseytravel and LO are a bit different in that DfT doesn't control their funds, but there will still be a Finance Director somewhere demanding a viable business case.
Cost reduction (less maintenance) will be the main driver.
Angel Trains owns the current Merseyrail fleet, so a lot depends on what kind of deal they are prepared to do to keep the fleet in service.
Porterbrook owns the Class 319 fleet, so a bit of competition there.
Finally, all trains corrode with time, and corrosion is one of the reasons why trains get withdrawn even while they are otherwise "fit for purpose".
Merseyrail's fleet might actually do better on corrosion because they have mainly aluminium bodies.
My 5p anyway.