Merseyrail new stock

[3141]

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.

Some other factors:
The new-build guys are pretty busy with Thameslink/Crossrail/IEP so you might not get new trains very quickly.
.

What the ROSCO can lease stock for depends on what TOCs can pay (or what the DfT approves being paid), and old stock, possibly refurbished, is likely to be cheaper than brand new trains. The driving force may be the TOC.

Siemens is certainly busy with Thameslink, and didn't bid for Crossrail as a result. But Bombardier and Hitachi will be thinking about what work they will be getting when looking Crossrail and IEP are completed. Hitachi especially, as so far it has no other orders but it will have a brand new factory to keep occupied.

And if those two really said "No thank you, we're busy", there's CAF and the Chinese who might well be interested.

 

[Wavertreelad]

What the ROSCO can lease stock for depends on what TOCs can pay (or what the DfT approves being paid), and old stock, possibly refurbished, is likely to be cheaper than brand new trains. The driving force may be the TOC.

Siemens is certainly busy with Thameslink, and didn't bid for Crossrail as a result. But Bombardier and Hitachi will be thinking about what work they will be getting when looking Crossrail and IEP are completed. Hitachi especially, as so far it has no other orders but it will have a brand new factory to keep occupied.

And if those two really said "No thank you, we're busy", there's CAF and the Chinese who might well be interested.

Or you could cascade the 313's north, refurbish the 507/508's then refurbish the 313's to allow further expansion of the network then negotiate a better deal when the builders are looking for additional work as the current "flood" of orders drops off.

 

[47802]

What the ROSCO can lease stock for depends on what TOCs can pay (or what the DfT approves being paid), and old stock, possibly refurbished, is likely to be cheaper than brand new trains. The driving force may be the TOC.

Siemens is certainly busy with Thameslink, and didn't bid for Crossrail as a result. But Bombardier and Hitachi will be thinking about what work they will be getting when looking Crossrail and IEP are completed. Hitachi especially, as so far it has no other orders but it will have a brand new factory to keep occupied.

And if those two really said "No thank you, we're busy", there's CAF and the Chinese who might well be interested.

I'm sure Bombardier will still be looking for orders especially for Aventra it should be remembered Bombardier have been building 'S' Stock trains as well as 377's I'm not entirely sure of the finish date for the 'S' stock but it will be no later than 2016, and while Crossrail is a big order it isn't as big as Thameslink. I guess the next really big order on the horizon at the moment is the new Deep Tube stock and who will win that, Siemens have shown a mockup and Bombardier say they have been working on their proposals for 5 years, I guess who ever wins that may be fully occupied for quite a while towards the end of this decade.

 

[prod_pep]

Local newspapers and the law firm which advised Merseyrail on the current refresh programme (Burges Salmon) have indicated that Merseytravel are still considering a number of options for rolling stock beyond the end of this decade, including "an extensive re-working of the existing stock".

http://www.burges-salmon.com/Sectors/Rail/News/12104.aspx

Potentially, that could open the door for some 313s to join the fleet if they are displaced from the Great Northern from 2018.

Whatever happens, there simply aren't enough trains on the network currently to meet supply with demand in peak hours. If new trains ultimately are ordered for the end of the decade, more than 59 are going to be required.

 

[WatcherZero]

They are one of the few networks who actually had more than required, having 76, they only used around 60 and let the rest fall into disrepair. However they arent looking to significantly increase fleet size (half a dozen more identified as required for line extensions) as they have enough for the current services and they cant make the handful of services which would be useful to lengthen longer due to platform length. Instead they will be looking to maximising saloon capacity, fitting more people into the same length train.

One of the ways that could be done is using tube style stock which has much shorter carriages of around 15/16m versus 20m which allows wider articulated carriage connections.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wider gangways should be possible (providing the curves on the loop aren't too severe) regardless of vehicle length- the 378s for example. There is a school of thought that shorter vehicles would be more suited to the aforementioned curves though, to reduce track wear. I still think something loosely based on the S8-stock (albeit with lower-density and higher-quality seating) might be the best option.

 

[prod_pep]

They are one of the few networks who actually had more than required, having 76, they only used around 60 and let the rest fall into disrepair. However they arent looking to significantly increase fleet size (half a dozen more identified as required for line extensions) as they have enough for the current services and they cant make the handful of services which would be useful to lengthen longer due to platform length.

This is part of the problem - they don't seem to have enough for the current services. Short-formings are very, very common on Merseyrail, even considering how proportionally few services on weekdays are formed of six cars. They require 50 units from the current fleet of 59 for normal weekday service.

I'm not sure where the claim they aren't looking for significant fleet size improvements comes from, but it was stated as a priority of the Merseyside RUS a few years ago that further stock should be brought in to allow more services to be six car. They certainly do not have too much rolling stock at present.

There are several services that are very overcrowded and desperately need six cars. Two examples off the top of my head are the 16.36 Hunts Cross - Southport and 17.40 Liverpool Central - Ormskirk.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure where the claim they aren't looking for significant fleet size improvements comes from, but it was stated as a priority of the Merseyside RUS a few years ago that further stock should be brought in to allow more services to be six car. They certainly do not have too much rolling stock at present.

The RUS assumed Merseyrail would take cascaded 508s from the London area but when an example was sent up to Merseyrail for examination they rejected them on the basis they were clapped out and it wouldn't have been economically viable to bring them up to standard.

 

[baldyman26]

The RUS assumed Merseyrail would take cascaded 508s from the London area but when an example was sent up to Merseyrail for examination they rejected them on the basis they were clapped out and it wouldn't have been economically viable to bring them up to standard.

This is the bit I don't understand, who would've footed the bill to bring them up to standard.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This is the bit I don't understand, who would've footed the bill to bring them up to standard.

The locals (passengers through increased fares or Merseytravel through increased subsidy).

Merseyrail's problem is that it has been living in a relatively low-cost bubble for decades (cheap trains, modest maintenance cost etc).
Whichever way they look, the costs will rise significantly, either from leasing new trains or upgrading older ones, and growing the fleet.
They also have to address the problem of reducing passenger numbers (if the latest station figures are correct).
Northern has much the same problems, only in spades (with DfT needing to fork out the increased subsidy rather than the ITA).

 

[northwichcat]

Northern has much the same problems, only in spades (with DfT needing to fork out the increased subsidy rather than the ITA).

Overall Northern's passenger numbers are still growing albeit at something like 1% per annum, which is much lower than it was a few years back. Merseyside appeared to show a drop in passenger while other areas showed large enough rises to cancel out that drop.

The problem for Northern is perhaps that it's the Merseyside lines that are among those set to get extra capacity - Liverpool-Victoria/Airport/Blackpool and with the extra capacity being in the form of 319s they can't easily transfer that extra capacity to another area of the franchise.

 

[prod_pep]

The RUS assumed Merseyrail would take cascaded 508s from the London area but when an example was sent up to Merseyrail for examination they rejected them on the basis they were clapped out and it wouldn't have been economically viable to bring them up to standard.

I think it was more to do with not being able to agree a leasing fee with Angel Trains than their actual condition.

 

[Hophead]

Originally Posted by jcollins:
The RUS assumed Merseyrail would take cascaded 508s from the London area but when an example was sent up to Merseyrail for examination they rejected them on the basis they were clapped out and it wouldn't have been economically viable to bring them up to standard.

This is the bit I don't understand, who would've footed the bill to bring them up to standard.

I'm not sure I understand either (nothing new there): I thought that franchisees were required to hand back their stock to the leasing company in good condition (similar, I suppose, to the hire car principle). Or did Connex / Govia just bite the bullet and take the fine instead?

Or do I really, really not understand?

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure I understand either (nothing new there): I thought that franchisees were required to hand back their stock to the leasing company in good condition (similar, I suppose, to the hire car principle). Or did Connex / Govia just bite the bullet and take the fine instead?

Or do I really, really not understand?

Well that is that option. Northern apparently were fined for not keeping the class 180 interiors in an acceptable condition.

However, unlike the Merseyrail class 508s the South East 508s didn't have a high standard of refurbishment so with usual wear and tear they would have automatically been in a much poorer state than the Merseyrail 508s.

 

[8J]

New stock would surely reduce costs in maintaining them? Even a new traction package would do that, I still agree with the above though that Merseyrail is a system with relatively low outlets. Maybe a key reason for them opting against complete control over the network from Network Rail.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

New stock would surely reduce costs in maintaining them? Even a new traction package would do that, I still agree with the above though that Merseyrail is a system with relatively low outlets. Maybe a key reason for them opting against complete control over the network from Network Rail.

Good point - SWT seem confident that a new traction package for the 455's will cut costs (regeneration = something like 10 to 15% betterment in traction costs) , with a refreshed interior on top of what is there , makes a decent enough train. Be honest , what is the "average" Merseyside journey time ? - this and a few more 6 cars to hit the peak (weekends including), may tick the right boxes till "real" replacement due to corrosion etc might be appropriate.

 

[8J]

The 507/8's run on motors controlled by a resistor based camshaft controlled system, same as the 455's and 313's. This system of traction power application is somewhat unreliable and can cause problems. If these were changed along with a rework of the corroded body panels, I don't see why they couldn't have a bit longer in service.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The locals (passengers through increased fares or Merseytravel through increased subsidy).

Merseyrail's problem is that it has been living in a relatively low-cost bubble for decades (cheap trains, modest maintenance cost etc).
Whichever way they look, the costs will rise significantly, either from leasing new trains or upgrading older ones, and growing the fleet.
They also have to address the problem of reducing passenger numbers (if the latest station figures are correct).
Northern has much the same problems, only in spades (with DfT needing to fork out the increased subsidy rather than the ITA).

How much longer have Merseyrail got until the 507s/08s are due a serious major overhaul (the sort where they have to strip them down to the bare bodywork, and do major work and repairs on them as needed?

 

[baldyman26]

New stock would surely reduce costs in maintaining them? Even a new traction package would do that, I still agree with the above though that Merseyrail is a system with relatively low outlets. Maybe a key reason for them opting against complete control over the network from Network Rail.

Didn't Merseyrail / Merseytravel try to get full control over the network a few years ago but where prevented from doing so by the Government or am I totally wrong?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Didn't Merseyrail / Merseytravel try to get full control over the network a few years ago but where prevented from doing so by the Government or am I totally wrong?

It was the Merseytravel mantra for a decade, and was opposed by Network Rail.
But when the DfT reopened the debate about local ownership, Merseytravel turned and fled.
The locals liked the idea of full control of their network, but didn't fancy the costs that went with it.
Supposedly the long-term costs of maintaining the tunnel system killed it.
It remains to be seen what "devolution" means in a Rail North context, but it is unlikely to mean control of the infrastructure.

 

[prod_pep]

How much longer have Merseyrail got until the 507s/08s are due a serious major overhaul (the sort where they have to strip them down to the bare bodywork, and do major work and repairs on them as needed?

This work is being done to the bodywork currently as part of the re-livery process. 17 of the 59 units are done already. As part of an £8.5 million package, there will be internal and mechanical improvements following later this year.

I seem to remember that when the vertical integration plan went down the drain, Merseytravel posted a news article that can only be described as throwing their toys out of the pram. It pointed the finger at Network Rail by listing a load of recent delays caused by signal and track faults.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The 507/8's run on motors controlled by a resistor based camshaft controlled system, same as the 455's and 313's. This system of traction power application is somewhat unreliable and can cause problems. If these were changed along with a rework of the corroded body panels, I don't see why they couldn't have a bit longer in service.

Really?

It's been around for donkeys years and is well proven.

 

[AM9]

Really?

It's been around for donkeys years and is well proven.

I agree, it has been around since the '50s on tube trains. Of course there have been duff implementations since but the system is generally reliable if maintained. The demand for energy frugality has meant that three phase is now preferred, with its designed-in opportunity for re-generative braking.

 

[apk55]

The system of using starting resistances to control a motor at starting and low speed goes back to the earliest days of electric traction- long before 1900. This included tramcars which often had a drum controler, which is a manualy worked camshaft. The resistances were often combind with series parall switching of the motors and the 506's were typical of this. The normal procedure on starting was
connect the Motors in series and all resistance in circuit
Reduce the resistance as the train starts moving and their back EMF rises, to maintain a constant motor current
When all the resistance has been removed reconect the motors in parall with resistance also inserted.
Reduce the resistance as the train speed continues to rise until the motors are connected directly across the line.
Possibly put shunts across the motor field coils in order to alter the motor charcteristics to get more torque at high speed

In order to achieve this complex sequence of switching a camshaft was often used with power contacts being driven by cams. The rotation of the camshaft would be controled by a "notching relay" which would tell the camshaft to move on when the motor current drops below a preset level. Generaly systems are reliable if looked after but can be quite high maintance as there are many power contacts that wear.

It was not untill the 1970's that power electronics had advanced to the level that traction motor powers could be even be contemplated, and then it was the somwhat unreliable forced comutation system. It took the development of GTO (gate turn off) thyristors in the late 1980s (when the 506 are already in service) before electronic control became practical. Subsequently in the 1990s the availability of insulated gate bipolar transistors IGBT has made electronic control even easier.

Replacing the existing control system with an IGBT chopper system and retaing the motors would not be difficult and could easily incorperate regenative braking. This would result in some energy saving by eliminating starting resistor loss and recycling braking energy.
A lot would depend on the state of the existing motors, coach body and other equipment, to say if this is worthwile. Replacing the motors with 3 phase drives would be a lot more costly so probably could not be justified.

 

[Olaf]

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.

Yes, on the whole I do not disagree, just my answer was more abbreviated.

The extension for the 507/508 stock has been agreed from what I can tell, but still no news on the new stock which has been in the planning for three years now. Part of the extension for 507/508s is to cover deterioration in the coach work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The locals (passengers through increased fares or Merseytravel through increased subsidy).

Merseyrail's problem is that it has been living in a relatively low-cost bubble for decades (cheap trains, modest maintenance cost etc).
Whichever way they look, the costs will rise significantly, either from leasing new trains or upgrading older ones, and growing the fleet.
They also have to address the problem of reducing passenger numbers (if the latest station figures are correct).
Northern has much the same problems, only in spades (with DfT needing to fork out the increased subsidy rather than the ITA).

I was under the impression that Merseytravel received a very substantial grant for a 25 year period about half a dozen years ago, and that part of that money had been invested in submarines and museums because they did not know what to with it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by jcollins:
The RUS assumed Merseyrail would take cascaded 508s from the London area but when an example was sent up to Merseyrail for examination they rejected them on the basis they were clapped out and it wouldn't have been economically viable to bring them up to standard.



I'm not sure I understand either (nothing new there): I thought that franchisees were required to hand back their stock to the leasing company in good condition (similar, I suppose, to the hire car principle). Or did Connex / Govia just bite the bullet and take the fine instead?

Or do I really, really not understand?

They were off-lease for a while and I think that is when their condition deteriorated markedly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good point - SWT seem confident that a new traction package for the 455's will cut costs (regeneration = something like 10 to 15% betterment in traction costs) , with a refreshed interior on top of what is there , makes a decent enough train. Be honest , what is the "average" Merseyside journey time ? - this and a few more 6 cars to hit the peak (weekends including), may tick the right boxes till "real" replacement due to corrosion etc might be appropriate.

The 507/508s are a generation older than the 455s; technical considerations, in addition to their age, may make modifications less practical/affordable.

Is the current demand on Wirral and Northern line services so high that Merseyrail could not get by with the existing stock until 2018 or there abouts?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 507/8's run on motors controlled by a resistor based camshaft controlled system, same as the 455's and 313's. This system of traction power application is somewhat unreliable and can cause problems. If these were changed along with a rework of the corroded body panels, I don't see why they couldn't have a bit longer in service.

Thanks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It was the Merseytravel mantra for a decade, and was opposed by Network Rail.
But when the DfT reopened the debate about local ownership, Merseytravel turned and fled.
The locals liked the idea of full control of their network, but didn't fancy the costs that went with it.
Supposedly the long-term costs of maintaining the tunnel system killed it.
It remains to be seen what "devolution" means in a Rail North context, but it is unlikely to mean control of the infrastructure.

This was more to do with it being the pet project of the head of Merseytravel whom emigrated in the intervening years.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I agree, it has been around since the '50s on tube trains. Of course there have been duff implementations since but the system is generally reliable if maintained. The demand for energy frugality has meant that three phase is now preferred, with its designed-in opportunity for re-generative braking.

Oh agreed, three phase is more efficient.

 

[martynbristow]

Breaking & Worrying news!!
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/transport-authority-cannot-say-merseyrail-7697049

It seems MerseyTravel couldn't give a monkies about it and don't want to spend the money

MerseyTravel want to drag out the existing units until they fall apart because they'd rather push on with expanding the network :/
Is it just me or is that bonkers.
You don't have enough rolling stock, its time expiring, doesn't offer the best for passengers and fails due to age a bit, yet your trying to open more stations and extend!
Hmmmm ...

 

[Y961 XBU]

Tbh i dont really have a problem with the 507/508 Class, could do with adding a Toilet into them and adding a few more Trains as overcrowding is starting to show but overall the Trains themselves aint that bad

 

[prod_pep]

The 507/508s could go on for a fair while longer if they're given an extensive programme of life-extension work, but there is a significant need for additional trains on existing overcrowded services.

The Great Northern 313s surely have to be considered as an option for the future from 2018 onwards if the 507/8s are retained a significant period beyond 2020. From a personal point of view, I do hope the 507/8s stay as long as they are mechanically upgraded, but the Southport line can't go on without a full complement of six car trains on weekdays as it is now.

 

[WatcherZero]

Err, thats a real over egged story, simply he said he had nothing to announce at the present time. The 30 year strategy hints at them ordering a new fleet of DC units but with options for further dual voltage units.