Future Merseyrail stock: Stadler selected as manufacturer

[Camden]

I don't think anyone has suggested there won't be any kind of resistance, but the question is how much. If it can genuinely be made half attractive in terms of jobs then there is then a negotiation push to see how much more can be got, plus perhaps a more fundamental unions vs the industry issue left to deal with. But it's clear that this will be a case of merseyrail guards jobs versus the needs of the city the network is meant to serve (as without going driver only I doubt the funds will be made available to pay for what the city wants). So the guards will lose.

 

[pemma]

All the underground stations on Merseyrail already have adequate staff to provide a platform presence when necessary. They also have contingency plans to provide more staff for crowd control during busy periods.

While they can anticipate when they'll be extra demand, sometimes they may get it wrong, while disruption isn't scheduled in, it just happens.

 

[razor89]

I don't think anyone has suggested there won't be any kind of resistance, but the question is how much. If it can genuinely be made half attractive in terms of jobs then there is then a negotiation push to see how much more can be got, plus perhaps a more fundamental unions vs the industry issue left to deal with. But it's clear that this will be a case of merseyrail guards jobs versus the needs of the city the network is meant to serve (as without going driver only I doubt the funds will be made available to pay for what the city wants). So the guards will lose.

I don't think the loss of guards jobs will be an issue.

You clearly did suggest that as my quote shows. Also your portrayal of "guards jobs vs needs of the city" as fact is rather surprising given you were pulling other posters earlier in the thread for not including a "IMO"...

The unions involved don't just oppose DOO because it means job losses for their members. They oppose it also because they believe DOO represents a degradation in safety. There is a very long thread continuing in the "main" forum about DOO on FGW which shows that there really isn't a clear consensus on this issue.

While they can anticipate when they'll be extra demand, sometimes they may get it wrong, while disruption isn't scheduled in, it just happens.

Of course it's possible they can get it wrong, but the contingency plans include disruption to services. They could employ more staff and have them do nothing for 90% of the time, waiting for disruption to occur, but that just isn't going to happen. The issue of station staff/ platform staff really has nothing to do with guards- There are adequate staff now and there still will be if DOO comes in. I think there won't be any extra station staff posts created.

 

[Camden]

I said I didn't think the loss of the guard's jobs would be an issue, I didn't say there wouldn't be any resistance. I pulled someone up for not including an "IMO" not because they were presenting an opinion (which mine clearly are) but because they were stating things as if they were relaying facts expressed by a third party, when in fact they were only their own personal interpretations of things that had been said previously by that third party, and thus the IMO necessary to qualify that. The IMO is redundant when people are obviously expressing an opinion.

As someone who works in the city, who studies every nook and cranny of every economic development proposal, who understands the overarching aims of such economic development and who gets to see first hand how enthusiastically such development is embraced and how more is constantly being demanded... IMO the loss of probably less than 100 jobs within one railway company in exchange for large direct rolling stock improvements and linked to unlocking economic development potential worth many thousands of jobs from network improvement and expansion will be no competition whatsoever. It is an opinion, but it's one that comes with the benefit of a decent amount of insight.

 

[pemma]

If that's illegal as you say, how did SYPTE get away with funding the Class 333s?

They funded strengthening to four car units for the benefit of Doncaster, the form in which those four car units was provided was up to northern.

Another example is Merseytravel providing funding which secured 6 additional 158s for Northern and those 6 x 158s being allocated to Neville Hill and Northern using 6 x 156s in Merseyside instead.

Can you guess which area most of the Northern management live in? :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another example is Merseytravel providing funding which secured 6 additional 158s for Northern and those 6 x 158s being allocated to Neville Hill and Northern using 6 x 156s in Merseyside instead.

Can you guess which area most of the Northern management live in? :roll:

Do you have evidence that this precise arrangement was not what was in the agreement that was signed? Merseyside area routes do use 156s, so more 156s rather than a different type of unit make more sense, however nice 158s might be!

 

[pemma]

Do you have evidence that this precise arrangement was not what was in the agreement that was signed? Merseyside area routes do use 156s, so more 156s rather than a different type of unit make more sense, however nice 158s might be!

If you recall the North West did have 8 x 158s under FNW but they were moved to Neville Hill in exchange for some very tatty 150/2s going to Newton Heath.

I have seen a letter signed by Heidi Mottram that confirmed the financials for securing extra 158s and removing 12 x 142s from the franchise, which confirmed funding was provided by a combination of Metro, Merseytravel and Yorkshire Forward. It also said they were in talks with GMPTE (as they were called at the time) about funding 158s. I'm not sure if that ever happened but I'm aware TfGM did fund CCTV for 6 or 8 x 158s which are supposed to be allocated to Calder Vale services.

 

[Dstock7080]

Slight movement today:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/merseyrail-emu-fleet-to-be-replaced.html

 

[razor89]

Lastly, less rolling stock than now would be a madness and it's first I've heard of it.

Slight movement today:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/merseyrail-emu-fleet-to-be-replaced.html

52 units quoted in the above article, but I've heard it could be anything between 50 and 59. As usual from Merseytravel, incredibly short sighted.

 

[pemma]

52 units quoted in the above article, but I've heard it could be anything between 50 and 59. As usual from Merseytravel, incredibly short sighted.

With talk of increasing capacity by having more standing space. To me that suggests 3 car with less seats.

 

[47802]

With talk of increasing capacity by having more standing space. To me that suggests 3 car with less seats.

Hope the punters will like the 378 style seating

Seems to becoming the norm on metro style services, probably the next step will be to take the seating out altogether

 

[pemma]

Hope the punters will like the 378 style seating

Who needs the nice views of the Sefton Coast?

I would hope they retain enough seats so that everyone north of Hall Road and east of Bromborough Rake will usually get a seat, given those stations are 20 minutes from the city and 20 minutes is apparently the maximum acceptable standing time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With talk of increasing capacity by having more standing space. To me that suggests 3 car with less seats.

It doesn't rule out the idea of something like 4-car units, though I probably agree with you that crush-loaded 3-car units are more likely.

 

[pemma]

It doesn't rule out the idea of something like 4-car units, though I probably agree with you that crush-loaded 3-car units are more likely.

Or the idea of mixed length formations - some 3 car which could be doubled up and some longer ones which can't. However, that of course requires more money and would mean the longer formations have to run around all the time, not just at busy times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or the idea of mixed length formations - some 3 car which could be doubled up and some longer ones which can't. However, that of course requires more money and would mean the longer formations have to run around all the time, not just at busy times.

A timetable change might handle that - for example, a 10 minute frequency base at busier times (say 7am-10am, 4pm-7pm weekdays, 10am-5pm Saturday and Sunday) and 20 minute outside of that.

 

[pemma]

A timetable change might handle that - for example, a 10 minute frequency base at busier times (say 7am-10am, 4pm-7pm weekdays, 10am-5pm Saturday and Sunday) and 20 minute outside of that.

Would the city centre loop be able to handle a service every 10 minutes to Chester at peak times and one every 20 to Ellesmere Port, or would it require some shuttle services to/from Hooton only?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would the city centre loop be able to handle a service every 10 minutes to Chester at peak times and one every 20 to Ellesmere Port, or would it require some shuttle services to/from Hooton only?

Under the old signalling it could (it could handle 30tph) but I believe the new signalling has reduced capacity slightly. However, the Hooton idea is interesting - would the track layout be able to handle something a little more Swiss, i.e. 6tph evenly spaced to Hooton, 2 of which go to Ellesmere Port and 4 to Chester, but with a Hooton-Chester shuttle connecting with the ones that go to Ellesmere Port?

 

[mcnw35282]

Good grief...I wish they'd quit with the constant conversion of merseyrail to 25kv talk. We don't need it, 750v has been working just fine for over 100 years. Just build 750v trains instead of trying to find genius ways of installing an overhead system in the underground section.

 

[po8crg]

Or the idea of mixed length formations - some 3 car which could be doubled up and some longer ones which can't. However, that of course requires more money and would mean the longer formations have to run around all the time, not just at busy times.

You could have mixed 3-car and 4-car if you used 18m carriages (like S-stock). That would be 126m for a seven-car double unit and the underground platforms are 128m anyway. There's a few above-ground platforms that are shorter, but you could use SDO on those stations without driving dwell times out of control (SDO in the underground would be bad for dwell times).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good grief...I wish they'd quit with the constant conversion of merseyrail to 25kv talk. We don't need it, 750v has been working just fine for over 100 years. Just build 750v trains instead of trying to find genius ways of installing an overhead system in the underground section.

It's less of that and more the ability to run beyond the current network in future.

 

[D365]

Good grief...I wish they'd quit with the constant conversion of merseyrail to 25kv talk. We don't need it, 750v has been working just fine for over 100 years. Just build 750v trains instead of trying to find genius ways of installing an overhead system in the underground section.

Nobody's been talking about converting the 'core' routes, what is actually being talked about is diverting mainline services when the lines are electrified at 25kV AC. Just about all new-build British suburban stock is capable of dual-voltage operation.

 

[po8crg]

Just about all new-build British suburban stock is capable of dual-voltage operation.

Some is 25kV only, but even then the AC-only stock and the dual-voltage stock are the same base design (like Siemens' 350s and 450s, for instance). I suspect that a 350 could be converted to run on DC if it had to be.

But dual-voltage means that some currently-diesel lines could be converted to AC electric operation and trains could run through onto Merseyrail. Most obviously, Bidston-Wrexham could be AC electric, and trains could run Wrexham-Liverpool, changing voltage at Bidston, and Ormskirk-Preston is another possibility for the same treatment.

Also small parts of the Merseyrail network could be converted to AC to allow mainline services to reach Merseyrail stations, or to simplify operations. Chester-Bache conversion could allow Chester station to be all-AC if Crewe-Chester and/or Warrington-Chester are electrified. Southport-Birkdale is a similar option if Southport-Wigan was to become AC electric.

 

[pemma]

You could have mixed 3-car and 4-car if you used 18m carriages (like S-stock). That would be 126m for a seven-car double unit and the underground platforms are 128m anyway. There's a few above-ground platforms that are shorter, but you could use SDO on those stations without driving dwell times out of control (SDO in the underground would be bad for dwell times).

But then that would mean shorter trains on some services.

The S-Stock is actually 17.4m long for the driving cars and 15.4m for the intermediate vehicles. It's also 2.92m wide so presumably the short carriages are to allow for the wider width without causing clearance problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The S-Stock is actually 17.4m long for the driving cars and 15.4m for the intermediate vehicles. It's also 2.92m wide so presumably the short carriages are to allow for the wider width without causing clearance problems.

I understand the loading gauge on the subsurface Tube lines is larger than the mainline, so a Merseyrail S-stock clone would have to be narrower.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some is 25kV only, but even then the AC-only stock and the dual-voltage stock are the same base design (like Siemens' 350s and 450s, for instance). I suspect that a 350 could be converted to run on DC if it had to be.

350/1s already have DC equipment though in normal service the shoes are left off, though they have been used in service on the MKC-Clapham Jn services for a while a few years ago. I'm sure other 350s could be retrofitted at a not massive cost.

 

[HSTEd]

It's less of that and more the ability to run beyond the current network in future.

If it wasn't for the artificial obsession with obliterating third rail and using only 25kV we might not be in this mess.
Merseyrail extensions are not going to be operated by huge numbers of twelve car trains accelerating hard to 100mph.

The technical issues that dog 750v in the South East really don't apply here. But Network Rail has engaged in obstructionism to ensure no extensions are possible (like relaying lines with steel sleepers for minimal gain).

 

[po8crg]

If it wasn't for the artificial obsession with obliterating third rail and using only 25kV we might not be in this mess.
Merseyrail extensions are not going to be operated by huge numbers of twelve car trains accelerating hard to 100mph.

750V DC third rail from Hunt's Cross to Birchwood and 750V DC overhead from Sankey-for-Penketh to Cornbrook, perhaps? (and a 25kV overhead stub from Deansgate Junction to Cornbrook)

Reconstruct Cornbrook as a junction so tram-train could run from S-f-P into Manchester, and Merseyrail can stretch out to Birchwood. I suspect that five trams per hour to Manchester and four trains to Liverpool would be more than enough compensation to Warrington for the loss of the two through-services (Scarborough and Norwich) to the Chat Moss line - especially as Bank Quay is not affected.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I understand the loading gauge on the subsurface Tube lines is larger than the mainline, so a Merseyrail S-stock clone would have to be narrower.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


350/1s already have DC equipment though in normal service the shoes are left off, though they have been used in service on the MKC-Clapham Jn services for a while a few years ago. I'm sure other 350s could be retrofitted at a not massive cost.

There doesn't appear to be a massive difference in loading gauge. Probably the only way to find out for sure would be for Merseyrail to borrow a yet to enter service LU District line S stock train and run it very slowly round every single section of the loop, checking the clearances and gauging

 

[pemma]

There doesn't appear to be a massive difference in loading gauge. Probably the only way to find out for sure would be for Merseyrail to borrow a yet to enter service LU District line S stock train and run it very slowly round every single section of the loop, checking the clearances and gauging

A 378 is 2.80m wide so D-Stock would be 6cm closer to the platform (the other 6cm would be the other side), that's more than enough difference for a train to scrape against the platform and for there to be a gap between the side of the train and the platform.

Merseyrail doesn't have 4th rail so they can't borrow LU stock unless they can find a locomotive which runs on third rail to move it around!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

A 378 is 2.80m wide so D-Stock would be 6cm closer to the platform (the other 6cm would be the other side), that's more than enough difference for a train to scrape against the platform and for there to be a gap between the side of the train and the platform.

Merseyrail doesn't have 4th rail so they can't borrow LU stock unless they can find a locomotive which runs on third rail to move it around!

Would there be enough tunnel clearance for the track to be moved 6cm away from the platform?

 

[HSTEd]

Merseyrail doesn't have 4th rail so they can't borrow LU stock unless they can find a locomotive which runs on third rail to move it around!

Don't they have a Class 73 for sandite?