trainophile
Established Member
So is this going to delay arrival of the new trains into service? I do hope so 
.
.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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 Class 777 introduction updates
- Thread starter OneThirtyEight
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Shouldnt do, was due to be the 6th delivered that was the battery unit.
Last edited:
Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,791
Not necessarily true. There is a lot of misinformation about 3rd rail. The ORR hasn't banned extension of 3rd rail as some say; there have been recent projects e.g. the East London Line. If the alternatives are not feasible, i.e. cost or infrastructure clearances, 3rd rail can be extended but Network Rail have to do various risk assessments and mitigations.
End doors are required where the trains run in service through tunnels that are longer than the length of any single-bore sections unless there is adequate provision todisembark pssengers, (e.g. on to a purpose built catwalk, as is the case for Crossrail). It's perfectly possible to have OLE in a tunnel that requires end doors if it has sufficient overhead clearance.
Elecman
Established Member
The mitigation’s are pretty unobtainable on the mainline though, being either fully insulated against accidental contact ( viz bottom contact with the rest of the rail fully shrouded (ala DLR) or sectioned to be only live whilst a train is physically over the top, or the railway is raised above ground to prevent access. (DLR again) ie in all but name unachievable for existing mainlines so in effect they have ‘banned’’ 3rd or 4th rail extensions
The ELL had two short links electrified with 3rd rail when converted to LO:
1) The 'new' 3rd rail track link from Surrey Canal Road to The Old Kent Road spur was about 500m long, all of which was laid on an existing East London Railway formation.
2) The deviation from the line that went to the old Shoreditch terminus, up an incline, over the GEML tracks on a new viaduct to link to the previous NLR line that ran as 3rd (and fourth) rail intoBroad St. Total length about 1Km.
Neither of those links could be regarded as 'new' 3rd rail extension, - more as short links between existing DC routes, where grandfather rights were extensively relied upon.
Given that the claass 777s will be passively 25Kv capable, it would seem that there would be a good case to progressively convert the surface sections of the Merseyrail lines to OLE and leave the remaining 9% of linesin the tunnels on DC. The safety hazards of underground 3rd rail lines are much easier to mitigate that those on the surface where the are ISTR quite a few pedestrian and level crossings making access control of the live track much more difficult.
Apart from the safety benefits, the icing issues and capital and repeating costs of LV DC traction power would be virtually eliminated with 25Kv traction. There would also be the opportunity for alternative routes and expansion over NR lines around the region.
Last edited:
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,299
Indeed, the original plan for Skelmersdale was 3rd rail extension using classes 507/8, before the whole fleet replacement announcement. The 777 battery would have been a get out clause for 3rd rail extension though. It seems like 25kV AC is the only option left between Kirkby and Skelmersdale.
As the tunnels are (obviously) started and finished with inclines, there might be a need to have switchable power available via the 3rd rail on the rise out of them in case there was a train battery fault or even an extended delay in the core that might result in a train having insufficient battery charge left to ascend to the surface.
Thed OLE could start very near to the portals so even the final climb to Sandhills could be undertaken under ac.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
As it's unlikely anything other than Class 777s will operate that service and it's low-speed, there is another option - tram-type DC overhead, saving the weight and underframe space of the transformer. Would require relatively little equipment added to the train - just a pantograph well, pantograph and appropriate switchgear.
Last edited:
The tunnels themselves are fairly chilly all year round, good place to go when the weather is scorchio.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yeah, quite different to the Tube! I think it's because of the high water table (which often causes issues with equipment) meaning there's a lot of water about which provides an evaporative cooling type effect.
The musty damp smell and the chill particularly at James St (when coupled with the view of the mostly-abandoned platform) always made it feel a bit awe inspiring to me, sort of like a show cave or something.
supervc-10
Member
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 702
That's a good thought. And if 'unprotected' 3rd rail becomes more of a problem, extending overhead to cover all of the areas outside of the tunnels would be relatively easy too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Other than the Northern Line link tunnels you could probably put low-voltage overhead third rail on most of the network should that become legally necessary (though I wouldn't bother otherwise), it doesn't need the clearances 25kV does, and I'm not sure the Metrolink station in Piccadilly Undercroft actually has a significant amount more headroom than any Merseyrail station other than Moorfields Northern Line. That said, switching to enclosed side or bottom-contact third rail as used e.g. on the Hamburg system or the DLR (I think they are actually the same system) might also be worth considering.
I guess the upside of switching to DC OHLE would be that the conversion could be done over time, to change the third rail system (unless you just added shielding to the sides of the present rail) you'd need to do the whole Northern or Wirral Line in one go as a "big bang".
Given that through running onto/off the network from a wider area would cause significant disadvantages to e.g. punctuality and reliability (and things like the option of fitting platform-edge doors later) interoperability does not strike me as at all important.
That could be partly to do with it, but the ground type will contribute to it too. London is clay and other heat absorbing materials, whilst below Liverpool it's just a giant chunk of Sandstone. Service levels probably also dont help with heat buildup, with London trains being more frequent and there being many more warm meatbags on them.
modernrail
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,054
I really think they need to do something with those big hunks of sandstone. I used to think cladding but I have been travelling in Scandinavia a lot recently and they leave a lot of their rock bare in the stations and then project videos on to it. Think calming Nordic trees.
Liverpool Central could have images of old ships at Pier Head, travellers at the Adelphi Hotel, images from the swinging 60's and that sort of thing.
Out of Lime Street at night you I could have images of that amazing cutting being built and images of the original infrastructure in the Liverpool to Manchester line.
There could be a monthly competition to invite local artists to submit videos for projection.
It would be super cool and very appropriate for a creative city like Liverpool and wouldn't cost that much. Just install around another possession.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Says who? I very much doubt it.
Doing the rounds on Twitter. Came from the mouth of the RMT North West Organiser
The version of the rumour I heard was that the repositioning of signals (to allow 8 cars to operate with the front/back of trains hanging off the platform) may be delayed and some 507s may be retained for slightly longer than envisaged.
Meanwhile, Merseytravel posted a picture of a unit under construction on their Twitter yesterday.
EDIT TO ADD: Ah, just seen John Tilley's tweet on the subject:
Meanwhile, Merseytravel posted a picture of a unit under construction on their Twitter yesterday.
EDIT TO ADD: Ah, just seen John Tilley's tweet on the subject:
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Couldn't they switch to using the reversing siding instead, as is now done with the Ormskirk trains? If this caused timetable hassle, they could swap from running Southport-Hunts X to Kirkby (or Ormskirk-)Hunts X and reverse the Southports in the siding - it's a totally arbitrary (though long-standing) connection and there is typically near complete swap-over of passengers at Central.
Or alternatively, instead of running 8-car sets at all (there are going to be very few except special events) run peak/event extras instead? This would no doubt be very popular, and would be pleasing to the RMT/ASLEF because it would mean more staff or more overtime, both of which they like?
Last edited:
Whenever I've seen a 6-car 507/508 formation in the siding, it is always right up against the buffers, so presumably they only just fit, and anything even slightly longer will be problematic.
Surely, though, these issues aren't something that has only just been noticed by Merseytravel, Merseyrail or Network Rail? They must have foreseen and planned for this, right?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That seems an almighty screw-up. But presumably, though, running additional trains (and thus not ever running 8-car) would work? Would need more staff, but surely the Unions would not object?
Where are you going to put the extra trains? Central is pretty full as it is!
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,692
It's an absolute farce.
Cut down on the number of terminating services at Central and send them to South Parkway or Hunts Cross. But that lengthens the diagrams and means even more staff required. Could have 4 car Southports terminate at Central and use the turnback siding to alleviate it a bit.
But it’s a nightmare and a farce. How they managed to arrange a huge amount of platform alterations and not manage to squeeze in some track work too is beyond me. Unless they did and it was a much bigger problem.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,732
And yet Network Rail is actively considering third rail electrification projects again, thanks to the catastrophic collapse of the 25kV electrification programme. (See the last Kent RUS)
I actually did an analysis on this in a thread a while back, and it seems likely that most risks to the public can be mitigated through various small scale solutions.
(For example, the sides of the rail can be insulated with an adherent polymer coat now, and segments in the centres of the platform can be left normally dead)