Entire Merseyrail fleet to be replaced

[jopsuk]

but both Aventra and Desiro City so far exist, as far as I know, purely as computer models. I realise such things are getting better, but I'd point out that (for example) the Boeing 787 is much, much heavier than envisaged.

 

[Gareth]

The local trains running out of Lime St to Wigan, Manchester and Warrington all have toilets which seem to work whenever I try to use them. So why would the Merseyrail trains fare any worse?

Merseyrail is essentially a metro network. Having toilets on the trains would not make much more sense than on the London Underground. You may as well have First Class and a buffet car whilst you're at it.

What Merseyrail need is metro-style stock that can accelerate and decelerate quickly, has wide doors & entrances for quick boarding & alighting, plenty of standing room and a light profile so it doesn't chew up the tracks, taking into account the tight curves and clearances in the underground sections. Fortunately, I think this is pretty much what Merseytravel are plumping for.

 

[swt_passenger]

Merseyrail is essentially a metro network. Having toilets on the trains would not make much more sense than on the London Underground. You may as well have First Class and a buffet car whilst you're at it.

I thought the current expectation was that nearly every TOC should be able to run through to Brighton though?

 

[Aictos]

My view on Mersey Rail getting new rolling stock is that the DfT go ahead should only be given upon condition that a large enough order is placed to ensure a rolling stock programme is given the green light to be able to ensure the eventual replacement of the PEP Class like for like and also to ensure future schemes like the Cardiff Valleys are catered for.

My reasoning being is that if Mersey Rail bosses consider the Classes 507s/508s to need replacing then surely the older Class 313s/314s ought to be replaced at the same time if not before?

Plus surely it would be more cost effective to do this then do multiple orders with large gaps between the orders.

Now while the successor to the Class 313 design needs to be 3 coaches due to the limits of the Northern City Line meaning they can only operate in 6 car formations, I do think the successor to the Class 314 design should be 4 coaches like the existing Class 315 design and able to run as 8 car formations which bearing in mind I'm not a regular user of the 314s in Scotland should bring extra seating capacity which in turn should help promote growth on these lines.

 

[John55]

My view on Mersey Rail getting new rolling stock is that the DfT go ahead should only be given upon condition that a large enough order is placed to ensure a rolling stock programme is given the green light to be able to ensure the eventual replacement of the PEP Class like for like and also to ensure future schemes like the Cardiff Valleys are catered for.

My reasoning being is that if Mersey Rail bosses consider the Classes 507s/508s to need replacing then surely the older Class 313s/314s ought to be replaced at the same time if not before?

Plus surely it would be more cost effective to do this then do multiple orders with large gaps between the orders.

Now while the successor to the Class 313 design needs to be 3 coaches due to the limits of the Northern City Line meaning they can only operate in 6 car formations, I do think the successor to the Class 314 design should be 4 coaches like the existing Class 315 design and able to run as 8 car formations which bearing in mind I'm not a regular user of the 314s in Scotland should bring extra seating capacity which in turn should help promote growth on these lines.

The "PEP" family consists of the 313, 314, 315, 507 & 508. The successor trains will work with Thameslink rolling stock, Scotrail rolling stock, Crossrail rolling stock and itself. Why buy replacement rolling stock to a common design at all. Surely FCC should buy trains compatible with Thameslink trains if anything, Scotrail with Scotrail trains and GA with Crossrail trains.

The evil of badly thought out standard products led to the current Merseyrail fleet having in the words of the RAIB report into the derailment at Liverpool Central in 2005 "a basic incompatibility between the vehicle and track design".

 

[DanJames93]

The local trains running out of Lime St to Wigan, Manchester and Warrington all have toilets which seem to work whenever I try to use them. So why would the Merseyrail trains fare any worse?

I've never seen the local scallies use Northern, or other TOC's that operate through Manchester/Warrington, a lot of the time when I'm using Merseyrail I see groups on them on the train causing trouble, being aggressive and abusive towards other passengers, and fare evading. All they seem to want to do is cause trouble.

No doubt in my mind that toilets would get graffiti'd all over constantly. The walls of most Merseyrail trains have been defaced; obnoxious remarks, and peoples names engraved with knives and keys.

Although toilets may be a nice addition to Merseyrail those travelling slightly longer journeys, i.e. if someone was travelling from Southport to Chester, or disabled passengers, I feel these people would ruin it for everyone else. I didn't come here to argue, by the way. Just stating my opinion. Just find it a shame that kids like to create an unpleasant and depressing atmosphere.

edit; I'm also hoping that they revert to the old seating plans, but also have convenient disabled access for those that need it. Old plans carried slightly more passengers.. which is important on a network with an extremely high volume of passengers at peak hours. Toilets would also reduce this capacity.

 

[bangor-toad]

For anyone who thinks they know the solutions, time to put your money where your mouth is

Whilst looking for something completely different I came across the Job advert for the person to lead this:

Project Director

Who's going to apply?
Enjoy,
Jason

 

[Bevan Price]

What Merseyrail need is metro-style stock that can accelerate and decelerate quickly, has wide doors & entrances for quick boarding & alighting, plenty of standing room and a light profile so it doesn't chew up the tracks, taking into account the tight curves and clearances in the underground sections. Fortunately, I think this is pretty much what Merseytravel are plumping for.

Not sure about metro-style stock, but I understand that Gareth is right in that Merseyrail want something that is lighter than the current stock, and that will cause a lot less track wear on the Liverpool loop.

Tram-like stock with fewer seats and lots of standing room would not be welcomed by the large numbers of passengers travelling all the way from Liverpool to Chester or Southport.

 

[John55]

Not sure about metro-style stock, but I understand that Gareth is right in that Merseyrail want something that is lighter than the current stock, and that will cause a lot less track wear on the Liverpool loop.

Tram-like stock with fewer seats and lots of standing room would not be welcomed by the large numbers of passengers travelling all the way from Liverpool to Chester or Southport.

The current stock is lightweight! At 99 tonnes for a 3 car unit that is 33 tonnes/vehicle compared to 45 tonnes/vehicle for a Desiro. Going back a bit the 502s were 30 tons/vehicle for bigger cars such is progress!

The more important requirement for the track interface is steerable axles on the bogies of the next generation of trains.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think you can give the benefit of the doubt there, modern stock that is comparable to the 70's stock is heavier because of increasing safety and luxury standards, however the trend for the last few years is they are getting lighter again from new materials and more compact electronics, for example instead of wiring each component into the cabs at both ends of the train you instead have a networked approach where the components are networked IP devices sharing a common trunk data cable to the cab, next gen units will even dispense with the trunk cable and use a wi-fi like connection to connect all the devices in a carriage and then the carriages with each other.

Someone (I forget who) has just invented a new 1500v DC inverter for the continent thats something like 30% lighter and 40% more energy efficent than the previously used version because its self cooling. Thats progress

 

[O L Leigh]

Why should any replacement need a narrow body profile? PEP-based units have bodies as wide as any other 20 metre unit and, if Cl73s can work around the Miseryrail network, there are clearly no issues with height either (even for a dual-voltage unit running with pan lowered). So surely any existing design of unit would fit.

As for issues with the track, surely that's a problem to lay at Nitwit Rail's door. If there are problems with ride, even with units that are by modern standards lightweight, then these are separate to any concerns with the rolling stock.

O L Leigh

 

[Nym]

for example instead of wiring each component into the cabs at both ends of the train you instead have a networked approach where the components are networked IP devices sharing a common trunk data cable to the cab, next gen units will even dispense with the trunk cable and use a wi-fi like connection to connect all the devices in a carriage and then the carriages with each other.

You're right but I hope to god you're wrong...

They haven't used IP devices on any safety critical systems in trains yet and only one unit has used anything other than a traditional harness (The Class 380 Desiro) and this was so they could be extensively tested before being fitted to the Desiro City. This does not make use of IP communications, that are not suited to a rail environment for safety critical comms. A slight modification on the RS485 Standard is much more appropriate.

Virtual Harnesses are a pain to make in a lab with IP networks (speaking from experience) and with Ethernet being the likely transmission medium, isn't exactly reliable at the data rates available nowadays that are wholly unnecessary. RS485 can be natively robust against interference where even using 10Mb/s Ethernet at Differential Manchester and HV transmission rates, you'd struggle to get a reliable signal from one end of the unit to the other.

And I really hope that wireless safety critical components never even get a wiff of coming a reality in any uncontrolled environment (Power stations for passive harvest monitoring devices are all OK for example), but put that on a train and all it needs is one person with a sweeping band jammer to bring the train to a halt. You'd be making life very easy for nasty people to do nasty things.

I don't like the proliferation of wireless into safety devices, for example, if ERTMS is implemented entirely with GSM-R and doesn't have track-side Belizes as a backup, what happens when GSM-R goes down, we have no rail network!

PS: If you want to know why RS485 is a better choice than TCP/IP Over Ethernet, feel free to ask and you can have an insanely complex set of reasons. Data Networking at low level is one of my (many) specialisms

 

[tbtc]

To change tack for a moment, is there any real requirement to have the same stock on both the Southport and Birkenhead lines?

Would one type of train be more suited to one than the other?

 

[dosxuk]

next gen units will even dispense with the trunk cable and use a wi-fi like connection to connect all the devices in a carriage and then the carriages with each other.

Why on earth would they want to do that. A cable has (and always will be) always been cheaper, more reliable and higher bandwidth than any radio link. Changing to wireless data connections for components in fixed locations, which need to be wired for power anyway, would be completely ridiculous and end up causing many more issues.

 

[WatcherZero]

It saves a heck of a lot of weight, it may not look it but cabling is heavy, when your connecting multiple components on a 25 metre long vehicle each requireing to be linked into the carriage in front and the carriage behind you use a lot of wiring. Having a simple wireless transmitter the size of a pound coin on each group of component like a bogie or set of door controls using a dedicated always on secure connection talking to a hub in each carriage also makes maintenence easier and faster. Its already starting to come in for aircraft where weight is everything and Siemens will be using it in their next model the Desiro City.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

if ERTMS is implemented entirely with GSM-R and doesn't have track-side Belizes as a backup.
Data Networking at low level is one of my (many) specialisms

Unlike spelling. It's "balise" (plural "balises").
Belize is somewhere in the Caribbean.

 

[HSTEd]

Well they have freight trains in the US that simply use as single air pipe and three wires (two train line wires and a ground) to control the brakes on trains of up to 12000 feet in length.

So you have those three wires, another two for the distributed power/TDM control system, and then a third pair for the non control related stuff like booking systems and any WiFi provision with a fourth and final pair for the ETS system?

Nine wires and one air pipe total. ANd the air pipe could be disposed of if you just gave every vehicle its own compressor powered from the ETS bus.

 

[jopsuk]

Wires? Pretty sure some freight trains in the US and Aus, with locos throughout the train, use radio control systems don't they?

 

[Nym]

OK...

Freight doesn't have 1000 people on board...

US and Aus have much lower density networks

and HSTEd; what about:
Door Controls? MU TBC Controls? Interlocking? TMS? etc...

 

[WatcherZero]

....lights, air conditioning, fire alarms,

it all needs to be controlled.

 

[HSTEd]

and HSTEd; what about:
Door Controls? MU TBC Controls? Interlocking? TMS? etc...

Is door release and control not something that is controlled over the TDM jumper on Mark 4s or is it controlled over a seperate one?
Anyway giving the command to unlock doors in carriage serials 57511, 57512, 57513, 57514 or whatever only requires a small handful of bits, even an RS-485 circuit can make 100kbit/s.

Alright, assuming that the TMS needs a loop all its own, eleven wires and one air pipe.

Still a major improvement over existing systems.

 

[Nym]

I'd need to check that, but I don't think there are that many channels in the TDM and when it was designed there was still a harness for door controls and interlocking. Either way, there's 100+ wires for a reason, and you can visualise a lot of them, but you'd still need at least 20.

 

[emoaconr]

I've never seen the local scallies use Northern, or other TOC's that operate through Manchester/Warrington, a lot of the time when I'm using Merseyrail I see groups on them on the train causing trouble, being aggressive and abusive towards other passengers, and fare evading. All they seem to want to do is cause trouble.

No doubt in my mind that toilets would get graffiti'd all over constantly. The walls of most Merseyrail trains have been defaced; obnoxious remarks, and peoples names engraved with knives and keys.

Although toilets may be a nice addition to Merseyrail those travelling slightly longer journeys, i.e. if someone was travelling from Southport to Chester, or disabled passengers, I feel these people would ruin it for everyone else. I didn't come here to argue, by the way. Just stating my opinion. Just find it a shame that kids like to create an unpleasant and depressing atmosphere.
.

Firstly, I would like to oppose the use of stereotypes here. There are scallies everywhere. Not just in Merseyside. And if a Scally lived in Warrington I am sure he would have little choice but to use Northern. To say that they choose only to "scally" around on Merseyrail trains is a bit silly - they don't have a lot of choice who their local TOC is. And its not up to Merseyrail to refuse any one for how they look for as long as they are fare-paying passengers.

Secondly, I would like to commend Merseyrail on the high standards they maintain in their stock. There is absolutely no competition between Northern and Merseyrail's cleanliness record... Merseyrail are far superior. I live in Arriva-land and I find the trains here (even the recently refurbished ones) to be kept in appauling condition with little respect or care for doing a proper job. Considering the daily usage of a 507/8 unit, they are in remarkable condition. Merseyrail's approach to feet on seats etc may seem hard-line, but almost 10 years after refurbishment, the stock's interiors are in as good condition as the day they left Eastleigh. I have seen vandalism on their trains, yes, but they are extremely responsive to clear up the mess left by vandals.

I will feel slightly disappointed when the 507/508s eventually retire, but a sparkling interior will never cover up for problems caused by 40-year old EMUs underneath them. I do like the design and they do the job extremely well, but they were never designed for an underground metro-style network. However I hope they're not all sent to the scrapyard straight away - it would be a good time for Merseytravel and Taith to discuss the electrification of the Borderlands line along with the Kirkby and Ormskirk branches.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd need to check that, but I don't think there are that many channels in the TDM and when it was designed there was still a harness for door controls and interlocking. Either way, there's 100+ wires for a reason, and you can visualise a lot of them, but you'd still need at least 20.

According to the RSSB, there are 64 channels on the primary TDM circuit that is in use on Mark 3 and Mark 4 loco hauled stock and the appropriate locomotives.
13 Of these channels are spare according to the standard.
There are a further eleven wires on the TDM connector used on Mark 3 and 4 stock (as far as I can tell, its listed a bit strangely on the standards page), including two for a backup TDM circuit, 4 for door controls, two for something called "FDM", two reserved for the Passenger Information System aboard and a 13th lien that is apparently ground/spare.

There are then the 14th and 15th lines which are in the ETS jumper.

Those are the only lines I have information on the connectors for, presumably there are a handful more for the WiFi system installed now.
EDIT:
I think the "FDM" circuit is used for crew communication/passenger address systems, standing perhaps for "Frequency Division Multiplexing"

 

[Bevan Price]

To change tack for a moment, is there any real requirement to have the same stock on both the Southport and Birkenhead lines?

Would one type of train be more suited to one than the other?

Two types of train makes life more complicated & expensive. Two types of spares to keep, two types of train to learn traction knowledge or maintenance procedures, etc.

 

[tbtc]

Two types of train makes life more complicated & expensive. Two types of spares to keep, two types of train to learn traction knowledge or maintenance procedures, etc.

True, and I appreciate that there's very little difference between a 507 and a 508 at the moment - I was just asking a hypothetical question given that there was suggestion of something closer to a "tram" by some posters, yet the two lines (Northern and Wirral) may not require the same type of stock (i.e. do they both need to be three coach multiples?)

 

[John55]

True, and I appreciate that there's very little difference between a 507 and a 508 at the moment - I was just asking a hypothetical question given that there was suggestion of something closer to a "tram" by some posters, yet the two lines (Northern and Wirral) may not require the same type of stock (i.e. do they both need to be three coach multiples?)

The Wirral and Northern line fleets are not separate. A train can start the day on one side of the river and finish on the other. It is more normal to swap units overnight as many units from the Wirral visit Kirkdale overnight and return to the Wirral in the early morning to enter service.

To have separate fleets would increase the spares requirement and possibly require money to be spent on additional depot space on the Wirral.

 

[Bevan Price]

True, and I appreciate that there's very little difference between a 507 and a 508 at the moment - I was just asking a hypothetical question given that there was suggestion of something closer to a "tram" by some posters, yet the two lines (Northern and Wirral) may not require the same type of stock (i.e. do they both need to be three coach multiples?)

1. The platforms, especially in the underground parts, all accommodate 2 x 3 car units. Any alternative situation would cause problems - if there were 4 car units, they could only be strengthened by a 2 car train. If you just had 2 car units, you would have 6 driving cabs in a six car (3x2) formation, and that is more expensive than just 4 cabs in a 2x3 formatiom.
2. Both the Northern & Wirral lines have some very-well loaded trains. Whilst most trains run a 3 car formations, a few peak hour services run as 2x3 car formations. Ideally, they could do with more 2x3 car formations, especially when there are special events in Liverpool, or on Chester race days.

 

[jopsuk]

True, and I appreciate that there's very little difference between a 507 and a 508 at the moment - I was just asking a hypothetical question given that there was suggestion of something closer to a "tram" by some posters, yet the two lines (Northern and Wirral) may not require the same type of stock (i.e. do they both need to be three coach multiples?)

What ARE the differences between the two classes?

 

[John55]

1. The platforms, especially in the underground parts, all accommodate 2 x 3 car units. Any alternative situation would cause problems - if there were 4 car units, they could only be strengthened by a 2 car train. If you just had 2 car units, you would have 6 driving cabs in a six car (3x2) formation, and that is more expensive than just 4 cabs in a 2x3 formatiom.
2. Both the Northern & Wirral lines have some very-well loaded trains. Whilst most trains run a 3 car formations, a few peak hour services run as 2x3 car formations. Ideally, they could do with more 2x3 car formations, especially when there are special events in Liverpool, or on Chester race days.

The platforms except Green Lane are =>124 metres long. Any combination of coaches is ok as long as the train fits the platform.

There are many imaginative solutions available including 2 car units with only 1 cab allowing 4 and 6 car trains to be made up, or some could have cabs at both ends to allow 2, 4 and 6 cars. The 502s managed for 30 years with 25 x 2 car "units" with only one driving cab!