Future Merseyrail stock: Stadler selected as manufacturer

[D365]

I would also prefer to see 2 doors, which is why I suggested the Desiro Cities as a better option - given the shorter length also, compared to the Aventuras.

Like I've said above - the Class 710 Aventra is 20m carriages.

 

[me123]

But the Takasaki Line train in Tokyo is almost as long as the whole Merseyrail network (74.7km to 75km), and yet manage to have 4 doors per side with a mixture of bay and sideway seats.

I'm not going to pretend to know the line, but I do know that Japanese trains are exceptionally busy and the Tokyo metro area is very very large. It's very possible that the line, despite its length, needs the capacity. Merseyrail doesn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

3 or 4 doors on each side would mean cold, draughty journeys at this time of year, with many station stops separated by only 2 or 3 minutes, and all the doors (on one side) open for about 30 seconds at every stop.

I'd very much hope that door controls would be introduced with the new stock, regardless of the number of door involved!

 

[rebmcr]

'airline' seating (which is a euphemism for bus seating)

No it's not. It means regular seats, travelling forwards or backwards (not sideways), facing the back of the next row of seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it's not. It means regular seats, travelling forwards or backwards (not sideways), facing the back of the next row of seats.

To me "bus seating" means low-backed, narrow seats of the kind used in buses, regardless of layout. Some Pacers have what I would call bus seating, some do not. The facing bays in the middle are still bus seating, just as they are when you have facing bays on buses.

"Airline seating" is as you say. It could also be called "coach seating" as it's more like that, but that would cause confusion with the US terminology where "coach" means "economy class" i.e. the lowest class of service, regardless of what form the physical seats take.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Personally I lean towards the idea of fixed-formation 80 or 100m trains, ideally fully walk-through and articulated - mostly 60m is insufficient and 120m too much. However, more likely is cost-cutting and fewer 6-car sets out.

Tick.
ME operates at the moment as a 3-car railway with some (not much) doubling up in the peaks and for special events.
To compensate, they do operate a good frequency.
But 3-car is now too small off-peak, and 4-car would be much more suitable running an all-day service.
A mix of 4/6-car sets would work well, especially if an option for more vehicles was available.
Doubling up is old-fashioned, as Crossrail and Thameslink are demonstrating.
Cab costs are also getting prohibitive with all today's TSI gear needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd probably given a choice go for all "5-car" i.e. 100m, though possibly built as 4-car sets then as additional coaches as LO did.

I'd actually *prefer* a short-vehicle articulated solution (Stadler FLIRT EMU maybe, if they offer a third-rail option?), and that may work best for the tight curves.

Whatever is chosen should have very high acceleration and as many wheels powered as possible so journey times can be reduced.

 

[urbophile]

To me "bus seating" means low-backed, narrow seats of the kind used in buses, regardless of layout. Some Pacers have what I would call bus seating, some do not. The facing bays in the middle are still bus seating, just as they are when you have facing bays on buses.

"Airline seating" is as you say. It could also be called "coach seating" as it's more like that, but that would cause confusion with the US terminology where "coach" means "economy class" i.e. the lowest class of service, regardless of what form the physical seats take.

Why would anybody confuse British terminology with American if we are talking about British trains?

If you're talking about design of seats rather than their layout, OK. Except that modern buses have high-backed seats too. I still hate having to face seat backs and especially being jammed up against them (and I'm not very tall: I dread to think what it's like for anyone over 6 foot). As well as the nuisance of having to get up to let people out if you're sitting on the aisle side.

I don't know the exact layout of seating on the LU S-stock trains as used on the Metropolitan line, which is comparable to Merseyrail in terms of route length and distance between stations: I understand there is a mix of bay seating and longitudinal. As long as that mix is in the right proportions it would seem ideal for Merseyrail, so why don't they just go for some S-stock duplicates rather than re-invent the wheel?

 

[po8crg]

I detest airline seating because I'm 6'5" and have bad knees and a bad back, so I need far more legroom than airline seats offer.

But many people prefer it, so as long as there is a mixture of different seat types, then I'm fine.

[Personally, I tend to go for facing bay seats and sit opposite a child or a very small adult so I can use nearly all of the legroom that is intended to be enough for two people]

 

[urbophile]

I detest airline seating because I'm 6'5" and have bad knees and a bad back, so I need far more legroom than airline seats offer.

But many people prefer it, so as long as there is a mixture of different seat types, then I'm fine.

[Personally, I tend to go for facing bay seats and sit opposite a child or a very small adult so I can use nearly all of the legroom that is intended to be enough for two people]

I suppose the people who prefer it are the same ones who wouldn't notice whether they were next to a window or a blank wall. The number of times I've been caught out by Virgin's booking system allocating a seat without view! (though it is now possible to change it online).

Some people prefer to be facing the direction of travel, and a carriage which is half-full of seats facing the 'wrong' way can be very off-putting (and cause congestion as people fight to get through the aisles).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose the people who prefer it are the same ones who wouldn't notice whether they were next to a window or a blank wall.

No, I prefer an airline seat so I don't have to play kneesie with someone opposite. I too am quite tall, and would rather have my knee against a piece of plastic than the awkwardness of it being against or interleaved with another person.

I very much want a window view.

 

[po8crg]

No, I prefer an airline seat so I don't have to play kneesie with someone opposite. I too am quite tall, and would rather have my knee against a piece of plastic than the awkwardness of it being against or interleaved with another person.

If my knees were merely against the plastic, rather than crushed into it, then I might agree with you!

 

[urbophile]

'Airline' seats seem to be de rigeur on long distance trains these days. I suppose we've got to accept that. But on commuter and metro-type routes they are a curse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

'Airline' seats seem to be de rigeur on long distance trains these days. I suppose we've got to accept that. But on commuter and metro-type routes they are a curse.

The airline seat layout of the Class 350/1 and /3 is the preference of most south WCML commuters. It's not the tables that go first. (There are various legroom options in airline seats - the priority seats are adequate for up to about 7' in height assuming average proportions, and on south WCML commuter trains almost no people who would require them for the "priority" reason so you can be sure not to have to give one up).

Far better than a game of kneesie.

 

[urbophile]

Yes but we are talking about Liverpool. One distinguishing feature of trains here is that people talk to each other, unlike other parts of the country. Frequently you have a group of 3 or 4 people chatting away (maybe a family group, maybe casual strangers) and that isn't easy if you have to keep squirming round in your seat to see the person you are talking to. And for short journeys it's fairly easy to keep your knees from colliding with the person opposite, however large you or they might be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I just checked today. The space allowance between Merseyrail seats is very generous. Not only is there a 3 or 4 cm gap between seats laterally (except by the doors), the space between facing pairs of seats is ample. I'm not good at estimating measurements, but the man opposite was fairly well-built and at least average height: his knees came nowhere near mine. If you had two 7 footers opposite each other there might be a bit of jostling for space, but otherwise not. The seating arrangement on Merseyrail is the best of any suburban system I have seen (except Italy, where the trains are much bigger anyway).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Wouldn't fix formation 6 car trains be best? iirc a 6 coach train is the maximum that the stations in the tunnel loop can handle, perhaps 6 car Desiro Cities?

 

[D365]

Wouldn't fix formation 6 car trains be best? iirc a 6 coach train is the maximum that the stations in the tunnel loop can handle, perhaps 6 car Desiro Cities?

As I keep saying, money is lacking.

 

[507021]

Wouldn't fix formation 6 car trains be best? iirc a 6 coach train is the maximum that the stations in the tunnel loop can handle, perhaps 6 car Desiro Cities?

The best solution for Merseyrail, in my opinion, is the initial order for 50 three car units, with a view to ordering another 20-25 on top of those to provide the extra capacity needed for future growth in passenger numbers and any future network extensions. Even if the new trains have faster acceleration (which I'd imagine they will), the initial 50 units units simply won't be enough.

25 six car units simply wouldn't be enough to cover the whole network.

 

[randyrippley]

If you need more capacity, but theres no cash for new stock, how about taking back the missing trailers that were removed before the 508s came north? There must be some other PEP stock that could also be moved...........after all theres plenty of spare DC stock down south, all those 442 sets still need a home. They could be used to displace something to replace the PEPs which move north

 

[Bevan Price]

The best solution for Merseyrail, in my opinion, is the initial order for 50 three car units, with a view to ordering another 20-25 on top of those to provide the extra capacity needed for future growth in passenger numbers and any future network extensions. Even if the new trains have faster acceleration (which I'd imagine they will), the initial 50 units units simply won't be enough.

25 six car units simply wouldn't be enough to cover the whole network.

If they were all 3 car units, then the current services would use:
Hunts Cross - Southport: 12 units
Ormskirk line (5)
Kirkby (3)
Chester (6)
Ellesmere Port (3)
West Kirby (5)
New Brighton (4), making a total of 38 units.

That should leave 12 (new) units for "doubling-up" or "on maintenance", compared with 21 (current with Classes 507/508).

If the extension to Skelmersdale ever gets built, it will probably need another 2 units. Whilst new trains will hopefully be more reliable than 507/508s, and require less maintenance, a fleet of only 50 trains is leaving little spare capacity for "doubling up", especially for events such as Grand National Day, Chester Races, special events in Liverpool or Southport.

 

[Nym]

This mistake happens every time... They may well be more reliable after 2 - 3 years service, what about after 30 - 40 years service? it will be as bad if not worse than the existing stock...(!)

It bites the fleet manager of anyone with a single stock fleet, every, single, time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they were all 3 car units, then the current services would use:
Hunts Cross - Southport: 12 units
Ormskirk line (5)
Kirkby (3)
Chester (6)
Ellesmere Port (3)
West Kirby (5)
New Brighton (4), making a total of 38 units.

That should leave 12 (new) units for "doubling-up" or "on maintenance", compared with 21 (current with Classes 507/508).

Either of those figures is completely inadequate - they need to be able to double-up all services in the morning and evening peaks and to possibly increase frequencies as well.

In my view it'd be good to move to a 10 minute peak frequency base (possibly a reduction to a 20 minute base at very quiet times, though), which could mean some former guards employed as drivers, using 4-car units with an option to extend to 5, and no doubling up.

And the Sunday service needs to be the same as the weekday one. It's 2016. The halved Sunday service was designed for when Liverpool city centre was closed on Sundays - all of it.

 

[childwallblues]

The best solution for Merseyrail, in my opinion, is the initial order for 50 three car units, with a view to ordering another 20-25 on top of those to provide the extra capacity needed for future growth in passenger numbers and any future network extensions. Even if the new trains have faster acceleration (which I'd imagine they will), the initial 50 units units simply won't be enough.

25 six car units simply wouldn't be enough to cover the whole network.

I agree. 50 units is not enough.

 

[Polarbear]

I was only thinking about this the other day, when I was on the 17:15 from Liverpool Central travelling to Spital. Notwithstanding up to eight trains per hour on that route, it's standing room only from Liverpool in the peaks now - at least as far as Bebington.

If Merseyrail are serious about improving the customer experience (and at times, I have my doubts), then we really need to see a step-change in the service provided and only ordering 50 new trains doesn't seem (to me) to match that aspiration.

Although the new trains are likely to have "airline" seating, at least in part, which will increase the seating capacity, there doesn't seem to be any burning ambition within Merseyrail to extend their services beyond the relatively basic metro style service they currently have. For me, the introduction of new trains could & should have been accompanied by some or all of the following;

• Route extensions
• Faster trains from Liverpool to Southport & Chester
• Increased frequencies nearer to Liverpool to address peak capacity issues

Of course, some of these measures would require extra investment in infrastructure as well as new trains, but I'm just citing these as examples of what could be done, were there a bit more ambition within Merseyrail.

 

[Bevan Price]

I was only thinking about this the other day, when I was on the 17:15 from Liverpool Central travelling to Spital. Notwithstanding up to eight trains per hour on that route, it's standing room only from Liverpool in the peaks now - at least as far as Bebington.

If Merseyrail are serious about improving the customer experience (and at times, I have my doubts), then we really need to see a step-change in the service provided and only ordering 50 new trains doesn't seem (to me) to match that aspiration.

Although the new trains are likely to have "airline" seating, at least in part, which will increase the seating capacity, there doesn't seem to be any burning ambition within Merseyrail to extend their services beyond the relatively basic metro style service they currently have. For me, the introduction of new trains could & should have been accompanied by some or all of the following;

• Route extensions
• Faster trains from Liverpool to Southport & Chester
• Increased frequencies nearer to Liverpool to address peak capacity issues

Of course, some of these measures would require extra investment in infrastructure as well as new trains, but I'm just citing these as examples of what could be done, were there a bit more ambition within Merseyrail.

I think the problem is more to do with lack of money, rather than lack of ambition - a problem not helped by reductions in funding to local authorities by Cameron/Osborne & successors.

Without reinstating some 4 track sections, it would be difficult to achieve faster journey times from Liverpool to Southport or Chester. Increasing train acceleration & existing speed limits on the Southport line would probably save, at most, 2 minutes.

And, as for increased frequencies, I think they would need a new platform at Chester in order to permit trains every 10 minutes. Remember that some services from North Wales also use Platform 7 at Chester.

 

[D365]

I think the problem is more to do with lack of money, rather than lack of ambition - a problem not helped by reductions in funding to local authorities by Cameron/Osborne & successors.

That's a point I keep making, but it doesn't seem to get across. It's not going to get any better with the current situation either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dare I suggest that if the choice is between sufficient used rolling stock and insufficient new rolling stock, or keeping some 50x as well as the new kit in the hope of replacing them later, they should choose the option that gives them the most capacity rather than doggedly buying new?

 

[prod_pep]

To correct an earlier post, the off-peak requirement on the Hunts Cross - Southport line is 10 units, not 12.

Ordering a mere 50 units would be a huge mistake. There are already several severely overcrowded services in the peak times on the Southport, Ormskirk and Chester lines. Anyone who has used services like the 16.36 HNX-SOP, 17.40 LVC-OMS and 17.15 LVC-CTR in the last few years will know what I mean.

Even the off-peak and weekend capacity needs improving. The Sunday winter service on the Southport line, which is 30 minutes and 3 carriages outside the Christmas shopping period, is woefully inadequate. Additional capacity on matchdays remains non-existent as well.

 

[shakey1961]

Either of those figures is completely inadequate - they need to be able to double-up all services in the morning and evening peaks and to possibly increase frequencies as well.

In my view it'd be good to move to a 10 minute peak frequency base (possibly a reduction to a 20 minute base at very quiet times, though), which could mean some former guards employed as drivers, using 4-car units with an option to extend to 5, and no doubling up.

And the Sunday service needs to be the same as the weekday one. It's 2016. The halved Sunday service was designed for when Liverpool city centre was closed on Sundays - all of it.

10 minute frequency? You have to be joking. There are some crossings that would have their barriers almost permanantly down casuing chaos.

Not likely to happen, but a total rethink on the time and when barriers are closed would be needed.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Whatever stock they go for in the end it should be either 3 car (which can double up during the peaks) or 6 car. Anything else would mean no ability to double trains up, unless there was a corridor connection

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whatever stock they go for in the end it should be either 3 car (which can double up during the peaks) or 6 car. Anything else would mean no ability to double trains up, unless there was a corridor connection

I'm not sure they wouldn't be better increasing frequency to increase capacity and not doubling up, though. The problem is that 3 usually isn't enough and 6 is usually too much.

I suppose you could order 2 and 4-car units, though, and run 4 and 6-car formations.