Future Merseyrail stock: Stadler selected as manufacturer

[Camden]

Their submissions to Rail North and their 30 year rail strategy.

Also remember its illegal for them to spend transport cash subsidising services outside their Transport Authority area or on projects which dont directly benefit their local residents.

For example they couldn't say we want to refurbish Ormskirk Station as it doesn't directly benefit residents of Merseyside and they couldn't subsidise journeys between Burscough and Ormskirk, but they could say we in partnership with Transport for Lancashire wish to part fund electrification of Ormskirk to Burscough as it will be economically beneficial to employment in Merseyside by increasing the size of the potential labour pool- It will cost for example £200m and bring benefits to Merseyside of £10m per year so we feel it justifies an investment of £50m in assisting Transport for Lancashire.


A real world example would be TfGM agreed to help subsidise the Greater Manchester portion of the Transport for Lancashire commissioned Blackburn to Manchester via Todmorden service including adding station calls north of Rochdale.

So it was worth clarifying then that your view was just that, and you have no inside knowledge of what it is they actually do want to do. It's good to have discussion, but IMO a simple "IMO" goes a long way.

 

[D365]

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

Funding the Class 333s meant, afaik, that the Class 321/322 fleet would remain dedicated to Leeds-Doncaster.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Their submissions to Rail North and their 30 year rail strategy.

Also remember its illegal for them to spend transport cash subsidising services outside their Transport Authority area or on projects which dont directly benefit their local residents.

For example they couldn't say we want to refurbish Ormskirk Station as it doesn't directly benefit residents of Merseyside and they couldn't subsidise journeys between Burscough and Ormskirk, but they could say we in partnership with Transport for Lancashire wish to part fund electrification of Ormskirk to Burscough as it will be economically beneficial to employment in Merseyside by increasing the size of the potential labour pool- It will cost for example £200m and bring benefits to Merseyside of £10m per year so we feel it justifies an investment of £50m in assisting Transport for Lancashire.


A real world example would be TfGM agreed to help subsidise the Greater Manchester portion of the Transport for Lancashire commissioned Blackburn to Manchester via Todmorden service including adding station calls north of Rochdale.

Surely the whole point about Merseytravel extending the Merseyrail network is that every one of the proposed extensions would take it beyond the current LCR boundaries. Merseytravel even funded the development of the Halton curve reopening plans, even though the line is not even in the LCR region.

No this about connectivity as I see it. Looking at a map of the North West, Manchester dominates the east of region and connects with the tram network to many of the local towns in the area. Whilst TfGM reaches Wigan the area in between Liverpool and to the north as far as Preston and to the south to Warrington and west to Chester and North Wales has little in the way of connectivity. Having the two large metro areas offering better public transport links to their respective cores increases the connectivity between the region and boosts the economic outlook for the area. Of course the population of the LCR should not be funding public transport provision outside it's area, but there should be nothing to stop Merseytravel and neighbouring authorities jointly funding and implementing plans that would benefit both parties. If that means Merseyrail branded trains running to Preston via Ormskirk so be it, if everybody gains. Devolution for the two metro areas in the North West, and Rail North must surely change the way local government works?

 

[WillPS]

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.

But they barely ever actually go to Doncaster...

Funding the Class 333s meant, afaik, that the Class 321/322 fleet would remain dedicated to Leeds-Doncaster.

This was my understanding, but that doesn't directly benefit people in SY...

 

[WatcherZero]

Doncaster is in South Yorkshire, they formed a deal that directly results in increased capacity for South Yorkshire passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No this about connectivity as I see it.

Did you not read my post outlining their plans? Yes its all about connectivity! Im emphasising its not a extra-territorial power grab as Camden wishes it to be.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Did you not read my post outlining their plans? Yes its all about connectivity! Im emphasising its not a extra-territorial power grab as Camden wishes it to be.

Neither am I, what I was suggesting was that Merseytravel should be working with neighbouring authorities to integrate public transport and if that means that Merseyrail stock reach Preston or Wigan because the two authorities have jointly invested in the infrastructure then why not if the business case can be justified? I could see Merseyrail reaching Wrexham but not Warrington via the CLC as has been suggest by some. However, if the design of the new stock allowed, perhaps they could take the Warrington BQ services, although I would stress none of these things are likely happen overnight and perhaps much does depend on the way rail services are organised and funded in the North of England in the coming years.

 

[Camden]

Yes its all about connectivity! Im emphasising its not a extra-territorial power grab as Camden wishes it to be.

Right... a mancunian I take it? Not everything is viewed through Manchester "power grab" grey-tinted spectacles you know.

I simply pointed out that while you express an opinion as to what it is you think they want and will ask for, in fact you don't actually know and so shouldn't be presenting your view as definite outcome. A valid observation from which there is no need for wild leaps of imagination or flights of fancy as to why a Londonder should even care about manchesters communal ego-sensitivity issues. It's not "power grabbing" to improve services around and into a big city like Liverpool, it's just "beneficial".

For example they couldn't say we want to refurbish Ormskirk Station as it doesn't directly benefit residents of Merseyside and they couldn't subsidise journeys between Burscough and Ormskirk, but they could say we in partnership with Transport for Lancashire wish to part fund electrification of Ormskirk to Burscough as it will be economically beneficial to employment in Merseyside by increasing the size of the potential labour pool- It will cost for example £200m and bring benefits to Merseyside of £10m per year so we feel it justifies an investment of £50m in assisting Transport for Lancashire.

To go back to what you are saying, "IMO" I think you are talking overflowing bin liners. Take a look at the rail map for Liverpool and you'll already see three sticky out bits, one to Ormskirk and one to Chester and one to Ellesmere Port. Fully outside Merseyside PTE area, yet fully electrified, aside from Chester main station all built or refurbished by the PTE, all services taken over/replaced by the PTE, and PTE products and fares all applying to journeys between these stations. You can buy a Merseyside PTE day ticket from Ellesmere Port station, and any other such ticket. You could easily run services to Warrington and Preston as was described by the above person, and have exactly the same scenarios.

 

[WatcherZero]

So taking information from first party sources, those written by them themselves (their 30 year plan, committee minutes and letters to Rail North), doesn't count and using evidence and fact makes you a Mancunian?

Look at what your doing, drawing lines on a map from London with no local knowledge and little experience of day to day use of the system resulting in several misconceptions that people like us that regularly use the network clearly recognise.

The Merseytravel subsidised fares run as far as hooton. It costs £3.90 to Liverpool LS from Hooton and closer from stations beyond Hooton £5.25, this is the PTE subsidy kicking in. these zones which aren't subsidised are G1, G2 and F and you cant buy multi-mode tickets from them.

http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/travelling-around/Documents/Detailed_zones.pdf

 

[HSTEd]

A simple fleet of S7s would seem to be the most cost effective option in terms of procurement.

 

[the sniper]

A simple fleet of S7s would seem to be the most cost effective option in terms of procurement.

Why not Aventras? Tag it onto the LO order, but put in proper seating.

 

[HSTEd]

Why not Aventras? Tag it onto the LO order, but put in proper seating.

Its not really a tag on when you start changing things.
S7s pretty much exactly fit the bill.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why not Aventras? Tag it onto the LO order, but put in proper seating.

The current 20m vehicles cause excessive track wear on the Wirral line loop. AIUI this was a contributing factor in at least one derailment. For this reason c.18m vehicles (as seen with S-stock and indeed the 502/503s) would be more suitable.

 

[Camden]

So taking information from first party sources, those written by them themselves (their 30 year plan, committee minutes and letters to Rail North), doesn't count and using evidence and fact makes you a Mancunian?

Look at what your doing, drawing lines on a map from London with no local knowledge and little experience of day to day use of the system resulting in several misconceptions that people like us that regularly use the network clearly recognise.

The Merseytravel subsidised fares run as far as hooton. It costs £3.90 to Liverpool LS from Hooton and closer from stations beyond Hooton £5.25, this is the PTE subsidy kicking in. these zones which aren't subsidised are G1, G2 and F and you cant buy multi-mode tickets from them.

http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/travelling-around/Documents/Detailed_zones.pdf

I don't know who you are confusing me with, but I'm not drawing lines anywhere. You're reaching your own conclusions on the basis of what you have read. They are still your own conclusions and not those of the decision makers.

I seriously doubt you use Merseyrail regularly. I'd readily believe you use Metrolink daily, but I seriously doubt you use Merseyrail. "Extra-territorial power grab" is I think a rather strange way to take something as innocuous and obviously beneficial as Merseyrail expansion. I generally find such un-necessarily combative language tends to be a giveaway as to affinity/locale to that end, when it comes to improvements in the Liverpool area.

As for assumptions, your assumptions in particular, I've actually been working in Liverpool (and Manchester) over the past 8 years or so, I'm there (here) for days at a time every single week, and every single time I use Merseyrail. I have also over the years purchased a (subsidised) daysaver from Chester, Bache, Overpool, and Ellesmere Port.

 

[danbarnstall]

4 years, they're getting new stock. Merseytravel/Rail & LCC are taking out a considerable to cover the current shortfall. In the long run they've worked out it is more cost effective.

 

[the sniper]

The current 20m vehicles cause excessive track wear on the Wirral line loop. AIUI this was a contributing factor in at least one derailment. For this reason c.18m vehicles (as seen with S-stock and indeed the 502/503s) would be more suitable.

Ah gotcha, thanks. I remembered there was an issue with vehicle lengths, but I thought that just ruled out 23m carriage stock.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ah gotcha, thanks. I remembered there was an issue with vehicle lengths, but I thought that just ruled out 23m carriage stock.

Technically it does. Shorter vehicles would reduce track maintenance but as the status-quo is 20m it wouldn't surprise me if any new stock is also 20m as it allows the possibility of an "off-the-shelf" design being chosen: Something which S-stock won't be by the time any order is placed.

 

[D365]

Technically it does. Shorter vehicles would reduce track maintenance but as the status-quo is 20m it wouldn't surprise me if any new stock is also 20m as it allows the possibility of an "off-the-shelf" design being chosen: Something which S-stock won't be by the time any order is placed.

Even if it were possible to negotiate with Bombardier for a downsized Aventra (7x18m), unit price is exactly the problem where it comes to any non-standard design.

 

[HSTEd]

Technically it does. Shorter vehicles would reduce track maintenance but as the status-quo is 20m it wouldn't surprise me if any new stock is also 20m as it allows the possibility of an "off-the-shelf" design being chosen: Something which S-stock won't be by the time any order is placed.

18m is a standard length for the 'Movia' platform from which the S-Stock is derived.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Even if it were possible to negotiate with Bombardier for a downsized Aventra (7x18m), unit price is exactly the problem where it comes to any non-standard design.

18m is a standard length for the 'Movia' platform from which the S-Stock is derived.

S-stock is often suggested for Merseyrail for the exact reason that it IS an existing and current design which has 18m vehicles. However it might not be by the time any order for replacement stock is eventually placed!

 

[Camden]

What time frame are you thinking an order would need to be placed within in order for it to have access to that benefit of follow on/off the peg order?

 

[D365]

What time frame are you thinking an order would need to be placed within in order for it to have access to that benefit of follow on/off the peg order?

Once S-Stock deliveries have finished? Something like ASAP!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The current 20m vehicles cause excessive track wear on the Wirral line loop. AIUI this was a contributing factor in at least one derailment. For this reason c.18m vehicles (as seen with S-stock and indeed the 502/503s) would be more suitable.

I don't think 20m vs 18m vehicles are the issue, rather the lack of steering bogies or similar.

 

[razor89]

I don't think 20m vs 18m vehicles are the issue, rather the lack of steering bogies or similar.

To be specific, it's the bogies lack of ability to "turn" effectively that causes the issue. Compared to a 20m carriage, the bogies on an 18m carriage won't need to turn as much on a given curve as they are closer together. I have no idea how much of an improvement this would give though...

 

[OneThirtyEight]

Merseytravel to publish OJEU notice 'in the next few weeks', letter sent out to Merseyrail staff; staff forums with the MD next two days.

 

[Wolfie]

Why not Aventras? Tag it onto the LO order, but put in proper seating.

1. LO is not a DfT franchise, nor is Merseyrail - all such "tagging" has thus far been solely within DfT franchises.

2. LO likely want any options in their order for their own purposes.

3. Extending the contract, as opposed to using extant options, would breach EU procurement rules - there would need to be a new competition.

4. Changing the spec means that it is not a simple "tag" in any event.

5. There are two parties to any contract - you are assuming that Bombardier would just accept your suggestion - if they believe they might make more money through a separate competition that is unlikely.

 

[Camden]

I think the previous post negated the need for you to type all that!

 

[pemma]

1. LO is not a DfT franchise, nor is Merseyrail - all such "tagging" has thus far been solely within DfT franchises.

LO added on to the LM order for 172s.

 

[WatcherZero]

Merseytravel to publish OJEU notice 'in the next few weeks', letter sent out to Merseyrail staff; staff forums with the MD next two days.

4th OJEU for it in 6 years :roll:

Said they were just using media to help lobby government for funding ahead of the CSR.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think often when people refer to tagging or adding an order on, they're just referring to the fact that a manufacturer has an existing production line which is suitable, rather than taking up an option that a different customer had but chose not to use...

 

[Clip]

I think often when people refer to tagging or adding an order on, they're just referring to the fact that a manufacturer has an existing production line which is suitable, rather than taking up an option that a different customer had but chose not to use...

that's what I thought too and is a rather sensible idea. Especially when you are thinking about the S stock stuff because there's a version of that roughly for the DLR to get in 5 years or so allegedly.