Future Merseyrail stock: Stadler selected as manufacturer

[Camden]

4th OJEU for it in 6 years :roll:

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

So what would you rather happen Mr What-Makes-You-Think-I'm-From-Manchester? Shut the network down? Keep the existing units and gradually switch them to pedal power? Or perhaps some D78s to run some hourly services instead of the wirral line...

 

[HSTEd]

This is the problem with 'localism' in ordering.
It means you need numerous parallel tenders.

If there was an industry ordering body for National Rail, the Underground and the light rail operators they would hold the options - and we could get around this.

 

[Camden]

This is the problem with 'localism' in ordering.
It means you need numerous parallel tenders.

If there was an industry ordering body for National Rail, the Underground and the light rail operators they would hold the options - and we could get around this.

And if everything was tied up into the Crossrail order...

 

[Wolfie]

LO added on to the LM order for 172s.

Are you sure about that? Both the LO 172s and those operated by Chiltern are owned by Angel. Conversely the LM 172s are owned by Porterbrook.

While I may be wrong I understood that LO went to an extant ROSCO (Angel) for this stock (as opposed to intitally intending to own and later a dedicated ROSCO being set up for the 378s) which was always intended as a short-term solution with electrification of the GOBLIN the long-term aim. I understood that there may have been some linkage made by the ROSCO in "ordering in bulk" for LO and Chiltern and presumably thus getting a better price from Bombardier....

 

[pemma]

Are you sure about that? Both the LO 172s and those operated by Chiltern are owned by Angel. Conversely the LM 172s are owned by Porterbrook.

While I may be wrong I understood that LO went to an extant ROSCO (Angel) for this stock (as opposed to intitally intending to own and later a dedicated ROSCO being set up for the 378s) which was always intended as a short-term solution with electrification of the GOBLIN the long-term aim. I understood that there may have been some linkage made by the ROSCO in "ordering in bulk" for LO and Chiltern and presumably thus getting a better price from Bombardier....

OK it might have been Chiltern and LO but there was a link between a franchised operator and a concession.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ive been told by a freind at Merseytravel the Rail North city connectivity study being commissioned (alongside the merseytravel led freight study and the study into faster regional connections like liverpool-manchester in 20 and airport in 30) is looking at dual voltage stock and diverting services into Liverpool on the city line from Lime Street onto the Merseyrail network to make room at Lime street for faster and long distance services. This may be what the mayor was mistakenly jumping the gun on with the proposed new station, which is just one of several options they are looking at and not a foregone conclusion at this stage.

 

[Camden]

That edge hill spur programme. In the Merseytravel document already, and nothing to do with rail north. In fact as much as I recall that's similar to the arrangment going back to the original incarnation of rail north whereby merseytravel were going to be handed / look at taking over the eastern services for integration, and "rail north" aka manchester, leeds and marginally sheffield would be left alone to do what they wanted. Edge hill spur has been around since the creation of merseyrail, just one of many things unfinished about it.

 

[pemma]

Press Release

New trains could be on the Merseyrail network by the early 2020s as Merseytravel takes forward plans for a new fleet.

New trains are now considered the best option in meeting growing demand on the network and supporting the city region’s economic ambitions, while also presenting the best value for the public purse.

It follows the development of a detailed business case over many months which looked at all options from refurbished stock to new stock now or in future.

The current fleet is approaching 40 years old, is amongst the oldest in the UK and is close to the end of its operational life.

A new set of trains from the early 2020s is considered the best option to support the delivery of the City Region’s Long Term Rail Strategy (LTRS) by providing a fleet that could carry significantly more passengers and run on a potentially extended network.

More immediately, it would build on the current high levels of performance and customer satisfaction, which are proving increasingly challenging and costly as the existing fleet ages.

A further 40 per cent increase in passenger numbers is expected by 2028, with some parts of the Merseyrail network predicted to be way over capacity –160 per cent filled – by 2043. New trains that can carry more people and with shorter journey times will help meet growing demand on the network, of which parts are already close to capacity at peak times.

The faster journey times and increased capacity would present a significant economic boost to the City Region, worth an estimated £70m per year and would stimulate the creation of around 1000 jobs.

The Merseytravel Committee will take a decision at its meeting on 1st October as to whether to approve the commencement of the procurement process for new trains. If agreed, an OJEU notice, which invites bidders to submit their plans will then be published.

Should approval to proceed be given, it is expected that a preferred bidder would be identified in around 12 months’ time, with city region leaders then asked to approve the project going ahead.

In approving the LTRS, Combined Authority leaders have already acknowledged the need for a new fleet within the next 30 years in order to deliver aspirations of Merseyrail services to places such as Warrington and Crewe.

Worth around £400m, the programme which also includes significant investment in infrastructure such as depots and power supplies, would be funded at no additional cost to the local tax payer, making use of finances already set aside.

Said Merseytravel Chief Executive, David Brown:

“Doing nothing is not an option. The fleet is amongst the oldest in the UK and we want to ensure that we’re geared up to maintain the high standards people have come to expect from Merseyrail, as well as ensuring the fleet can cope with a significant increase in passenger numbers.

“This is not just about new trains, but what they will enable us to do. They will help us improve links within and beyond the city region, supporting our own ambitions and those of the wider ‘Northern Powerhouse’ agenda, as well as benefitting us in very real economic terms, stimulating the creation of jobs and contributing millions of pounds every year to the Liverpool City Region economy.”

http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/abou...ption-for-Merseyrail-fleet-modernisation.aspx

 

[rapidtraction]

Liverpool Echo reporting that the new trains could be DOO.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseytravel-reveals-plans-400m-upgrade-9975998

 

[WatcherZero]

3x20m formations with wide gangways and possibilty of being retrofitted for dual voltage being asked for, they want to run doubles in peak and singles offpeak, they will accept shorter carriages e.g. Articulated or 4x15m if they maintain 60m length.

Trains will be DOO, Merseytravel saying there will be 200 redundancies of guards, supervisors and managers but 70 new customer relations positions will be created and along with other roles a net 100 reduction in head count.

350-400m cost with no extra obligation on council tax payers, they will instead be using their accumalted reserves (around 70m last we heard I think) and asking for a government grant.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

3x20m formations with wide gangways and possibilty of being retrofitted for dual voltage being asked for, they want to run doubles in peak and singles offpeak, they will accept shorter carriages e.g. Articulated or 4x15m if they maintain 60m length.

Disappointing that they are wedded to 60m/120m formations.
3-car trains (or equivalent) are getting too short off-peak, and Merseyrail are very reluctant to run 6-car sets.

 

[Camden]

3x20m formations with wide gangways and possibilty of being retrofitted for dual voltage being asked for, they want to run doubles in peak and singles offpeak, they will accept shorter carriages e.g. Articulated or 4x15m if they maintain 60m length.

Trains will be DOO, Merseytravel saying there will be 200 redundancies of guards, supervisors and managers but 70 new customer relations positions will be created and along with other roles a net 100 reduction in head count.

350-400m cost with no extra obligation on council tax payers, they will instead be using their accumalted reserves (around 70m last we heard I think) and asking for a government grant.

How do you get these things so wrong and where does half the things you say even come from??

They want the trains to be dual voltage, that is stated in the article, as they want to run them beyond the third rail network. There is nothing talking about train carriage sizes, which is premature given bids to make them haven't been requested yet. Nowhere does it say in what formations they want to work them (and now I know you're a manc, as anyone in Liverpool says Three "car" or carriages or Six, whereas "doubles" is classic metrolink parlance - see, I know just as well as a resident). Depending on the economics, they may even just go for a standard fixed formation of 6 (or 7) carriages.

Merseytravel didn't say there will be 200 guards redundant. It says "There are around 200 employees who would be affected by this proposal. The plan is to create around 70 “customer service” roles, redeploy staff to other departments and not fill vacancies." It also says "Another 150 staff are expected to be transferred to whichever company wins the contract to build and maintain the trains."

So I'd say that's plenty of opportunity for people to progress their careers, not to mention more trains means many more drivers jobs!

I also don't think £70m reserves is right, but I do know £50m was set aside last year to start the procurement process! http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyside-set-new-fleet-trains-8653733 My understanding is that they have £300m to spend, so they will be looking for an extra £100m or perhaps some kind of financing deal.

 

[WatcherZero]

Camden, Camden, Camden :roll:

Disappointing that they are wedded to 60m/120m formations.
3-car trains (or equivalent) are getting too short off-peak, and Merseyrail are very reluctant to run 6-car sets.

Engineering challenge is concerning me, fitting dual voltage in to three 20m cars at the same time as increasing the motorised axles to increase acceleration, have wider gangways and fit mersey tunnels. They also have the issue that since they will be running in doubles the gangway between the vehicles will be a pinch point, unless manufacturers propose uni-directional vehicles.

Im hopeful they can be resolved, i rather enjoy the saloon experience of the current stock, makes trips up to Southport quite pleasant and allows you to relax and enjoy the scenery, though im sure headroom will have to suffer to make way for the wells.

If they can integrate the energy efficency and whole life maintenence cost reductions they are looking for it will be good, regenerative breaking has become prett standard nowadays though Merseyrails power supply will have to be upgraded to be compatible and allow higher frequency they are being smart and tieing the two together as a single package of works.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Southport Visitor now got an article up too, they are playing up the 100 job losses angle.

http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/news/southport-west-lancs/400m-merseyrail-plan-would-see-9977998

 

[Gareth]

I think they were always going to go with the DOO option, being a metro-style network. I also would ideally like fixed formations, although even a 3-car train can be very quiet after around 9 o'clock on a weekday. Air con will be good, as the wheelsqueel in the underground section can be awful with the windows open. Surely step-free boarding/alighting is also a given.

I'm also not a fan of airline seating. I generally hate travelling backwards and avoid it if I possibly can. I know other people who feel the same. The current seating arrangement of seats facing each other gives an option to sit in either direction in all cars. A few longitudinal benches could be good too.

 

[driver_m]

I somehow don't imagine the DOO plan going smoothly. Arguably the UK's most left wing city, ASLEF against it, local rag will be almost certainly against it. Words said to impress the DFT and osborne in order to get the readies but its not going to happen for me.

 

[Gareth]

Only the same issues every other conversion to DOO has had ever. Also, the "UK's most left wing city" thing is more than a little contentious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only the same issues every other conversion to DOO has had ever. Also, the "UK's most left wing city" thing is more than a little contentious.

Merseyside certainly does have a significant industrial relations, shall we say, challenge. Financially, given the whacking subsidy it gets, TVMs rather than staffed booking offices (this is not being mooted) and DOO quite possibly make sense for Merseyrail (crikey, even as a former local I really don't understand why Aughton Park is staffed for the full period of service).

But this is the first time I've heard it genuinely mooted. I expect it will not be an easy transition - I would say fGW is a walk in the park in comparison to what I would expect to happen with Merseyrail. Expect all-out strikes for a very long period indeed, and possibly victory for the guards and no DOO after all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think they were always going to go with the DOO option, being a metro-style network. I also would ideally like fixed formations, although even a 3-car train can be very quiet after around 9 o'clock on a weekday. Air con will be good, as the wheelsqueel in the underground section can be awful with the windows open. Surely step-free boarding/alighting is also a given.

If going fixed formation, in my view they will regret going for anything less than 4x20m, probably 5x20m makes sense. But if some guards are to become drivers and increase the service frequency base to every 10 minutes rather than every 15, as I think would make sense, perhaps 4 would suffice.

I'm also not a fan of airline seating. I generally hate travelling backwards and avoid it if I possibly can. I know other people who feel the same. The current seating arrangement of seats facing each other gives an option to sit in either direction in all cars. A few longitudinal benches could be good too.

Some of us do like airline seating and hate playing kneesie. I personally think the best approach is roughly half and half (e.g. the original Class 158 layout) - and an advantage of airline seating is that, security guards or no, you can't put your feet on the seat opposite.

Longitudinal is an interesting option. I used an S8 this morning, and I can see that that layout (longitudinal on one side, facing on the other) might work. Indeed, a smaller loading gauge version of the Met Line layout S-stock would seem to me very suitable for Merseyrail.

 

[WatcherZero]

Longer formations than 3x20 or 6x20m are not practical, it would be financially ruinous to attempt to lengthen the underground platforms which are 120m long, so you come back to only options for maximum utilisation are combinations which allow 120m.

Some might argue (and I do too) they should have bitten the bullet and made all services 120m long, but as people have been saying some of the services are quieter and it would be overprovision during a good portion of the day, Merseytravel prefer the flexibility to alter service length, the business case for a budget envelope for the replacement likely would not have stretched to it either. Instead Merseytravel have gone for increasing frequency over length to provide the extra capacity.

 

[NotATrainspott]

As part of the New Tube for London programme, platforms will be raised slightly to reduce stepping distances to the new trains, tying into the new platform edge doors that will come as well. Would a similar platform raising programme be possible on Merseyrail? If I'm not mistaken, the majority of the network is more-or-less captive to Merseyrail services in the same way that the East London Line is to Overground services. On the ELL, there is already step-free access as platforms are higher than normally permissible by Network Rail for general-purpose lines. Raising platforms across the network would make DOO easier as it may no longer be necessary for staff to deploy ramps for mobility-impaired people to get on and off.

 

[WatcherZero]

Possible, but remember they want dual voltage to run services off the core Mersey network onto national rail which would mean differing platform heights will be experienced.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Longer formations than 3x20 or 6x20m are not practical, it would be financially ruinous to attempt to lengthen the underground platforms which are 120m long, so you come back to only options for maximum utilisation are combinations which allow 120m.

Assuming you *need* 120m with the increased frequencies, of course.

Another option: 4-car units for the base service, 2-car units for extending in the peaks (or doubling up)? Would probably only be possible as third rail units though - the addition of OHLE really quite complicates it. You could argue that some kind of gangwayed (or indeed not gangwayed) 40m articulated LRV type units would work quite well - you then have the option of 2, 4 or 6 "car". German U-Bahnen often work like this.

From my observation 3-car is rarely enough, but 6 is usually overkill. With a 10 minute frequency base, 4 or 5-car all day would work well.

 

[HSTEd]

Is 25kV capability actually going to be required any time soon?
Network Rails electrification programme is collapsing and there certainly won't be any new additions to the project list - the work they have is good for 20 years the way things are going.
And if there are cancellations that remove work it is unlikely new work will be added.

So why don't they just order 750V electrodiesels and be done with it? (If they want extensions that is, otherwise order S7-alikes).

 

[Gareth]

Merseyside certainly does have a significant industrial relations, shall we say, challenge.

London, Manchester, Newcastle etc don't? I don't buy it.

Of course, no one likes losing their job. I think if London tube drivers are going to kick up an almighty stink about later shifts, then Liverpool guards are going to naturally not be at all chuffed losing their jobs, which is much worse. It's natural, though, unlike the tube drivers with respect to London, if it does kick off, the media and various individuals on sites such as this will no doubt no miss the opportunity to pounce on it as an opportunity for confirmation bias - "Scousers, eh?" etc etc.

Anyway, if played correctly, redundancies could be cut much further. Expansions to the system (i.e. Skelmersdale link which is a no brainer to me), increase in frequencies on certain services (as you touch upon) and at least slightly later operating times, at least on weekends (although that latter one is controversial in itself if London is anything to go by). Most of these things can't be achieved currently due to the limited amount of rolling stock. More later services could but it's more everyday wear and tear on what is rather elderly rolling stock. Probably won't get such joined up thinking though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Longer formations than 3x20 or 6x20m are not practical, it would be financially ruinous to attempt to lengthen the underground platforms which are 120m long, so you come back to only options for maximum utilisation are combinations which allow 120m.

Some might argue (and I do too) they should have bitten the bullet and made all services 120m long, but as people have been saying some of the services are quieter and it would be overprovision during a good portion of the day, Merseytravel prefer the flexibility to alter service length, the business case for a budget envelope for the replacement likely would not have stretched to it either. Instead Merseytravel have gone for increasing frequency over length to provide the extra capacity.

If it has to be a choice between 6-car trainsets or higher frequencies, I'll choose the latter. Clockface 4tph on most branches is good but 6tph is much better and once it gets to that sort of frequency, people stop caring about the timetables and just turn up at the station whenever. My bugbear with mixed formations is that people often end up waiting at the wrong end of the platform and in busy periods then bunch up in the nearest car. It doesn't help that the new destination boards make no mention of the length of the train. Platform doors or gates with numbers on them could help. Even just pavement markings would.

Like I said, some services can be quiet on weekday nights. I used to frequently do Central-Cressington at evening rush hour and make the return journey around 9ish. The outbound train would be crammed, so much so that it was uncomfortable, whilst the return would only have a few people on it. I reckon for a lot of people, the frequent 82 bus is seen more favourably at that time of night as they're much more than every 15 minutes and traffic on the road is light at that time. I suppose with fixed formation the question is: how much more expensive is a 6-car train to run compared to a 3-car one?

We could, of course, go for some halfway fixed formation, as Neil suggests, but as a fixed formation, this reduces the maximum overall capacity of the network. I'm thinking of the scenes of chaos that you see in the underground stations when there's a big event on in the city, even with 6-car formations. That said, with more actual trainsets, it may be possible to compensate with a high frequency. I believe the current capacity in the underground sections is much higher than what's currently used.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There may of course be an increase in usage simply from having new rolling stock in the first place...

I would agree that a 120m version of either the S Stock or a UK loading gauge version of another Bombardier product, the excellent Z50000 "Francilien" would be ideal for Merseyrail.

 

[jamesst]

London, Manchester, Newcastle etc don't? I don't buy it.

Of course, no one likes losing their job. I think if London tube drivers are going to kick up an almighty stink about later shifts, then Liverpool guards are going to naturally not be at all chuffed losing their jobs, which is much worse. It's natural, though, unlike the tube drivers with respect to London, if it does kick off, the media and various individuals on sites such as this will no doubt no miss the opportunity to pounce on it as an opportunity for confirmation bias - "Scousers, eh?" etc etc.

Anyway, if played correctly, redundancies could be cut much further. Expansions to the system (i.e. Skelmersdale link which is a no brainer to me), increase in frequencies on certain services (as you touch upon) and at least slightly later operating times, at least on weekends (although that latter one is controversial in itself if London is anything to go by). Most of these things can't be achieved currently due to the limited amount of rolling stock. More later services could but it's more everyday wear and tear on what is rather elderly rolling stock. Probably won't get such joined up thinking though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If it has to be a choice between 6-car trainsets or higher frequencies, I'll choose the latter. Clockface 4tph on most branches is good but 6tph is much better and once it gets to that sort of frequency, people stop caring about the timetables and just turn up at the station whenever. My bugbear with mixed formations is that people often end up waiting at the wrong end of the platform and in busy periods then bunch up in the nearest car. It doesn't help that the new destination boards make no mention of the length of the train. Platform doors or gates with numbers on them could help. Even just pavement markings would.

Like I said, some services can be quiet on weekday nights. I used to frequently do Central-Cressington at evening rush hour and make the return journey around 9ish. The outbound train would be crammed, so much so that it was uncomfortable, whilst the return would only have a few people on it. I reckon for a lot of people, the frequent 82 bus is seen more favourably at that time of night as they're much more than every 15 minutes and traffic on the road is light at that time. I suppose with fixed formation the question is: how much more expensive is a 6-car train to run compared to a 3-car one?

We could, of course, go for some halfway fixed formation, as Neil suggests, but as a fixed formation, this reduces the maximum overall capacity of the network. I'm thinking of the scenes of chaos that you see in the underground stations when there's a big event on in the city, even with 6-car formations. That said, with more actual trainsets, it may be possible to compensate with a high frequency. I believe the current capacity in the underground sections is much higher than what's currently used.

All of the new platform destination boards have train length at the end of the calling points.
I'm afraid you're fooling yourself if you believe service extensions are suddenly going to happen when new stock arrives,it's often been mooted that the final stock number will be less than what they have now

 

[Camden]

All of the new platform destination boards have train length at the end of the calling points.
I'm afraid you're fooling yourself if you believe service extensions are suddenly going to happen when new stock arrives,it's often been mooted that the final stock number will be less than what they have now

If that happens I'll be truly surprised, the present number of trains just aren't enough and that is evident whenever I use the trains. The Southport line runs 6 carriage trains all day to cater at least for the summer months, meaning that the Chester line is stuck with 3 carriages all stuffed. The Skelmersdale extension is going to happen (is) adding a need for more trains and adding an extra quantum of passengers into the network, estimated to be the same as Chester... so just those the base growth plus Skelmserdale makes the present situation untenable with regards to units.

As for extensions beyond there, Wrexham using OHLE seems an obvious and uncomplicated one that's long been sought after. The proposal to extend Merseyrail through Chester to Crewe has combined benefits to numerous parties. So I think you're very wrong.

And the new destination boards are appalling and need to be sorted out. Yes they EVENTUALLY tell you how many carriages are on but only the approaching train. You have to wait until it's told you all the station stops, and the operator name (who else would it be?!) and then it tells you. If you're waiting for a Southport or Chester train that's quite a wait stood static by the board waiting for it to show. It's an infuriatingly stupid oversight, and it has resulted in bunching up on the platform because few people notice it. They need to go back to the old format, which worked and told you all you needed to know and you could see it.

 

[pemma]

I somehow don't imagine the DOO plan going smoothly. Arguably the UK's most left wing city, ASLEF against it, local rag will be almost certainly against it.

Don't forget Merseyrail serve a lot more than just Liverpool itself. I doubt anyone would label The Wirral or Sefton as left wing.

From past instances on Merseyrail it would seem having platform staff at underground stations would do more to improve safety than having guards closing the doors.

 

[Camden]

Oh that's funny, to me Wirral and Sefton (aside from maybe Southport) are Liverpool!

Anyway, it's a red herring. How many decades do you want to go back and include before the "left wing strikers" moniker is dropped. I recall fairly recently the big motor firms were praising the local workforce for their flexibility and strong work ethic.

If DOO becomes an issue here it will only be because of the industry's union issues, nothing to do with the locality.

 

[MarkyT]

How about a driverless train with a DLR-style train captain as a staff presence within the passenger cabins for passenger security and revenue protection.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

. . . I recall fairly recently the big motor firms were praising the local workforce for their flexibility and strong work ethic.

If DOO becomes an issue here it will only be because of the industry's union issues, nothing to do with the locality.

Also, where's the conflict between being left leaning (in the sense of having a social conscience and sense of fairness rather than just a party loyalty), and also having a work ethic? Part of the equation is that the modern motor industry is in most cases a very good employer and companies succeed in making the worker feel engaged. To be diplomatic, I'm not sure that can always be said of the railways.

 

[pemma]

Oh that's funny, to me Wirral and Sefton (aside from maybe Southport) are Liverpool!

Well maybe Liverpool's not as left wing as you think if in your opinion it includes Wirral. Wirral West, Wirral South and City of Chester* are all parliamentary seats which either the Conservatives or Labour are able to win. They are all currently Labour but two were Conservative at the 2010 election.

* Part of the Wirral Peninsula is included in the City of Chester seat.