• 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!

Future Merseyrail stock: Stadler selected as manufacturer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
I'm sure I read somewhere that a 66 can (just) fit through the city centre tunnels... Though that might just apply to the relatively straight Northern line tunnels.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Don't forget that loading gauge also applies to vehicle length, as well as height and width! The S stock cars are about 3-5m shorter and so can get away with being wider. Also, they sensible way that gauge testing would be done is to input the profile of the S stock, and the infrastructure clearances of the merseyrail network and then validate it using programs such as VAMPIRE and ClearRoute. Much cheaper as then you aren't paying for repairs if the test train gets damaged

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/group...ructure-sic-guide-to-british-gauging-t926.pdf
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
709
Don't they have a Class 73 for sandite?

A Class 66 could haul a train round the 70's built tunnels according to this.

http://www.storycontracting.com/rail/project-focus/87-merseyloop-an-underground-network

New rails were fixed to Vipa baseplates. Jigs were used to set out the straight rails to the required radius with up to 65mm cant. The design alignment was based on the envelope of a Class 66 - more onerous than the stock generally used in the tunnel. Finally the metal walkways and third rail were installed
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Tony Miles has said the S stock has been ruled out as an option by Merseytravel.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
A Class 66 could haul a train round the 70's built tunnels according to this.
So, looks like loco-hauled then?

If S-Stock is ruled out (!) then I guess it's a case of feature picking.

Slam or sliding doors?

I heard that the guy who was at metrolink when they picked the new trams is involved in helping pick the replacement Merseyrail trains... Let's hope they don't screw it up for the city, as four carriages don't cut it.
 
Last edited:

chiltern trev

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2011
Messages
385
Location
near Carlisle
Re comments arising from Slight movement today:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/t...-replaced.html published 25 April 2014.

I went searching and found this - Train Passengers in Merseyside are more sociable - http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/abou...engers-in-Merseyside-are-more-sociable.-.aspx. (The whole text is at the end of this post).

It links to a 92 page document - http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/abou... stock what passengers want - April 2014.pdf

It is a very thorough consultation and I recommend you read the 92 page document - it has a 3 page summary near the front.

A summary:
- consultation performed with focus groups include many different types of travelers, Southport route, West Kirby route, experience of travel on other TOCs (inc Manchester Trams, Glasgow and LU), visually impaired, disabled, pushchairs, etc.
- 50% approx like the seats facing as per current (and used to be on classes 502 and 503)
- 33% approx like airline seating provided enough leg room
- 11% approx like longitudinal - this was concluded as an almost unanimous no go - it was accepted in London where that is the only way to get a lot of people on trains but deemed not acceptable outside of London.
- existing vestibules cause problem - some solutions offered which also consider what to do about pushchairs, wheelchairs and bicycles.

From which gives rise the question - is Merseyrail going to follow what the consultation concluded.

I have commuted on the LU A stock and travelled on the LU S stock and consider the S stock seating is a retrograde step for the longer Met line journies.

I think as the platform lengths/infrastructure, the stock should be 3 car units with walk through cabs/full gangway at each and the wide intercar gangways as per the S stock. 3 car units provides greater flexibility in train capacity.

From the various capacity comments over the years, I think the number of units available for service should be greater than current. This comment based upon the number of times that peak overloading has appeared, the impact of Open Golf and the Grand National. As newer units are being stated as being more reliable, then I am not sure how you achieve the ‘more reliable’ in practice if Merseytravel/Merseyrail own the units. I have seen statement elsewhere about new stock being maintained by the manufacture (the IEP?)(and also I think Pendolinos) and thus contractual clauses regarding availability can be more easily included and enforced if the supplier is the maintainer. I would hope any ITT and contract would include future options to purchase more units at a favourable price and also to ensure availability.

Re DOO and dual voltage. From a manufacturer's point of view, to simplify overall product I would expect any new emu to be designed for DOO and for dual voltage – thus you only produce one design. Up to the TOC then as to how many train crew are employed and if you don’t need the 25kv bits then build without but with passive provision.

Does having part of the new fleet just DC and part dual voltage make sense or is it better for the whole fleet to be the same? And if the same is it best supplied as dual already or add later – guess that depends upon delivery date.

==== text here from http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/abou...engers-in-Merseyside-are-more-sociable.-.aspx ====

Train Passengers in Merseyside are more sociable.
Published on 25/04/2014

​Rail users on Merseyside are more sociable than those in London and the south east according to new research, which reveals that passengers like to face each other during journeys.

The findings comes from a study carried out by independent passenger watchdog Passenger Focus to provide an insight into what customers would like to see in a modernisation of the Merseyrail fleet.

In picking out seats, 50 percent chose to sit in the existing pod-style seats, facing each other in twos, in direct contrast to the preferences of those who make regular journeys by train in London and the south east. The reasons given were that it allowed them to sit as a group and talk to family and friends. Even those travelling on their own felt it gave them an opportunity to make conversation with strangers.
The railway has seen strong growth in passenger numbers over the last ten years and this looks set to continue at a rate of over 2% per annum. As a result, researchers recommend that a mix of seating including the pod-style, airline and possibly longitudinal, like on the Tube, would best address capacity demands.

Other improvements passengers suggested were making trains more spacious and ‘open plan’ with areas for bikes. wheelchairs and pushchairs. Security issues were also of paramount importance to passengers, including increased visibility of CCTV cameras and the installation of help points. Calls were also made for Wi-Fi and bins on the trains.

The current Merseyrail fleet is approaching 40 years old and is one of the oldest operating in the UK. All options, which include a new fleet or extensive re-work of the existing stock, are being considered.

Passengers’ feedback and ideas will feed into the specification and design for any new or modernised trains where practical and cost-effective.

David Powell, Merseytravel’s Project Director for Rolling Stock, said:
“We are looking at a number of options regarding the current Merseyrail fleet but, whatever the outcome, Merseytravel is committed to ensuring that passengers’ opinions are fully understood and their ideas are incorporated where possible. By listening to passengers we can deliver a scheme that the whole of the City Region can be proud of.
“It’s interesting to know that our passengers like to face each other, although it doesn’t surprise me that we’re a sociable bunch because we have a strong reputation for being a friendly part of the world. I’m glad that security is also top of the customers’ agenda as it is also a priority for us for any future decisions we make.”

David Sidebottom, Acting Chief Executive for Passenger Focus, added:
“We consider it vital for passengers to be involved in the design of new trains at the earliest opportunity. Without proper consultation, passengers could end up travelling on trains that fail to meet both their existing and future needs. Therefore, we were delighted to be able to work with Merseytravel on this joint research.”

Maarten Spaargaren, Managing Director at Merseyrail, added:
“Customers are at the heart of everything we at Merseyrail do, and we know from the string of accolades that we have recently secured – the Customer First accreditation, topping the National Rail Passenger Survey and being the highest performing rail operator in the Which? survey – that passengers like our trains, stations and the services we provide. We refuse to become complacent and will continue listening to their views and enhancing our offering to the city region’s travelling public.”

In the meantime, a new look for the Merseyrail fleet has been unveiled with designs that reflect what the Liverpool City Region has to offer in terms of sights, shopping and sport. The train ‘wraps’ are part of an £8.5 million investment that will see essential work carried out on the stock to keep it in good working order, as well as enhancements inside and out.

The long term modernisation of the Merseyrail fleet is being considered as part of a broad rail strategy for the Liverpool City Region. It is about ensuring that the overarching vision for improved capacity and connectivity in the Liverpool City Region is shared across all rail projects.

The report can be found here.

Merseytravel manages the Merseyrail concession locally after taking it over from the Department of Transport in 2003.
The concession is a 50-50 joint venture between shareholders, Abellio, the international subsidiary of Dutch Railways (NS/Nederlandse Spoorwegen) and Serco, the global services provider.
 
Last edited:

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Well considering their proposing increasing capacity of a 60m unit from 303 to 480 then they would have to be removing at least half of seating.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,753
Location
Epsom
I still think a UK loading gauge version of the Z50000 Francilien would be ideal for Merseyrail. They are fantastically good units to ride in - probably by far the most well thought out design of all the current generation of suburban trains.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Well considering their proposing increasing capacity of a 60m unit from 303 to 480 then they would have to be removing at least half of seating.

One observation I made today on an ex-FNW 150 is in the part of the carriage where the toilet and wheelchair space 4 longitudinal seats take up the same amount of space as a pair of 4 facing seats in 2+2 formation. Now I realise having facing seats uses up more space than having them all in the same direction but as Merseyrail having facing seats currently switching to longitudinal seats may not be as bigger reduction in seating as expected. Obviously it depends on the size of the seat and whether any space is left between the seats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
I still think a UK loading gauge version of the Z50000 Francilien would be ideal for Merseyrail. They are fantastically good units to ride in - probably by far the most well thought out design of all the current generation of suburban trains.

The question is, are those advantages either fully or in part down to the more generous loading gauge available? If by reducing the size to fit the infrastructure you lose those advantages then an adaptation of an existing or planned next-generation UK design would be preferable to avoid "falling between two stools" à la the 373s.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,753
Location
Epsom
The question is, are those advantages either fully or in part down to the more generous loading gauge available? If by reducing the size to fit the infrastructure you lose those advantages then an adaptation of an existing or planned next-generation UK design would be preferable to avoid "falling between two stools" à la the 373s.

Having been on quite a few of them, I don't think so. It's just a very well designed train and to me it compares very favourably with other rolling stock of the same size.

Remember, I am not one who is normally a fan of the latest developments in rolling stock design, yet here I am banging on about this particular type...
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
6,574
Location
Merseyside
Personally, I would be wanting to see airline style seats thoughout Merseyrail to increase the number of seats for customers. They take up less space.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
How long would it take to tow a wagon around the tunnel sections, fitted with LIDAR to scan absolutely all the tunnels? Then combined with simulation software and accurate scale plans of trains from the manufacturers, they could test every possible new train and would be able to quickly rule out any that won't fit
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
Personally, I would be wanting to see airline style seats thoughout Merseyrail to increase the number of seats for customers. They take up less space.

I notice that the passenger survey took place at stations far from the city centre. It's one thing to want more seats, but the quick loading and unloading of large numbers of people closer to the city centre has to be taken account of, and take precedence. Airline seating really is not compatible with this.
 

chiltern trev

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2011
Messages
385
Location
near Carlisle
So looks like designing the seating layout will be interesting if there are requirements for bay seating, airline seating, multi functional space, meeting the 'you get a seat for 20 minutes' rule and non-slow entrance/exit at the busy stations (central Liverpool).

Thus having set back draught screen at door ways allowing passengers space to stand by a door with less risk of obstructing the flow through the door, with may be a seat perch or tip up seat in this space.

Perhaps bay seating aligned to windows in the centre of the cars and at one end and infilling between the bays and the doors/carriage ends with airline seating.

Any may be one end of each carriage is designed around multi functional space for wheelchairs, pushchairs, bicycles with suitable signage on the outside door pillars.

If quick loading/unloading is an issue, perhaps a whole approach is required and look at the signalling. The RER had an unload/load dwell time issue which was solved by lots of extra speed controlled signals added. The RER was operating 12 car trains and trains were running late queuing to enter a central station (Chatalet?) so the revised solution allowed the first car of a following train to be entering the platform whilst the last car of the previous car exited the platform. I think there were signals along the lenght of the 12 car platforms and the spacing may have been as close as the length of 4 cars. Whilst the unload/load time did not change, the reduced time between departures was less and the queuing of trains removed. Ok - that was for 12 car trains, but the underlying approach could be used. And from a previous comment, during the 1950s, the Wirral lines had a train every 2.5 minutes at peak times under the river which is not currently being achieved. I think someone posted that the signalling allowed a headway of 2 minutes.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
How much bigger are class 378 coaches compared with what's currently in use on Merseyrail?
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,753
Location
Epsom
Class 507 and 508: all vehicles are 20.18m long / 2.82m wide.

Class 378: 20.46m long ( presumably the driving vehicles ) and 20.14m long ( presumably all the rest ) / 2.80m wide.

So not a lot of difference dimensionally but 378s are quite a bit heavier by at least 6 - 7 tonnes per carriage compared to the heaviest 507/8 vehicles so the track might need beefing up a bit...


Incidentally that Z50000 design that I'm always on about might just fit as it is:

16.53m ( driving cars ) and 13.24m ( others ) / 3.06m wide.

Not sure about the vertical clearance though as they are 70cm higher than the 507/8s, but much of that will be roof mounted equipment rather than the actual vehicular structure.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
16.53m ( driving cars ) and 13.24m ( others ) / 3.06m wide.

Not sure about the vertical clearance though as they are 70cm higher than the 507/8s, but much of that will be roof mounted equipment rather than the actual vehicular structure.

Not a chance. 3.06m is far too wide (nothing on Network Rail is wider than 2.82 that I know of, even with shorter vehicles) and height may be an issue as well - after all, I understand even fairly typical 20m vehicles like 319s won't fit.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,753
Location
Epsom
The 502s / 503s used on Merseyrail before the 507s/8s were over 3m wide weren't they? I think they were slightly longer than those Z50000 driving cars as well.

I agree the height is an issue, but it is mostly equipment rather than the actual bodyshells so that could be worked around.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The 502s / 503s used on Merseyrail before the 507s/8s were over 3m wide weren't they?

According to Wiki 3.02m over the steps, but Merseyrail stock (50x included, those units having smaller steps down South) has always had very wide steps that extend over the platform (so there isn't much of a gap) - it doesn't mean the rest of the unit could be that wide. 502 is quoted as 2.87m on 20m vehicles which is very wide for the UK, though these were used on the Northern Line which may well have a wider loading gauge than the tightly curved Wirral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_503#/media/File:Image-British-Rail-Class-503.jpg - very wide steps indeed!
 
Last edited:

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,753
Location
Epsom
That doesn't mean it's not possible to build a slightly smaller version of the Z50000 though does it?
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
709
Was there not some comment following the tragic fatality of the young lady trying to board the moving train a couple of years ago about reducing the gap between the train and platform?
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
I think any future Merseyrail stock will come from CAF in Spain or Japan.

They seem to be the only builders willing to do small builds and tailor them to the railways needs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top