Future Merseyrail stock: Stadler selected as manufacturer

[Townsend Hook]

Its not particularly important to me but is not the Network rail standard?

No, quite simply. No reasons (on paper at least) why new electrification must be 25kV overhead. The right electrification system is used for the circumstances. 90% of the time on NR that is 25kV overhead, but for extentions to Merseyrail there would need to be a very good reason for conductor rail not to be chosen

 

[47802]

No, quite simply. No reasons (on paper at least) why new electrification must be 25kV overhead. The right electrification system is used for the circumstances. 90% of the time on NR that is 25kV overhead, but for extentions to Merseyrail there would need to be a very good reason for conductor rail not to be chosen

On paper possibly but given overhead is the preferred standard for the network and the availability of Dual Voltage Trains I see little reason to continue any third rail extensions.

 

[razor89]

overhead is the preferred standard for the network

Sorry but is this actually stated anywhere?

Some reasons (some have already been stated) for new third rail:

-Potentially a lot cheaper to electrify third rail than overhead
-Dual voltage track can be very troublesome (and hence expensive to maintain)
-Dual voltage trains cost more to maintain and have more modes of failure

 

[47802]

Sorry but is this actually stated anywhere?

Some reasons (some have already been stated) for new third rail:

-Potentially a lot cheaper to electrify third rail than overhead
-Dual voltage track can be very troublesome (and hence expensive to maintain)
-Dual voltage trains cost more to maintain and have more modes of failure

This has been discussed on here many times before and there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, however 3rd rail is considered more of a danger to track side workers, substation costs for 3rd rail are higher need to be much closer together and need rectifier equipment, 25kv overhead is more energy efficient.

How much 3rd rail electrification have Network Rail done recently?

 

[razor89]

This has been discussed on here many times before and there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, however 3rd rail is considered more of a danger to track side workers, substation costs for 3rd rail are higher need to be much closer together and need rectifier equipment, 25kv overhead is more energy efficient.

How much 3rd rail electrification have Network Rail done recently?

I agree, there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. Clearly for electrifying lines that previously had no form of electrification, it does make sense to go with overhead, particularly for long distances. However, in Merseyrail we have a network which is already third rail electrified and includes sections which cannot be converted to overhead. Surely extensions to the network should be considered with this in mind, unlike new electrification schemes?

Again, is it actually stated by Network Rail that overhead is their "preferred standard", or have they simply weighed up the pros and cons for each scheme and chosen accordingly?

 

[Camden]

The 100mph lines radiating out of London, fine you can understand those being converted as at higher speeds AC OHLE is much more energy efficient, but otherwise it seems just to be some weird, unreasonable political thing. Or perhaps some completely failure to understand that although Liverpool is also outside London its use of third rail is not in any way comparable to the 100mph lines marked for conversion.

Clearly if a system is already third rail and the overwhelming majority of it is actually suited to third rail (as it is) it makes sense to leave it as third rail and not burden the network with extra costs of needing full on dual voltage stock to enable any necessary extensions.

I'm not aware of any worker being electrocuted on the Merseyrail, and for a system like Merseyrail it isn't true that it is more energy efficient, third rail is due to the short distances between stops. Third rail is well suited to metro systems, which is one of the reasons why so many use it.

 

[HSTEd]

This has been discussed on here many times before and there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, however 3rd rail is considered more of a danger to track side workers, substation costs for 3rd rail are higher need to be much closer together and need rectifier equipment, 25kv overhead is more energy efficient.

These things are only really true for high speed main lines.
I wasn't aware Merseyrail had dozens of 12 car trains running at 100mph?

Substation equipment for a Merseyrail extension will cost very little as it is all tram grade gear, and spacings can be made surprisingly large as a result of low traffic densities and peak train power demand.
How much do you think a 132kV 25kV feeder station costs?

How much 3rd rail electrification have Network Rail done recently?

Not much less than the amount of 25kV electrification they have done recently. Certainly in England. (After all there were significant sections of new third rail track in London as part of the Thameslink programme and ELL and all that).

 

[MarkyT]

Clearly if a system is already third rail and the overwhelming majority of it is actually suited to third rail (as it is) it makes sense to leave it as third rail and not burden the network with extra costs of needing full on dual voltage stock to enable any necessary extensions.

Designing the replacement Liverpool trains for future dual voltage capability is pragmatic not because of any likely conversion of the Wirral network but because there are potential extensions of the various Northern line branches over tracks that would be shared with other services that are either already or planned shortly to be AC, or are along other unelectrified routes that are good candidates for AC electrification in the future. An AC extension from Hunts Cross to Widnes or Warrington could also be used by AC electric Transpennine trains to run via Warrington if the remainder of the route was also electrified. Another possibility might be a revival of the 1970s plan to link Central station via new and reused tunnel alignments to Edge Hill. Dual system trains could switch from DC to AC at Edge Hill and go to Huyton under the wires which could then be extended to St Helens or Wigan for Merseyrail and other longer distance services.

 

[krus_aragon]

Assuming teh sleepers haven't all been changed for steel ones - a minimum spec third rail installation that is more than sufficient for a Merseyrail extension will cost a tiny fraction of a 25kV system.

I believe such sleepers have been used on the Borderlands Line.

 

[D365]

Not much less than the amount of 25kV electrification they have done recently. Certainly in England. (After all there were significant sections of new third rail track in London as part of the Thameslink programme and ELL and all that).

How much of this third-rail electrification was installed on lines that were not previously electrified?

 

[47802]

These things are only really true for high speed main lines.
I wasn't aware Merseyrail had dozens of 12 car trains running at 100mph?

Substation equipment for a Merseyrail extension will cost very little as it is all tram grade gear, and spacings can be made surprisingly large as a result of low traffic densities and peak train power demand.
How much do you think a 132kV 25kV feeder station costs?



Not much less than the amount of 25kV electrification they have done recently. Certainly in England. (After all there were significant sections of new third rail track in London as part of the Thameslink programme and ELL and all that).

Yes I am aware a 25Kv feeder station isn't exactly cheap however if any possible DC extension does materialise lets see if Network Rail share your enthusiasm for DC. If purely an isolated extension then it possibly makes sense to use DC, if an extension which might interface with other electrification scheme in the future then surely it makes sense to use AC.

People seem to be trying to make a big deal about the use of Dual Voltage stock but there is plenty of such stock working single voltage routes including soon a new fleet of 387's for Gatwick Express.

 

[HSTEd]

If purely an isolated extension then it possibly makes sense to use DC, if an extension which might interface with other electrification scheme in the future then surely it makes sense to use AC.

That depends - extending from Kirkby to Wigan Wallgate on DC does not actually increase the number of interfaces - it just moves it further east.
(You would likely reelectrify Wallgate station itself and have the conversion take place on plain line immediately west of that if you brought AC into the station as part of a later project).

Most of the capital would remain in place either way.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It you look at the planning documents for the new Merseyrail stock, it mentions weaknesses in the current DC setup which will have to be resolved to run the new trains.
Basically power is only just adequate at the moment and is already too low at the extremities of the network.
This limits the number of trains that can be operated.
The ITT will include work on boosting the electrical supply system so that new trains (which will need more power) can run.
So the "cheap and cheerful" DC system is in fact too cheap, with no spare capacity.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It you look at the planning documents for the new Merseyrail stock, it mentions weaknesses in the current DC setup which will have to be resolved to run the new trains.
Basically power is only just adequate at the moment and is already too low at the extremities of the network.
This limits the number of trains that can be operated.
The ITT will include work on boosting the electrical supply system so that new trains (which will need more power) can run.
So the "cheap and cheerful" DC system is in fact too cheap, with no spare capacity.

In the tunnel loop section is power the factor that limits how many trains can be in the tunnel at the same time or signalling?

 

[Wavertreelad]

I'd agree in general, but not for Wigan Wallgate to Kirkby/Southport.

The argument for third-rail to Wigan Wallgate isn't a particular technology preference; it's the WCML - the line from Kirkby/Southport passes under the WCML without enough clearance for overhead wires, and the track can't be lowered under the bridge (because of the junctions and stations either side). That leaves the option of raising the bridge, which would mean a closure of the West Coast Main Line.

Strikes me that third-rail could be put in for that (fairly short) stretch from Kirkby to Wigan and that will avoid the clearance issue, especially in that the trains going through will have to have shoes for the Kirkby-Liverpool third-rail section anyway, so there wouldn't be any single-voltage overhead trains forced to go dual-voltage anyway.

I believe there were plans a few years ago to upgrade the Kirkby to Wigan route to allow it to carry containers for the Potter Distribution terminal at Kirkby who had secured a contract to move waste from the site to the North East. I think the contract may have fallen through as I've not heard anything about it for some time, but let us not forget that Peel have now purchased the adjoining site and are advertising as "close to a rail connection." The other interesting point is that the line could provide a direct link to the Port of Liverpool to and from the WCML, if a short spur was built from the south of Atlantic Junction on the Bootle Branch to the south of Kirkdale Station. The line could then rule parallel to Kirkby and Ormskirk lines to Walton Junction where the line would join a redoubled Kirkby branch to Wigan, after of course the buffers were removed at Kirkby. Given the potential capacity issues on the Chat Moss route in the years to come, there could be a need for an alternative route to the WCML, even with it's limitations.

Designing the replacement Liverpool trains for future dual voltage capability is pragmatic not because of any likely conversion of the Wirral network but because there are potential extensions of the various Northern line branches over tracks that would be shared with other services that are either already or planned shortly to be AC, or are along other unelectrified routes that are good candidates for AC electrification in the future. An AC extension from Hunts Cross to Widnes or Warrington could also be used by AC electric Transpennine trains to run via Warrington if the remainder of the route was also electrified. Another possibility might be a revival of the 1970s plan to link Central station via new and reused tunnel alignments to Edge Hill. Dual system trains could switch from DC to AC at Edge Hill and go to Huyton under the wires which could then be extended to St Helens or Wigan for Merseyrail and other longer distance services.

If the Edge Hill spur was built I could see perhaps Preston, Wigan, Warrington and Chester, via Halton Curve, in future being operated by Merseyrail stock and diverted from Lime Street to an expanded Central Station. This would free up capacity at Lime Street for HS2/3 services and more longer distance services that the city needs to aid connectivity to the rest of the country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the Edge Hill spur was built I could see perhaps Preston, Wigan, Warrington and Chester, via Halton Curve, in future being operated by Merseyrail stock and diverted from Lime Street to an expanded Central Station. This would free up capacity at Lime Street for HS2/3 services and more longer distance services that the city needs to aid connectivity to the rest of the country.

If Network Rail are removing platform 1 in their redevelopment plan, as I recall they are, perhaps it isn't actually full?

 

[Emblematic]

How much of this third-rail electrification was installed on lines that were not previously electrified?

Very little, just two short linking lines on the ELLX, Thameslink is essentially the same route since opening. The West London route to North Pole depot was the last sizeable 3rd rail addition in London, which was over two decades ago. Conversely, the whole NLL from Acton to North Woolwich, which was previously 3rd rail, has been converted to OHLE as far as Stratford, the alignment beyond being transferred to DLR and Crossrail. OHLE comes out ahead, I believe.

 

[RobShipway]

Would it not be possible other than the tunnel sections of Merseyrail to have it OHLE?

I would think though that it maybe possible to rebuild in someway the tunnels as has been done on the Connaught Tunnel on the Crossrail route so that OHLE can be fitted.

 

[AM9]

Would it not be possible other than the tunnel sections of Merseyrail to have it OHLE?

I would think though that it maybe possible to rebuild in someway the tunnels as has been done on the Connaught Tunnel on the Crossrail route so that OHLE can be fitted.

When they did the Connaught Tunnels, didn't they drain the water from the tideway access. That would be a bit more expensive if they had to drain the Mersey whilst they fixed those tunnels!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

When they did the Connaught Tunnels, didn't they drain the water from the tideway access. That would be a bit more expensive if they had to drain the Mersey whilst they fixed those tunnels!

The original (steam-worked) double-track tunnels under the Mersey are not the problem, it's the newer single loop/link tunnels under the city and in Birkenhead.
So no rivers involved (although water ingress to the tunnels has been a persistent problem).

 

[Bevan Price]

If the Edge Hill spur was built I could see perhaps Preston, Wigan, Warrington and Chester, via Halton Curve, in future being operated by Merseyrail stock and diverted from Lime Street to an expanded Central Station. This would free up capacity at Lime Street for HS2/3 services and more longer distance services that the city needs to aid connectivity to the rest of the country.

But then you would lose connectivity between local services and the long-distance services using Lime St. - i don't see that being popular. And please don't suggest that passengers could change at somewhere like Edge Hill to reach Lime St - most passengers prefer the least possible number of changes.

And no - I think that Merseyrail stock is never likely to reach Preston via Wigan - 70 mph stock is unsuitable for the WCML.

 

[Skie]

If Network Rail are removing platform 1 in their redevelopment plan, as I recall they are, perhaps it isn't actually full?

They were also re-instating other platforms, so it was to be a net gain.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The original (steam-worked) double-track tunnels under the Mersey are not the problem, it's the newer single loop/link tunnels under the city and in Birkenhead.
So no rivers involved (although water ingress to the tunnels has been a persistent problem).

According to this link http://www.engineering-timelines.com...em.asp?id=1151 the River Mersey Wirral Line tunnel were built to the following specification.

The main tunnel is lined with a 685mm thick layer of brickwork (six courses) set in cement mortar where it runs through sandstone. The brickwork is increased to eight courses where clay was encountered. It is 7.9m wide and 7m tall overall with 5.8m clearance between the rails and tunnel roof. There are recesses at 41.1m intervals on each side. The flanking tunnels are lined in four courses of brickwork. In addition to the double standard gauge tracks, telephone cables were laid in the running tunnel to improve cross-river communications.

This link http://www.storycontracting.com/rail...ground-network describes the work of replacing the track in the 1970's built Wirral Loop tunnels under Liverpool and confirms the diameter of the tunnels.

Whilst I am no expert, the original tunnels would appear to have plenty of clearance for OHLE but I am not so sure about the 70's built tunnels on both the Wirral and Northern Lines, perhaps somebody can confirm?

To see the difference in the size of tunnel construction parts of in this video show the relevant sections.

http://youtu.be/MqQSrrXmrjk

I also seem to remember posting an article confirming that the new 70's tunnels were built to allow a Class 66 to transverse them. Unfortunately, for the moment I can't find it.

But then you would lose connectivity between local services and the long-distance services using Lime St. - i don't see that being popular. And please don't suggest that passengers could change at somewhere like Edge Hill to reach Lime St - most passengers prefer the least possible number of changes.

And no - I think that Merseyrail stock is never likely to reach Preston via Wigan - 70 mph stock is unsuitable for the WCML.

Fair points, I'd agree the connectivity issue could be a problem for passengers connecting between "local services" and mainline services, but what is the percentage or numbers of passengers involved, compared to total numbers using the services? If the majority of passenger are commuters, perhaps they would achieve better connectivity changing at Central, if necessary. On the other hand if suddenly, you have the prospect of running services say from the City Line to the Wirral Lines without the need for passengers to change, would this not be huge step forward for the Merseyrail network?

Electrify the Bootle Branch. North Mersey Line and Ormskirk to Preston and using the Edge Hill spur you could have Merseyrail stock reaching Preston. The 60 extra trans sets option in the invitation to tender would clearly indicate that Merseytravel want to extend the network, but the routes proposed, Ormskirk to Preston, Kirkby to Wigan and Bidston to Wrexham would not require this number of additional train sets. The initial order obviously is to replace the current stock which already operates in many six car sets on day to day basis and is due for replacement by 2020. A follow on order could specify a slightly different capability if it was intended to extend the network as proposed.

 

[Bevan Price]

According to this link http://www.engineering-timelines.com...em.asp?id=1151 the River Mersey Wirral Line tunnel were built to the following specification.

The main tunnel is lined with a 685mm thick layer of brickwork (six courses) set in cement mortar where it runs through sandstone. The brickwork is increased to eight courses where clay was encountered. It is 7.9m wide and 7m tall overall with 5.8m clearance between the rails and tunnel roof. There are recesses at 41.1m intervals on each side. The flanking tunnels are lined in four courses of brickwork. In addition to the double standard gauge tracks, telephone cables were laid in the running tunnel to improve cross-river communications.

This link http://www.storycontracting.com/rail...ground-network describes the work of replacing the track in the 1970's built Wirral Loop tunnels under Liverpool and confirms the diameter of the tunnels.

Whilst I am no expert, the original tunnels would appear to have plenty of clearance for OHLE but I am not so sure about the 70's built tunnels on both the Wirral and Northern Lines, perhaps somebody can confirm?

To see the difference in the size of tunnel construction parts of in this video show the relevant sections.

http://youtu.be/MqQSrrXmrjk

I also seem to remember posting an article confirming that the new 70's tunnels were built to allow a Class 66 to transverse them. Unfortunately, for the moment I can't find it.




Fair points, I'd agree the connectivity issue could be a problem for passengers connecting between "local services" and mainline services, but what is the percentage or numbers of passengers involved, compared to total numbers using the services? If the majority of passenger are commuters, perhaps they would achieve better connectivity changing at Central, if necessary. On the other hand if suddenly, you have the prospect of running services say from the City Line to the Wirral Lines without the need for passengers to change, would this not be huge step forward for the Merseyrail network?

Electrify the Bootle Branch. North Mersey Line and Ormskirk to Preston and using the Edge Hill spur you could have Merseyrail stock reaching Preston. The 60 extra trans sets option in the invitation to tender would clearly indicate that Merseytravel want to extend the network, but the routes proposed, Ormskirk to Preston, Kirkby to Wigan and Bidston to Wrexham would not require this number of additional train sets. The initial order obviously is to replace the current stock which already operates in many six car sets on day to day basis and is due for replacement by 2020. A follow on order could specify a slightly different capability if it was intended to extend the network as proposed.

Whilst I don't disagree with some of your suggested extensions, I fear that in the real financial world, some of the Merseytravel suggestions are just as much a dreamworld as their tramway to Kirkby. I don't see Merseyrail Electric getting beyond Burscough in the foreseeable future - and nor do I see them getting much further than Neston on the Bidston - Wrexham line.

As for city centre destinations, I think that the majority of passengers are probably shoppers and leisure travellers, boosted by workers during peak hours. Some of these may want to go to Chester, but I doubt that there is a big need for through trains from City Lines to the New Brighton or West Kirby lines. Whether there are sufficient travellers for the Chester line to justify breaking main line connectivity would probably need a detailes passenger survey.

 

[Gareth]

Would it not be possible other than the tunnel sections of Merseyrail to have it OHLE?

Maybe, but why go to the trouble? That's assuming that there are no clearance issues with regard to the many bridges and, indeed, tunnels. The benefits are surely marginal, even before taking into account the cost.

People need to understand that Merseyrail is different to the wider network and arguments for converting parts of the South East 3rd rail network to OHLE don't necessarily hold the same water. It's a mostly isolated metropolitan commuter system. Just because it's a part of the National Rail network doesn't make it indistinguishable from the various mainlines around the country. If Merseyrail is expanded onto lines that will still have mainline services, then it probably makes sense for those extensions to be OHLE and for Merseyrail trains to be dual voltage. A possible extension from Hunts Cross to Widnes or Warrington could be an example.

However, I don't see why any extension at all should automatically be OHLE as standard, as some argue for. Merseytravel have plans to extend Merseyrail services beyond Kirkby. The ultimate plan is to get to Skelmersdale, however, a new station at Headbolt Lane has been a priority for a while and there's a chance that tiny extension of less than a mile could go ahead on its own. Are the 'OHLE only' crew seriously going to argue that such a small extension be OHLE with trains changing power at Kirkby? Not to mention that the current rolling stock don't have this capability. Even if they do it in one fell swoop to Skelmersdale (which I would prefer), I don't see why that can't all be 3rd Rail; likewise any extension from Ormskirk to Bursccough. Making it so that trains have to change power source when it needn't have been the case doesn't seem sensible to me and it's just another thing that can potential go wrong.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Maybe, but why go to the trouble? That's assuming that there are no clearance issues with regard to the many bridges and, indeed, tunnels. The benefits are surely marginal, even before taking into account the cost.

People need to understand that Merseyrail is different to the wider network and arguments for converting parts of the South East 3rd rail network to OHLE don't necessarily hold the same water. It's a mostly isolated metropolitan commuter system. Just because it's a part of the National Rail network doesn't make it indistinguishable from the various mainlines around the country. If Merseyrail is expanded onto lines that will still have mainline services, then it probably makes sense for those extensions to be OHLE and for Merseyrail trains to be dual voltage. A possible extension from Hunts Cross to Widnes or Warrington could be an example.

However, I don't see why any extension at all should automatically be OHLE as standard, as some argue for. Merseytravel have plans to extend Merseyrail services beyond Kirkby. The ultimate plan is to get to Skelmersdale, however, a new station at Headbolt Lane has been a priority for a while and there's a chance that tiny extension of less than a mile could go ahead on its own. Are the 'OHLE only' crew seriously going to argue that such a small extension be OHLE with trains changing power at Kirkby? Not to mention that the current rolling stock don't have this capability. Even if they do it in one fell swoop to Skelmersdale (which I would prefer), I don't see why that can't all be 3rd Rail; likewise any extension from Ormskirk to Bursccough. Making it so that trains have to change power source when it needn't have been the case doesn't seem sensible to me and it's just another thing that can potential go wrong.

I'm not expert on this but the Merseytravel documentation for the new train sets talks of upgrading parts of the network power supply to cope with the new trains. Given that the new trains will probably end up lasting anything between 35 and 50 years, the question arises will Network Rail or whoever be able to support 3rd rail electrification beyond the unit's demise. Furthermore, assuming the follow order is placed, would a the train building who is going to build the stock also wish to support 3rd rail electrification? Now I'm not suggesting a wholesale change to OHLE, but rather more a phased change over as the power equipment becomes due for renewal. This would also mean some of the costs could be shared with other operators in some locations so reducing the cost for both parties.

 

[Camden]

What needs to be done and who will pay for what has already long been settled. Why wouldn't a rolling stock producer support 3rd rail? It's in global use.

 

[HSTEd]

Unless London Underground is going to rip up its rails there will always be a major customer and thus provider. (Good luck fitting OLE into the tube).
Also the technology is very crude, unlike pantographs - and most of the supply equipment is just Tram supply equipment but BIGGER!

 

[swt_passenger]

... Furthermore, assuming the follow order is placed, would a the train building who is going to build the stock also wish to support 3rd rail electrification?

The nature of modern AC traction is that there is always a DC link between the single phase transformer, and the traction converter that produces the variable frequency three phase output for the AC motors.

Adding equipment to connect that DC link to the third rail is a fairly trivial matter, effectively DC capability is a by-product of the usual design.

 

[HSTEd]

You can probably build a direct AC-AC matrix converter traction package.

Why you would want to is another question.