Merseyrail Class 777 introduction updates

[baldyman26]

They were spec'd up and deals signed before the current metro mayor landed. I'm not a fan but trying to blame him for something he didn't do is poor.

Well he takes the credit so it is on him.

 

[Northerngirl]

The thing is they aren't 'cheap' they are just poor quality, cheap is things like the first batches of IETs having leds not screens, the 777s have fancy features, they just don't work as advertised

 

[Rhinojerry]

How did they cope with the Grand National attendees ? I guess a lot of race goers arrived by them.

 

[Sam 76]

How did they cope with the Grand National attendees ? I guess a lot of race goers arrived by them.

Even as someone who likes them, they were a complete disaster. Constant faults and reliability nosedived just in time for the event.

That added to signal issues made it a tricky few days on the Northern line

 

[jamesst]

Even as someone who likes them, they were a complete disaster. Constant faults and reliability nosedived just in time for the event.

That added to signal issues made it a tricky few days on the Northern line

Faults aside to be fair the special Aintree/Ormskirk timetable with minimal turnarounds at both terminal ends just can't cope with the large crowds, it was the same with the 507/8s.
The extra circuit (normally 6 circuits to Ormskirk) is badly needed on the Ormskirk line during the 3 days instead of cutting it back to 5 and missing stations.
Hopefully a lot of lessons can be learnt.

 

[Bertie the bus]

No, but he did force them into service when they wernt ready to make himself look good.

They didn't enter service until 3 years after they were delivered. How long should politicians and the public wait for trains they spent about £0.5 billion?

 

[Sam 76]

Faults aside to be fair the special Aintree/Ormskirk timetable with minimal turnarounds at both terminal ends just can't cope with the large crowds, it was the same with the 507/8s.
The extra circuit (normally 6 circuits to Ormskirk) is badly needed on the Ormskirk line during the 3 days instead of cutting it back to 5 and missing stations.
Hopefully a lot of lessons can be learnt.

I would be surprised if an order for 5 more 777s didn’t go in at some point, which would allow for the increases at events as well .

It is clear the same number are needed as the old fleet and I have never understood why it wasn’t done in the first place

 

[Peter Sarf]

I would be surprised if an order for 5 more 777s didn’t go in at some point, which would allow for the increases at events as well .

It is clear the same number are needed as the old fleet and I have never understood why it wasn’t done in the first place

I suspect the fleet size was kept as small as possible to save money. I wonder if any options on extra 777s have lapsed ?.
I suspect the money saved then will be less than the cost of buying more now.
I also suspect that the 777s are still climbing their reliability curve, that and maybe quicker running will lead to fewer 777s required for each route.
By the time more 777s are really needed justified Stadler will not be offering them any more of course.

 

[Liverpool 507]

I recorded 50 out of 53 in service at one stage on Thursday and Friday. Any news on 777004 having a resurrection any time soon?

That to me is too risky with how their current performance is. They definitely need the number of units pushing up to 60 in this fleet.

 

[Sam 76]

I suspect the fleet size was kept as small as possible to save money. I wonder if any options on extra 777s have lapsed ?.
I suspect the money saved then will be less than the cost of buying more now.
I also suspect that the 777s are still climbing their reliability curve, that and maybe quicker running will lead to fewer 777s required for each route.
By the time more 777s are really needed justified Stadler will not be offering them any more of course.

I believe that the option for more is going to be the case for a fair while.

This is due to it being justified based on network extensions which where always going to take years to come through if at all

 

[507 001]

maybe quicker running will lead to fewer 777s required for each route.

I doubt we’ll see that. They are painfully slow at stations.

 

[Sam 76]

I recorded 50 out of 53 in service at one stage on Thursday and Friday. Any news on 777004 having a resurrection any time soon?

That to me is too risky with how their current performance is. They definitely need the number of units pushing up to 60 in this fleet.

As well it’s not really poor availabilty that’s the issue at this point, it’s there simply isnt enough of the things

 

[Liverpool 507]

As well it’s not really poor availabilty that’s the issue at this point, it’s there simply isnt enough of the things

I lost count of how many of them suffered door and camera faults

 

[Sam 76]

I lost count of how many of them suffered door and camera faults

Yes that is 100 percent the case. However these seem to be fixed by locking them out or resetting the train.

50/53 in service indicates excellent current availability given 004 is a long term absentee.

Reliability in service is still not brilliant but at least issues seem to be rectified more often in service now

 

[Prime586]

Rather than any extra units, judging by the icing disaster report in the near term any budget Merseytravel manage to scrape together is going to be spent on fitting non conducting third rail ice scrapers, conversion of the 777/1s to allow them to run as deicing trains, modifications to the cab A/C syatems to stop the windscreens misting up and the software modifications to allow the shunt battery to be used for up to 600m (I wonder what Stadler's software engineers will mange to break in the process of implementing that). There will also be the contract amendment and route proving to allow the 777/1s to run on battery power on lines other than Fazakerley to Headbolt to be paid for.

I did wonder if the 777s were the first top-contact third rail units Stadler had built to see if that was an excuse for being unprepared for operation in icing conditions (the complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the function of 'Frosty Mode' due to it only really being relevant to caternary pickup was interesting). The Berlin U-Bahn 'wide profile' units use bottom-contact third rail with covers fitted over the rail, so icing is much less of an issue. The 'narrow profile' units use top-contact third rail and run on lines that are predominantly underground but do have some surface-running sections. I wonder if the BVG's top contact third rail on the surface sections is heated? The third rail seems to be boxed in with only the top surface open.

 

[hacman]

I suspect the fleet size was kept as small as possible to save money. I wonder if any options on extra 777s have lapsed ?.
I suspect the money saved then will be less than the cost of buying more now.
I also suspect that the 777s are still climbing their reliability curve, that and maybe quicker running will lead to fewer 777s required for each route.
By the time more 777s are really needed justified Stadler will not be offering them any more of course.

Stadler specialises in small-batch/custom orders, so even if the option as part of the existing contract lapses, they will still be able to produce more units.

The main difference will be in terms of price and contract terms - this is what the "option" on orders is usually there to protect.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I believe that the option for more is going to be the case for a fair while.

This is due to it being justified based on network extensions which where always going to take years to come through if at all

That makes sense. And might make sense to exercise an option for a few more sooner than anticipated. I assume they have to be battery 777/1s as I doubt any new electrification is expected using third rail.

I doubt we’ll see that. They are painfully slow at stations.

The doors the doors - I assume, like most modern trains, its improved acceleration wasted on slow door procedure.

Yes that is 100 percent the case. However these seem to be fixed by locking them out or resetting the train.

50/53 in service indicates excellent current availability given 004 is a long term absentee.

Reliability in service is still not brilliant but at least issues seem to be rectified more often in service now

Well 50/53 is almost exactly 94% - I think anything more is optimistic but possibly achievable with a stronger maintenance regime.

Stadler specialises in small-batch/custom orders, so even if the option as part of the existing contract lapses, they will still be able to produce more units.

The main difference will be in terms of price and contract terms - this is what the "option" on orders is usually there to protect.

Yes of course. Stadler do have that selling point (smaller bespoke orders).

Really just leaves the choice of whether to jump at an expiring option - sooner rather than later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The doors the doors - I assume, like most modern trains, its improved acceleration wasted on slow door procedure.

I really don't understand this issue - on most DOO routes door operation and dwell is hugely faster than guarded. Are the Merseyrail drivers *still* only getting used to it?

I know Ormskirk trains are deliberately slowed down from what they were to allow the extra unit in the cycle (as Ormskirk station only has one platform) but this isn't necessary for Headbolt or Southport and the issue occurs everywhere.

 

[bahnause]

The review of winter performance makes interesting reading. Some sensible sounding options from Stadler in there, such as fitting ice scrapers to the middle bogie and even allowing the battery units to run as de-icers with extra kit. Just a shame they didn’t seem to push for them and required the review to pick up on them

https://api.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/Merseyrail-Winter-Weather-Resilience-Review-2024-2025.pdf

A good example of a operator that has not only outsourced maintenance, but also all expertise about the rolling stock, their behaviour and their interaction with the infrastructure. Such constructs are at best suitable for passing on responsibility. Obviously it is not enough that the train driver only has limited decision-making authority, even though he has the best overview of the situation on site, now Stadler as a third player has to be involved. And then you wonder why it takes so long to rectify faults on the line.

Apparently, Stadler has already made suggestions in 2023 as to how the problems that arise in winter could be prevented:

LCRCA specified the design of the 777 units and the order was place with Stadler in 2016. Construction of them began in 2018 and the first unit entered service in January 2023. LCRCA did not specify any form of ‘ice scraping’ or ‘anti-ice deployment’ capability because, as I understand it, keeping the third rail clear was regarded as a responsibility of Network Rail. Stadler later raised the potential for an adaptation in a presentation dated 13th November 2023 as part planning for the winter planning round of 2023/24. Stadler’s presentation said:

Main issue
• 3rd rail shoe freezes under cold temperatures

Proposed measures

2 possible measures are to be applied Merseyrail:

• First measure is to continue driving in shunting mode for 100m until less icy. Stadler has to clarify with ABB the feasibility of this option. This solution would work unless the shoe goes up.
• Second measure is to install an ice scraper in the middle bogie where there is currently no shoe installed, first concept lying under development. ABB to confirm this option until Wednesday

There is no evidence that this ‘second measure’ was followed up.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A good example of a operator that has not only outsourced maintenance, but also all expertise about the rolling stock, their behaviour and their interaction with the infrastructure. Such constructs are at best suitable for passing on responsibility. Obviously it is not enough that the train driver only has limited decision-making authority, even though he has the best overview of the situation on site, now Stadler as a third player has to be involved. And then you wonder why it takes so long to rectify faults on the line.

Apparently, Stadler has already made suggestions in 2023 as to how the problems that arise in winter could be prevented:

Gosh. The second measure looks likely to be so cheap and low tech. Hardly a risk fitting it ?. It will either help a lot or be a bit of help and still cover its costs.

 

[507 001]

on most DOO routes door operation and dwell is hugely faster than guarded.

You say this a lot, but in my experience it’s no faster. This is especially true if the TOC in question insist on ‘pause for doors’, which Merseyrail seem to.

 

[Sam 76]

A good example of a operator that has not only outsourced maintenance, but also all expertise about the rolling stock, their behaviour and their interaction with the infrastructure. Such constructs are at best suitable for passing on responsibility. Obviously it is not enough that the train driver only has limited decision-making authority, even though he has the best overview of the situation on site, now Stadler as a third player has to be involved. And then you wonder why it takes so long to rectify faults on the line.

Apparently, Stadler has already made suggestions in 2023 as to how the problems that arise in winter could be prevented:

People are quick to blame Stadler for things. But if suggestions are made and not implemented what can they do.

Makes you wonder what else is going on

 

[Prime586]

Gosh. The second measure looks likely to be so cheap and low tech. Hardly a risk fitting it ?. It will either help a lot or be a bit of help and still cover its costs.

I doubt that the implementation will be either cheap or or low tech. Rather than just having no contact shoe, the centre bogie has no shoe gear fitted at all, so that will have to be retrofitted. The scraper blade material will have to be sacrificial to avoid damaging the conductor rail, which means some form of active height/contact pressure control will be required to maintain contact with the railhead, plus the ability to be raised when required or not in use.

The shoegear already has these capabilities, but I imagine the the scraper shoe would need to be controlled independently from the other shoes, which would entail traction management system software changes (presumably by their supplier ABB, who based on the report Stadler defer all queries about the design and operation of the traction system to) and train control system software changes. This would all need to be throughly tested as well.

Also this is going to be fitted to the centre Jacobs bogie between the two middle cars, so in icing conditions the shoes on the two bogies on the front half of the train will still be exposed to the iced-up rail.

People are quick to blame Stadler for things. But if suggestions are made and not implemented what can they do.

Stadler can make as many suggestions as they like, but they will be expect to be paid to implement them. Merseytravel have incurred a massive debt to purchase the fleet, and are now (albeit due to their own hubris/lack of experience in specifiying rolling stock and writing contracts) being asked to cough up some more to allow it to function in winter. Commercially, Stadler have every right to do this, but it still gives off the air of taking advantage of an inexperienced customer (did they realise the omission during the specification stage, but never let on due to the potential income from future modification contracts?)

Merseytravel could always have put the damages payout they got from Stadler from the poor performance towards the cost of the modifications, rather than using it for a discount ticket PR stunt.

 

[Pacef8]

That would be an admission of a design failure then . A expensive one and Mr Rotherham and merseytravel are not going to admit that .

 

[Peter Sarf]

I doubt that the implementation will be either cheap or or low tech. Rather than just having no contact shoe, the centre bogie has no shoe gear fitted at all, so that will have to be retrofitted. The scraper blade material will have to be sacrificial to avoid damaging the conductor rail, which means some form of active height/contact pressure control will be required to maintain contact with the railhead, plus the ability to be raised when required or not in use.

The shoegear already has these capabilities, but I imagine the the scraper shoe would need to be controlled independently from the other shoes, which would entail traction management system software changes (presumably by their supplier ABB, who based on the report Stadler defer all queries about the design and operation of the traction system to) and train control system software changes. This would all need to be throughly tested as well.

Also this is going to be fitted to the centre Jacobs bogie between the two middle cars, so in icing conditions the shoes on the two bogies on the front half of the train will still be exposed to the iced-up rail.

Stadler can make as many suggestions as they like, but they will be expect to be paid to implement them. Merseytravel have incurred a massive debt to purchase the fleet, and are now (albeit due to their own hubris/lack of experience in specifiying rolling stock and writing contracts) being asked to cough up some more to allow it to function in winter. Commercially, Stadler have every right to do this, but it still gives off the air of taking advantage of an inexperienced customer (did they realise the omission during the specification stage, but never let on due to the potential income from future modification contracts?)

Merseytravel could always have put the damages payout they got from Stadler from the poor performance towards the cost of the modifications, rather than using it for a discount ticket PR stunt.

I suppose it would not be in the best interest of Stadler for them to point out errors and/or omissions in the specification from Merseyrail. It could lead to a loss of business if a competitor does not point the same out as an additional need so therefore an additional cost.

I suspect most competitive tenders seem to result in the cheapest tender winning regardless of content or quality. So it is a real risk for an inexperienced customer who does not know ALL OF what they really need.

 

[M28361M]

Last year I witnessed a few times where the sliding step failed to slide out all the way. It comes out an inch or so and then stops but the door can still be opened as normal despite the gap.

Not seen it happen for a long while so I thought this had been fixed but twice in the past week it has happened again. It only happened at one door as far as I could see.

This is on the northbound platform at Aigburth where there is quite a gap (the step needs to come out pretty much as far as it can, it seems). This could be quite dangerous if someone steps out without looking and doesn’t notice the gap.

 

[WirralLine]

Last year I witnessed a few times where the sliding step failed to slide out all the way. It comes out an inch or so and then stops but the door can still be opened as normal despite the gap.

Not seen it happen for a long while so I thought this had been fixed but twice in the past week it has happened again. It only happened at one door as far as I could see.

This is on the northbound platform at Aigburth where there is quite a gap (the step needs to come out pretty much as far as it can, it seems). This could be quite dangerous if someone steps out without looking and doesn’t notice the gap.

This happened to me at Hamilton Square, still fairly common

 

[Peter Sarf]

Last year I witnessed a few times where the sliding step failed to slide out all the way. It comes out an inch or so and then stops but the door can still be opened as normal despite the gap.

Not seen it happen for a long while so I thought this had been fixed but twice in the past week it has happened again. It only happened at one door as far as I could see.

This is on the northbound platform at Aigburth where there is quite a gap (the step needs to come out pretty much as far as it can, it seems). This could be quite dangerous if someone steps out without looking and doesn’t notice the gap.

Eventually that becomes quite a serious problem if passengers get used to the gap being filled by the step. A case of convenience luring some into a false sense of security. Possibly more risk than the gap itself used to be before 777s.

 

[jammmmmsssssss]

Eventually that becomes quite a serious problem if passengers get used to the gap being filled by the step. A case of convenience luring some into a false sense of security. Possibly more risk than the gap itself used to be before 777s.

I think on the 755s the door doesn't open if the step doesn't come out. I've never seen the door open with the step not out

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think on the 755s the door doesn't open if the step doesn't come out. I've never seen the door open with the step not out

Would make sense but this is what I was replying to (my bold) :-

Last year I witnessed a few times where the sliding step failed to slide out all the way. It comes out an inch or so and then stops but the door can still be opened as normal despite the gap.

Not seen it happen for a long while so I thought this had been fixed but twice in the past week it has happened again. It only happened at one door as far as I could see.

This is on the northbound platform at Aigburth where there is quite a gap (the step needs to come out pretty much as far as it can, it seems). This could be quite dangerous if someone steps out without looking and doesn’t notice the gap.

Anyone else know how common it is for the door to open where the step does not come uot all-the-way/part-way ?.