Merseyrail Class 777 introduction updates

[jamesst]

The section between the bridges was barely long enough for a 5 car 502 when the line was first reopened in 1978. Will the 777s definitely use SDO there when running in 8 car formations?
[/QUOTE]

Cressington will only be classed as a 4 car platform once the 507/8s are gone so yes SDO will have be used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cressington will only be classed as a 4 car platform once the 507/8s are gone so yes SDO will have be used.

Interesting, so you'll need to be in the right portion. Wasn't the whole point of the door positions that the passenger doors would all fit on a platform that would take a 6-car 50x formation, albeit requiring moving some signals to allow stopping with the front cab off?

 

[jamesst]

Interesting, so you'll need to be in the right portion. Wasn't the whole point of the door positions that the passenger doors would all fit on a platform that would take a 6-car 50x formation, albeit requiring moving some signals to allow stopping with the front cab off?

To be fair Cressington is a bit of a special case, you would literally be looking at thousands if not millions of pounds to widen the platforms there.
Green Lane on a lesser scale has the same problem.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Not too much of a problem to move through a 777 to alight at an SDO stop, as they have open vestibules.

 

[supervc-10]

Not so easy to move between units though- if it's 8 car running and only 4 can fit at Cressington, then there will need to be announcements etc to inform people to be in the correct portion of the train.

 

[ADHDTog]

Not so easy to move between units though- if it's 8 car running and only 4 can fit at Cressington, then there will need to be announcements etc to inform people to be in the correct portion of the train.

It works on other TOCs lines like Northern. Shouldn't be a problem if the guard informs people prior to the stop.

 

[LeonO]

It works on other TOCs lines like Northern. Shouldn't be a problem if the guard informs people prior to the stop.

Guard??

 

[ADHDTog]

Managed to get dusky photos of 777001...

Guard??

We can hope!

 

[urbophile]

It works on other TOCs lines like Northern. Shouldn't be a problem if the guard informs people prior to the stop.

It will be if they are in the rear four cars because the only way they will be able to get to an open door will be by alighting at the previous station and walking down the platform. It will need really prominent information at all stations on the route before they board. Did they really think this one through? It won't be a problem for most passengers alighting at the narrow and unraised section of the platform, and until lifts are installed those using wheelchairs can't use the station anyway, but it would be difficult for those with baby buggies or with other mobility problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can they genuinely only fit 4, or could they manage 5 to avoid that issue?

 

[Skie]

Could adjust the 8 car stopping position (and Hunts Cross bound signal...£££) to allow 3 + 1 or 2 + 2 to stop on the usable bit of the platform.

But automated announcements telling passengers what part of the train they need to be in for certain stations have been in use for years down south. The PIS will support it both at platforms and on the trains as it's a standard feature.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could adjust the 8 car stopping position (and Hunts Cross bound signal...£££) to allow 3 + 1 or 2 + 2 to stop on the usable bit of the platform.

But automated announcements telling passengers what part of the train they need to be in for certain stations have been in use for years down south. The PIS will support it both at platforms and on the trains as it's a standard feature.

Most trains that do that are gangwayed. Indeed I can think of none that aren't where a whole unit would be off.

 

[XAM2175]

Managed to get dusky photos of 777001...

Lovely shots!

 

[Grumpy Git]

Most trains that do that are gangwayed. Indeed I can think of none that aren't where a whole unit would be off.

I agree, it does seem a massive oversight, (unless they don't plan any 8 car formations)?

I watched them doing the platform work from the overbridge and couldn't fathom why they'd done a "HS2"?

 

[Phillipimo]

I agree, it does seem a massive oversight, (unless they don't plan any 8 car formations)?

I watched them doing the platform work from the overbridge and couldn't fathom why they'd done a "HS2"?

A crude measurement on Google maps suggests the distance in between the bridges is 75m. A class 777 is 65m long, I would guess that means the front door of the second set could open, so front 5 cars only. I could be wrong just guessing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree, it does seem a massive oversight, (unless they don't plan any 8 car formations)?

I watched them doing the platform work from the overbridge and couldn't fathom why they'd done a "HS2"?

There will certainly be fewer 8 car formations than there are 6 car now, due to the higher capacity of a 777 over a 50x. However the Southport line will definitely need them, so unless you switch Hunts Cross to be connected to Ormskirk or Kirkby instead then the problem will remain.

I suppose to be fair if you were in the wrong bit going to Aigburth/South Parkway and back isn't going to cost a lot of time, but given how PF and prosecution-happy they are...

Edit: having said that, given that users of point to point tickets are in the minority maybe it is less of an issue...

 

[Skie]

unless you switch Hunts Cross to be connected to Ormskirk or Kirkby instead then the problem will remain.

I suspect that’s a possibility, though the 507s are slated to stick around for 6 car cover on the Southports until other length issues are resolved so I guess this isnt going to be an issue for a while.

They could of course remove the bridge, it’s not like there isn’t one immediately parallel to it. Add lifts where the bridge was and you’ve at least made some people happy!

 

[ADHDTog]

Lovely shots!

Thank you! I've got a Instagram account under the same name if you want to see some more!

 

[Grumpy Git]

They could of course remove the bridge, it’s not like there isn’t one immediately parallel to it. Add lifts where the bridge was and you’ve at least made some people happy!

Wash your mouth out, I live on that road!

 

[Wezz]

When was this? I knew 777001 was going to be the next one out but I haven’t seen it yet. It won’t be my first sighting of an odd numbered unit because 777003 was the first to be tested at night in May 2020.

777003 actually started night testing on March 16th 2020 on the Kirkby line, I was at Rice Lane when the sliding step met the platform for the very first time.

 

[507020]

I agree, it does seem a massive oversight, (unless they don't plan any 8 car formations)?

I watched them doing the platform work from the overbridge and couldn't fathom why they'd done a "HS2"?

It will have saved them about £4.50 off the total project cost so definitely worth it.

There will certainly be fewer 8 car formations than there are 6 car now, due to the higher capacity of a 777 over a 50x. However the Southport line will definitely need them, so unless you switch Hunts Cross to be connected to Ormskirk or Kirkby instead then the problem will remain.

I suppose to be fair if you were in the wrong bit going to Aigburth/South Parkway and back isn't going to cost a lot of time, but given how PF and prosecution-happy they are...

Edit: having said that, given that users of point to point tickets are in the minority maybe it is less of an issue...

It would be solved by running a 4 car Hunts Cross - Southport and an additional 4 car Liverpool Central - Hall Road on a 7.5 minute frequency to provide the capacity. Judging by how the trains almost completely empty out at Central, very few people if any stay on the train from Southport to Hunts Cross and people probably equally would from Ormskirk or Kirkby.

I suspect that’s a possibility, though the 507s are slated to stick around for 6 car cover on the Southports until other length issues are resolved so I guess this isnt going to be an issue for a while.

They could of course remove the bridge, it’s not like there isn’t one immediately parallel to it. Add lifts where the bridge was and you’ve at least made some people happy!

Looking on Google Maps it appears to be completely redundant having 2 bridges so close together when the road layout easily allows you to drive round onto the other bridge, so replacing one of them with lifts wouldn’t cause a problem at all! Put a pedestrian/cycle bridge all the way across to access the lifts so non-motor vehicles can still get across and it’s sorted.

Thank you! I've got a Instagram account under the same name if you want to see some more!

I followed you the other day!

777003 actually started night testing on March 16th 2020 on the Kirkby line, I was at Rice Lane when the sliding step met the platform for the very first time.

I remember that. It ran just 1 stop from Kirkdale to Rice Lane and back to test the sliding steps before the start of the lockdown and full length runs to Southport didn’t commence until the evening of 31 May 2020.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Looking on Google Maps it appears to be completely redundant having 2 bridges so close together when the road layout easily allows you to drive round onto the other bridge, so replacing one of them with lifts wouldn’t cause a problem at all! Put a pedestrian/cycle bridge all the way across to access the lifts so non-motor vehicles can still get across and it’s sorted.

It's a conservation area, the bridges are going nowhere. They (the conservation comittee), even made Merseyrail remove the free-standing station sign when it was erected

 

[92002]

There will certainly be fewer 8 car formations than there are 6 car now, due to the higher capacity of a 777 over a 50x. However the Southport line will definitely need them, so unless you switch Hunts Cross to be connected to Ormskirk or Kirkby instead then the problem will remain.

I suppose to be fair if you were in the wrong bit going to Aigburth/South Parkway and back isn't going to cost a lot of time, but given how PF and prosecution-happy they are...

Edit: having said that, given that users of point to point tickets are in the minority maybe it is less of an issue...

There's a photo on Railway Herald of the 777 visit to Soutport on public launch day. This clearly shows the solution with level access. Southport platform has not been modifed yet. There was extensive demonstration on the day of level access for wheelchairs and prams.

 

[ExRes]

A schedule is currently in place for 1817 5Q25 Crewe CS to Kirkdale CS tomorrow

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will have saved them about £4.50 off the total project cost so definitely worth it.

I suspect it isn't actually to save money, but rather that the higher platform causes a safety issue with the narrow/low bridge.

 

[razor89]

I suspect it isn't actually to save money, but rather that the higher platform causes a safety issue with the narrow/low bridge.

Don't think it's just that either. If they do any significant work to the platforms, don't they have to meet modern standards? This would include a minimum width, and also the platforms would have to slope away from the track. As the narrow sections currently have no drainage fitted that would also have to be installed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't think it's just that either. If they do any significant work to the platforms, don't they have to meet modern standards? This would include a minimum width, and also the platforms would have to slope away from the track. As the narrow sections currently have no drainage fitted that would also have to be installed.

I doubt it, as there are certainly platforms around the network which have had work done but cannot possibly comply because e.g. they are too curved or sloped.

Someone will just have done a risk assessment and concluded that the narrow/low bit is too much of a risk for the number of passengers using it. Didn't the same happen at Loughborough?

 

[jamesst]

Green Lane and Cressington basically came under grandfather rights with the class 507/508 stock ie train doors could be released on the very narrow platform sections.
With the 777s this right is lost.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

A couple of updates from the LCA Transport Committee on 11/11 doesn't give an clues on introduction but some background

The timetable is not back to pre Covid levels, whilst a sense of normality on our busiest two lines of route (Southport and Chester) has been employed, it has not been possible to reintroduce a 15 min service on other lines, because a reliable and robust service cannot be guaranteed. Such is the volatility of sickness and absence and the numbers so tight that if a 15min service was insisted on across the network, unplanned cancellations would occur leading to capacity issues on shouldering services. However, Merseyrail have tried to mitigate the concern over frequency by employing longer trains more often, this means the actual capacity of spaces on service delivered is more than pre Covid. This activity on an aging fleet is not sustainable in the long term. More miles per train means more maintenance and the 507/8 are nearing end of life, it is not economically sensible to conduct further heavy maintenance when a unit is to be retired and replaced with 777 – but if the 777 introduction is significantly delayed further, heavy maintenance will have to occur, if not a reduction in capacity / frequency is inevitable.

and latest status on rolling stock production

Merseytravel have accepted the first three units and Stadler have secured authorisation from the ORR to put the new rolling stock into service. Rolling stock manufacturing has continued with forty four of the new fleet having been completed. Of the remaining nine, seven are to be converted to become the IPEMUs (battery powered) which will serve the Headbolt Lane to Liverpool Central service. The design of the IPEMU is on track to be completed by the end of 2021 with delivery to the U.K. and acceptance taking place between October 2022 and May 2023. This will be the first application in the U.K. of this pioneering technology which enables operation beyond the 3rd rail infrastructure and delivers significant energy savings. This technology paves the way for significant expansion of the Merseyrail network.

oh and this from financial report

Cost of IPEMU is £14m which may have some of the cost offset by savings of not installing the additional electrification between Kirkby and Headbolt Lane. Profile of this spend will be different than installation of third rail, with a partial payment being made up front to secure the order of batteries.

£2m extra a unit ain't cheap but probably has design, engineering and approval costs in it so a production run maybe less.

 

[Pacef8]

I’m sure the echo can spin that into negativity by tomorrow.