Merseyrail Class 777 introduction updates

[LNW-GW Joint]

:roll: The UIC classification system is most certainly not EU-exclusive.

And Network Rail is a UIC member.
But "Europe" is where everything bad is supposed to emanate...

 

[jopsuk]

And from March 2019 (post Brexit) we will be able to ignore European regulations for any stock that remains exclusively within UK.

This is a map of member countries of the UIC. It contains a couple more countries than the EU :roll:

 

[43096]

Only to make the transition easier. Then there would be a longer process of repealing the stuff that doesn't make sense, before which things like this would just not be enforced.

Because train vehicle numbers are going to be near the top of the list for repealing, aren't they?

 

[D365]

Because train vehicle numbers are going to be near the top of the list for repealing, aren't they?

But we've just established that they are not going to be "repealed"...

 

[Prestige15]

Class 111, 222, 333, 444.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But we've just established that they are not going to be "repealed"...

Who's going to enforce something like that?

 

[D365]

Who's going to enforce something like that?

See below:

And Network Rail is a UIC member.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That they are a member doesn't mean the UIC is going to waste time enforcing it. And such enforcement could only be contractual anyway, as the UIC is not a statutory law-making body.

 

[D365]

Are you really suggesting that Network Rail goes around breaking their own contracts?

 

[DenmarkRail]

And from March 2019 (post Brexit) we will be able to ignore European regulations for any stock that remains exclusively within UK.

Here we go...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Most of the regulations are either British anyway (eg for our gauge), or are international (eg diesel emissions).
Anyway the manufacturers are all EU-owned and will conform to EU regulations wherever possible.
It won't make the slightest difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most of the regulations are either British anyway (eg for our gauge), or are international (eg diesel emissions).
Anyway the manufacturers are all EU-owned and will conform to EU regulations wherever possible.

You what?

Bombardier is Canadian.

Stadler is Swiss. Switzerland is not in the EU.

Hitachi is Japanese.

So basically that leaves Alstom and Siemens, doesn't it? And Alstom's products don't seem massively in favour at the minute, possibly because they don't want to bid for the UK market, and possibly because of the amount of trouble they have generally been (Pendolino aside). So in practice it leaves Siemens as the only large scale UK supplier which is from the EU.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You what?

Bombardier is Canadian.

Stadler is Swiss. Switzerland is not in the EU.

Hitachi is Japanese.

So basically that leaves Alstom and Siemens, doesn't it? And Alstom's products don't seem massively in favour at the minute, possibly because they don't want to bid for the UK market, and possibly because of the amount of trouble they have generally been (Pendolino aside). So in practice it leaves Siemens as the only large scale UK supplier which is from the EU.

Bombardier Transportation is German. The parent company is Canadian.
CAF is Spanish and are likely to continue to make inroads in the UK. Both of those have or will have UK Assembly plants though.

Stadler may be Swiss, but the EU is their biggest market so their products will be geared towards those standards: any variations will most likely be derived from an EU-compliant base.

If the UK deviates from those standards, supply from within the EU will be troublesome to say the least. Any variations will most likely be down to our restricted loading gauge: something we currently have limited derivations for anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you really suggesting that Network Rail goes around breaking their own contracts?

I'm suggesting that for UK domestic stock that will never leave the UK it is so de minimis that nobody will give a monkey's.

 

[AM9]

Oh dear, the Not Invented Here police are sharpening their pencils.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Let's be honest, Europe has always done trains better than us... We screwed them up in the 90s...

Changing a few numbers, or leaving the EU won't un screw up our railway, that we have literally only 3 UK based operators?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let's be honest, Europe has always done trains better than us...

Debatable. We certainly do regional trains better than the French.

 

[tetudo boy]

I've seen the design and I think I could tweak it a bit. maybe adding 3 doors onto it would help?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've seen the design and I think I could tweak it a bit. maybe adding 3 doors onto it would help?

They're short vehicles, they already have more doors per unit length than the 50x other than on the end vehicles. On the 50x the number of doors is not an issue.

The single door on the end vehicle is deliberate. It's because they are slightly more than 60m long, so in a 6-car double set the back coach can hang off the platform without needing SDO.

 

[Jonfun]

I don't have a great deal of time for the European Vehicle Number system to be quite honest. I get that vehicles need one to run in Europe. And that's fine, if Europe want to do that, go ahead. But the vast majority of UK rolling stock won't run in Europe. The bureaucracy of administering it all, the faff of trying to read the actual vehicle number when twice as many digits are on the side. It's like BT taking my phone number, 0123-456-7890 and telling me EU law now mandates you to dial 0044-79-65-0123-456-7890-4 every time someone needs to reach me.

The only winners are the people paid to write the legislation and the people who make the numeric transfers that go on the side of carriages.

 

[507021]

The single door on the end vehicle is deliberate. It's because they are slightly more than 60m long, so in a 6-car double set the back coach can hang off the platform without needing SDO.

Eight car double set, the new units are four car.

 

[James James]

Stadler may be Swiss, but the EU is their biggest market so their products will be geared towards those standards: any variations will most likely be derived from an EU-compliant base.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The home market is very significant for Stadler, and they have plenty of exports to the UK, Norway, some to Russia and Belarus, and a bunch of others outside the EU.

Their trains very much weren't EU compliant for a while, or at the very least: France caused quite some trouble by changing standards after some Flirts were built for use there (albeit operated by SBB). They happen to be flexible enough to adjust designs for the EU market, but they tend to design Switzerland first.

Anyhow, the Swiss seem to be sensible enough to apply internationally accepted numbering nowadays, regardless of their thoughts on the EU topic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Eight car double set, the new units are four car.

Sorry, force of habit

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Depending upon what sort of trade deal is established with the EU for implementation post-Brexit, it is possible that EU procurement rules for utilities will continue to apply; these lay down (in clause 60) how technical specifications are to be written.

In 60 (10) (b)) a hierarchy of technical specifications/standards is shown; for those having difficulty sleeping, the procurement regulations used by passenger train operating companies here in the UK can be found at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/274/pdfs/uksi_20160274_en.pdf

For those not having such trouble, the hierarchy starts with national standards adopting/implementing European ones (ie, those which start in the UK with BS/EN/ ), then goes on to European Technical Assessments, ISOs are fourth in the list, and so on; however, clause 60 (10) (a) implies it isn't necessary to quote any standards - provided that the description of the goods required is precise enough to enable someone to quote for it. But if you read this clause 60 in its entirety, it is clear that relevant EU law must be adhered to.

Procurement rules won't impact in any way upon vehicle numbering systems, but will affect how the trains are specified; so for the class 777 trains for Merseyrail, these procurement rules would have applied, and the specification against which Stadler (and others) bid would have followed the standards/specifications hierarchy described above.

Not really sure if it helps in any way to this discussion!

 

[plannerman]

Class numbering has always been beyond me, and my main era of interest was back in thr BR days when things seemed a bit simpler. Using Merseyrail as an example, I never understood why the 507's and 508's were designated as separate classes, rather than just subclasses - when locos such as the 47's had loads of subclasses, some with pretty substantial differences between them.

 

[WatcherZero]

Because the 508 were built as 4 car for Southern then shortened to 3 car for Merseyrail?
The sub versions of 47's mainly dealt with whether they had heating fitted or not and later a re-engine.

 

[plannerman]

Sure, but my point is that in the way some classes have been handled, then surely just the act of making one type 4-car would only justify a subclass, not a whole different class? I contrast it with the 37/9's which were regulars through my home station when I was a kid - class 37's but completely re-engineered, and yet not deemed to be 'sufficiently different' to be a new class.
Maybe I'm just looking for logic where, particularly in 1970/80's BR, there just wasn't any.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sure, but my point is that in the way some classes have been handled, then surely just the act of making one type 4-car would only justify a subclass, not a whole different class? I contrast it with the 37/9's which were regulars through my home station when I was a kid - class 37's but completely re-engineered, and yet not deemed to be 'sufficiently different' to be a new class.
Maybe I'm just looking for logic where, particularly in 1970/80's BR, there just wasn't any.

Probably that. I would agree a subclass would have been fine - there are a few differences (such as the 508s being built with passenger operated doors and the 507s not) but they aren't *that* much different.

 

[AlistairCowell]

Probably that. I would agree a subclass would have been fine - there are a few differences (such as the 508 unitsbeing built with passenger operated doors and the 507s not) but they aren't *that* much different.

As far as I'm aware, the Class 508 units has two older style compressors, while the Class 507s has the more modern compressor. Also, the lights on the Class 508 go out when crossing the third-rail gap, whereas Class 507 do not.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sure, but my point is that in the way some classes have been handled, then surely just the act of making one type 4-car would only justify a subclass, not a whole different class? I contrast it with the 37/9's which were regulars through my home station when I was a kid - class 37's but completely re-engineered, and yet not deemed to be 'sufficiently different' to be a new class.
Maybe I'm just looking for logic where, particularly in 1970/80's BR, there just wasn't any.

Whether or not a multiple unit formation is given its own class or subclass is basically at the whim of the applicant. Best example I can give is SWT changing some units from 158 to 159 for their own administrative purposes. It is only the individual vehicle number that is normally sacrosanct.