Tyne & Wear Metro Fleet Replacement: Awarded to Stadler

[Clip]

The platforms can all take 60m trains IIRC, so I guess the choice is whether you have 2x30m trains (roughly as now) or 1x60m train. It's been donkeys years since the Metro ran a single unit in service, and you get more capacity on one longer unit than two shorter ones, so the obvious choice is 40-45 60m trains.

Exactly - for such a network having one longer unit is a far better use of capacity than having smaller ones to join up at peak times - just look at the DLR going down the same path

 

[edwin_m]

It also saves cost and weight due to having only two cabs and one pantograph.

 

[ModernRailways]

To be perfectly honest, this is a very disappointing announcement in my eyes, as we've basically been given less funding than was asked for, based on a less-for-like order, which unless some innovation or ambition is injected by the manufacturer, seems likely to be a direct replacement with a slightly updated design, and some "shineys" like WiFi and AC thrown in to try and appease passengers.

I've been looking into this quite a bit and it would appear Nexus have in fact got enough funding for everything they wanted.

The Merseyrail example you mention is going to cost them £460 million, in return they will be receiving 52 trains at 65m in length, with dual voltage capabilities amongst other things.

If we work on each trainset costing £8.5 million, and we order 40 trainsets that would be a total of £340 million, a new depot would probably cost around £30 million. So a £370 million total. It's only £8 million more than what they have to spend.

I have a feeling that part of the contract for building the trains will include a new depot to be built. So whoever wins will also find themselves building a depot, possibly with Nexus paying them yearly for upkeep and possibly for them (the train builder) to have their own staff at the depot. Much like Siemens has been doing.

 

[hacman]

I've been looking into this quite a bit and it would appear Nexus have in fact got enough funding for everything they wanted.

The Merseyrail example you mention is going to cost them £460 million, in return they will be receiving 52 trains at 65m in length, with dual voltage capabilities amongst other things.

If we work on each trainset costing £8.5 million, and we order 40 trainsets that would be a total of £340 million, a new depot would probably cost around £30 million. So a £370 million total. It's only £8 million more than what they have to spend.

I have a feeling that part of the contract for building the trains will include a new depot to be built. So whoever wins will also find themselves building a depot, possibly with Nexus paying them yearly for upkeep and possibly for them (the train builder) to have their own staff at the depot. Much like Siemens has been doing.

40 trains is even less than Nexus wanted - the plan was for 84/42, depending on the 4/2 car per unit configuration. Either way, that's less than we have now. Yes, we do have a few that are more-or-less retired, but Nexus has only been able to maintain the timetable without regular cancellations by reducing the service a little.

Admittedly, the newer trains will have less faults-per-km than the existing fleet, but that's purely due to age, and when this new fleet reaches the same point, we'll be in a similar place; not accounting for expansion/increase in service/other factors.

The original intention was that the signaling system would be replaced along with the rolling stock at this part of the modernisation scheme, yet we've seen no mention of this.

My issue is that we've been given less than was asked for in monetary terms (from my memory of the numbers), based on a request for less than we have now, and it seems the design spec is not actually looking to take advantage of what is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to not only shape the service Metro provides, but what Metro actually is (and how it will compete in the market).

Capacity is mostly fine on evenings and in the middle of the day, but rush-hour and event periods are becoming noticeably worse. Capacity can be added by either or a combination of less seats, longer trains, more trains or faster speeds. Some of these options are mutually exclusive without other changes, for example you can't have faster speeds AND more trains; unless you have an advanced dynamic-block signalling system.

Sadly, it seems that rather than exploring any of these other options, Nexus and the NECA are happy to simply remove seats. As everyone will know, this has been a contentious issue, most notably from the Sunderland side of the region.

On the matter of the depot, I'd be surprised to see Gosforth remaining the primary fleet depot. The new trains will have requirements that simply can't be met cost effectively in the existing location. Any new manufacturer will be likely to insist on a new or heavily refitted facility, as appropriate servicing facilities are a core part of their ability to meet availability obligations. One such example could be the requirement for equipment capable of lifting two or more entire 4 car trains for work; if that design is chosen and the manufacturer doesn't propose and get agreement from Nexus on a non-articulated design.

Refitting Gosforth would be very expensive, and operationally complicated due to the requirement to service the existing fleet during any conversion.

My prediction would be the insistence of a new depot, with funding either being found from operational expenditure under a lease agreement, or from financing based on the realisation of Gosforth's land-value when the new depot comes online and the old asset can be disposed of. Hopefully if this option is taken though, we'll still see a line through the existing depot site plus some stabling roads maintained, as the location is operationally beneficial.

 

[MarkyT]

Double blocking however a Metro can be signalled into the block directly behind a heavy rail service where the Metro Indusi speed magnets are located, such as Sunderland. All signals are fitted with TPWS on the shared section as well, and special arrangements are needed if a train that has AWS/TPWS inoperative has to travel over the line.

Still think £337 million isn't anywhere near enough for the new fleet, depot improvements and creating these new outstabling depots. Time will tell

The signalling can't discriminate between the type of train, and most of the plain line intermediate signals are plated as 'auto' which while not having any special meaning in rules today implies they work automatically. So it is likely that overlaps are fully braked at line speed as they are on other metros such as LU, and with the fairly short signal spacing that could be an entire additional section ahead of the destination signal proved clear, so effective double blocking for all trains. This is not a problem for the Metro trains in normal operations, while achieving the greater spacing desired for any following non stop DMUs or freights which would be prone to catching up the preceding all stations metro service on the shared section. There are special measures as you describe for closing up at Sunderland, but speed is very low there for all traffic so risk is controlled.

 

[hacman]

I see that Stadler have put a specification sheet for the new Merseyrail stock on their website:
https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e9...ad9-bd8e-4a2b-82b2-8cfc8cd50f0a/mmer1216e.pdf
https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e9...ad9-bd8e-4a2b-82b2-8cfc8cd50f0a/mmer1216e.pdf
https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e9...ad9-bd8e-4a2b-82b2-8cfc8cd50f0a/mmer1216e.pdf
The units actually look like they'd be a pretty good match for Metro, with a few minor changes. Key points from my quick read are:

• Size seems to match closely enough - height is a ~20cm more, but this could be reduced by removing rooftop equipment, and while the length is 64 instead of 60m, I'd say from observation most if not all platforms on Metro could already accommodate this.
• Voltage adjustment required, but this would be trivial. Ability to add 25KV support is already taken into account.
  
• Fulfills the limp-home IP-EMU requirement in the Nexus spec out of the box.
  
• Add support for Metro's Indusi signaling system (or better yet, a CBTC replacement), but leave the AWS for use on the Sunderland line. ERTMS retrofit is provided for.
  
• Change the two middle cars to have sideways seating on the walls - that way the end cars are best suited to longer-distance passengers, with the centre cars suited for capacity on short runs. Everyone is happy this way.
  
• Change the area between the outermost sets of doors and the drivers cab to be a mix of sideways folding seats and wheelchair/luggage area
• Folding step, which can be disabled while Metro slowly adjust platforms, or removed from spec.
  
• HVAC, PIS and CCTV.
  
• End doors with steps/bridge for evacuation.
  
• FASTER! 120KM/H top speed. This would allow the end-to-end journey times on the network to be reduced - there are quite few places where this could be taken advantage of.

Jon

 

[edwin_m]

height is a ~20cm more, but this could be reduced by removing rooftop equipment

That may be more easily said than done. Stadler would not have put the equipment on the roof unless they considered that was the best way to meet the specification based on the existing designs they had available to them. Taking 20cm off that would probably involve re-designing the equipment to go under the floor instead, assuming there is space between the bogies and in the limited floor height. That in turn would trigger structural changes to support the weight in different places.

In fact according to Wikipedia the Metrocar height is 3445mm compared with 3828mm on the Stadler link, so the difference is more like 40cm. But it could be only 20cm if the quoted Metrocar height is over the stowed pantograph, as the Stadler has equipment elsewhere on the roof within the height envelope of the pantograph and the Metrocar doesn't.

 

[DanNCL]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know what's happening with 4022? Has it been permanently withdrawn or will it eventually return to use? The last I heard was back in the summer when it had gone to Bristol? for repair.

 

[ModernRailways]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know what's happening with 4022? Has it been permanently withdrawn or will it eventually return to use? The last I heard was back in the summer when it had gone to Bristol? for repair.

It is still in Bristol. It's unlikely to ever return to service. The damage is incredibly severe, so it will probably be scrapped and parts salvaged as the cost of repair will likely be too high.

 

[Bungle965]

AdTranz is a Bombardier company now, and they probably are in a good place to bid assuming capacity at the appropriate works.

I'd expect likely bidders to be:

• Siemens
• Bombardier
  
• Hitachi (via their Italian arm, previously Ansaldo)
• CAF
• Stadler
• Vossloh
• Perhaps a few smaller tram producers, such as Kinki Sharyo, Hyundai Rotem, etc, probably depending on what the economic outcomes from Brexit look like

The replacement MerseyRail units do have a number of similarities in requirements to ours; dual voltage, increase in capacity without major platform extensions, etc. Sadly they're, along with anything of similar quality, likely to be out of our price range, given the low ambitions of Nexus when setting the spec they bid for funding against.

To be perfectly honest, this is a very disappointing announcement in my eyes, as we've basically been given less funding than was asked for, based on a less-for-like order, which unless some innovation or ambition is injected by the manufacturer, seems likely to be a direct replacement with a slightly updated design, and some "shineys" like WiFi and AC thrown in to try and appease passengers.

Could we expect another Siemens - Stadler consortium I wonder?
They have won the Berlin S-Bahn and are bidding together on the DLR contract, so it does seem quite plausible.
Sam

 

[MetroCar4058]

It is still in Bristol. It's unlikely to ever return to service. The damage is incredibly severe, so it will probably be scrapped and parts salvaged as the cost of repair will likely be too high.

Incredibly handy to have less stock when we're scraping the barrel. Perhaps DB should fork out for the refurbishment of 4083/4040 to make up for the loss of a vehicle that is compliant with new legislation & is compatible with the wider fleet.

 

[ModernRailways]

Incredibly handy to have less stock when we're scraping the barrel. Perhaps DB should fork out for the refurbishment of 4083/4040 to make up for the loss of a vehicle that is compliant with new legislation & is compatible with the wider fleet.

Why should DB pay anything? They didn't deliberately sabotage it. Also, why would they need to be refurbished? They are still mechanically identical to the rest of the fleet.

 

[Chester1]

The Merseyrail fleet of 59 units will be replaced by 51 units but the service level will remain the same because the faster acceleration of the new units cuts journey times meaning less are required. Perhaps Nexus and the DfT will set the tender specification to do the same?

 

[MetroCar4058]

Why should DB pay anything? They didn't deliberately sabotage it. Also, why would they need to be refurbished? They are still mechanically identical to the rest of the fleet.

As far as I'm aware they require a total rewiring to to be coupled with the rest of the fleet in passenger service, they are also not compatible with legislation nor corporate identity for use in full service. DB are liable as part of the concession, they broke it, they fix it. Nobody has suggested they deliberately derailed the unit, that would be a totally different legal issue.

 

[DanNCL]

It is still in Bristol. It's unlikely to ever return to service. The damage is incredibly severe, so it will probably be scrapped and parts salvaged as the cost of repair will likely be too high.

So it would appear that 4022 is the first permanent withdrawal then? Not looking good if any other sets have to be withdrawn for any reason

Incredibly handy to have less stock when we're scraping the barrel. Perhaps DB should fork out for the refurbishment of 4083/4040 to make up for the loss of a vehicle that is compliant with new legislation & is compatible with the wider fleet.

As nice as it would be to see that happen, I can't see Nexus making the effort to make that happen

The Merseyrail fleet of 59 units will be replaced by 51 units but the service level will remain the same because the faster acceleration of the new units cuts journey times meaning less are required. Perhaps Nexus and the DfT will set the tender specification to do the same?

I think there probably would be some journey time reductions with the new metro fleet, though compared to the 507s/508s the metrocars accelerate quite quickly, so the journey time reductions wouldn't be quite as much as with Merseyrail

 

[ModernRailways]

As far as I'm aware they require a total rewiring to to be coupled with the rest of the fleet in passenger service, they are also not compatible with legislation nor corporate identity for use in full service. DB are liable as part of the concession, they broke it, they fix it. Nobody has suggested they deliberately derailed the unit, that would be a totally different legal issue.

They are compatible with legislation, they can also be granted exemption for after 2019 (iirc that's the date they need to be made accessible by). I imagine Nexus would apply for an exemption on the basis of new stock coming soon after so it would be very short term. The corporate identity matters not if we're that short on available units, the only thing that would stop a working train going into service would be graffiti (and planned maintenance/exams).

DB have footed the cost, hence why it was sent to Bristol in the first place and not somewhere closer like Wabtec. If you want to know the finer details a FOI to Nexus will likely find out what's going on.

So it would appear that 4022 is the first permanent withdrawal then? Not looking good if any other sets have to be withdrawn for any reason


As nice as it would be to see that happen, I can't see Nexus making the effort to make that happen

 

[route101]

I think the Metro is great network though operationally its not too interesting as trains stop at all stations , all stock the same etc . However running on NR metal is . Merseyrail is similar

 

[NewcastleOne]

What happened to 4022?

 

[DanNCL]

What happened to 4022?

4022 derailed in the depot earlier in the year. It was sent to a depot in Bristol for repair back in the summer, however it's currently looking like it might be a write off due to how severe the damage is

 

[ModernRailways]

What happened to 4022?

Derailed in the depot. There was a SPAD, driver tried to reverse to correct the spad but went over catch points, 4022 jackknifed, slammed into itself and did severe damage. There was 2 other cars involved that were mostly undamaged.

 

[DanNCL]

Are there any photos of the accident damage of 4022?

 

[ModernRailways]

Are there any photos of the accident damage of 4022?

Not that I'm aware of, mainly due to it's location. Nexus I imagine would have some however for any investigations that took place.

 

[DanNCL]

Wasn't sure if someone might have taken any when it was moved to Bristol, after all some people must have seen it be moved!

 

[Tetchytyke]

4001/4002/4040/4083 can all work with each other, and do, so there's no need to refurbish them. 4001 is in pretty good nick inside too. IIRC the only accessibility issue with them is the door buttons. I'm sure Nexus will get an exemption if needed. It's a minor issue.

Fewer trains doesn't mean a reduced service, you can work modern trains much more intensively. The current timetable is pretty slack as it is- there are some diagrams that only come out to play for one Pelaw-Monkseaton run- and really they should be able to go back to the pre-2016 timetable at least. Bigger doors and sideways seats will help with dwell times (much as I'd hate to see sideways seats).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Capacity is mostly fine on evenings and in the middle of the day, but rush-hour and event periods are becoming noticeably worse. Capacity can be added by either or a combination of less seats, longer trains, more trains or faster speeds. Some of these options are mutually exclusive without other changes, for example you can't have faster speeds AND more trains; unless you have an advanced dynamic-block signalling system.

But faster speeds (or, more correctly, shorter journey times) might mean you'd need fewer trainsets to operate at the same frequency. Could that impact the calculations of how many new trains need to be bought? For example, if the new ones had better acceleration than the old ones?

 

[edwin_m]

4001/4002/4040/4083 can all work with each other, and do, so there's no need to refurbish them. 4001 is in pretty good nick inside too. IIRC the only accessibility issue with them is the door buttons. I'm sure Nexus will get an exemption if needed. It's a minor issue.

If these are the original buttons with black rubber covers then I recall them as being pretty difficult to press and probably impossible for those who have difficulties with their fingers. They would also fail on visual contrast, lack of illumination and probably also lack of tactile symbols. So I think they'd have to be updated, but small beer compared to a full refurbishment.

 

[ModernRailways]

If these are the original buttons with black rubber covers then I recall them as being pretty difficult to press and probably impossible for those who have difficulties with their fingers. They would also fail on visual contrast, lack of illumination and probably also lack of tactile symbols. So I think they'd have to be updated, but small beer compared to a full refurbishment.

You would be correct, there is a small illumination above the door button, but that wouldn't meet current accessibility needs. An exemption for them will be easiest for sure.

The aim is to not need 4001/4002/4040/4083, but as time goes on they will be needed as other trains need the maintenance etc. It's the main reason they've been repainted into the new black and yellow livery, much to some people's dismay.

 

[NewcastleOne]

You would be correct, there is a small illumination above the door button, but that wouldn't meet current accessibility needs. An exemption for them will be easiest for sure.

The aim is to not need 4001/4002/4040/4083, but as time goes on they will be needed as other trains need the maintenance etc. It's the main reason they've been repainted into the new black and yellow livery, much to some people's dismay.

I believe 4001 has not been repainted.

 

[DanNCL]

I believe 4001 has not been repainted.

4001 has been repainted. The only units not to carry the new fleet livery are 4033, 4040, 4082 and 4083, all of which carry Emirates advert liveries

 

[NewcastleOne]

When did it get repainted