Tyne & Wear Metro Fleet Replacement: Bidders possibly narrowed to Stadler & CAF

Discussion in 'Other Public Transport' started by swt_passenger, 22 Nov 2017.

  1. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    16,205
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    I believe the overlaps are longer (much longer in some cases) so a SPAD by a freight train will get stopped before getting to somewhere it could hit a Metro. This reduces capacity.
     
  2. CLH

    CLH Member

    Messages:
    19
    Joined:
    1 Jul 2015
    Does the new metro spec include TPWS/AWS?
     
  3. jh64

    jh64 Member

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    3 Sep 2015
  4. Japan0913

    Japan0913 On Moderation

    Messages:
    232
    Joined:
    29 Aug 2017
    Final bidders to build new Metro fleet announced
    18 June 2019 at 4:45pm ITV
    https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2019-06-18/final-bidders-to-build-new-metro-fleet-announced/

    Where does Stadler build a manufacturing plant in the UK?
    Will the result of receiving an order at Mersey Rail be advantageous?
     
  5. jkkne

    jkkne Member

    Messages:
    131
    Joined:
    13 Aug 2012
    I’d be surprised if Hitachi don’t get it purely for the nonsense local PR Nexus would want
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 19 Jun 2019
  6. hacman

    hacman Member

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    22 Jul 2011
    Indeed. Supporting local jobs is great (though technically they're still out of area), but when this fleet represents a once in a generation investment, commuters would find it of little comfort that jobs were provided for 3-4 years to a few hundred factory workers should the fleet turn out to be a bunch of lemons.

    I think we've got the best three in the running now, though I was a little saddened to see that Siemens seemed to show no interest at all!

    I personally can't wait to see the specs/design of the Stadler and Hitachi bids. Will we be seeing a derivative of FLIRT and the AnsaldoBreda driverless metro (both excellent platforms)? Or something entirely new!
     
  7. AutoKratz

    AutoKratz Member

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Washington
    My money is on a bespoke (and human driven) version of the Hitachi Driverless Metro.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. hacman

    hacman Member

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    22 Jul 2011
    Yep! These are the ones I'm referring to.

    AnsaldoBreda first produced them for Copenhagen in about 2002, and they have been deployed to many cities since, with only slight changes to the design. Copenhagen are about to get their second batch.

    They're solid performers, and quite pleasant/comfortable too!
     
  9. danielnez1

    danielnez1 Member

    Messages:
    122
    Joined:
    14 May 2012
    Location:
    Seghill
    On the face of it they certainly look like a good contender. I only home that beyond the necessary design modifications for the system and for running on the NR infrastructure, NEXUS don't insist on a overly bespoke design, or as like with the current fleet, they may end up with spare part shortages later on. Though the fact that maintenance i also part of the contract, perhaps that will help mitigate against it.
     
  10. Japan0913

    Japan0913 On Moderation

    Messages:
    232
    Joined:
    29 Aug 2017
    For future NetWorkRail connections
    Do I need a 1,500 V and 25 kV dual voltage vehicle?
     
  11. AutoKratz

    AutoKratz Member

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Washington
    They won’t be dual voltage, no. They’ll take 1,500v DC from the overhead power line and will have batteries for off-wire running. At least that’s the plan at the minute.
     
  12. MetroCar4058

    MetroCar4058 Member

    Messages:
    518
    Joined:
    18 Jun 2014
    That’s speculative still, I doubt they’ll come with anything other than a DC traction package & perhaps the ability to be dual tractioned in the future.

    The new line ideas are all over the shop and have changed greatly over the past few years.
     
  13. Scott M

    Scott M Member

    Messages:
    276
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2014
    Do metro have AWS and TPWS for when they run on NR infrastructure? If not, how do they get around that as isn’t it the law following the Southall crash - is it like a special exception to the rule?

    Regarding the new fleet, I am looking forward to seeing the design blueprints. :D Hope they don’t go for a tram design, have travelled on trams down Birmingham and even off-road they are nowhere near as comfortable as light rail.. Also hope they don’t go for sideways facing seats, means less actual seats. Yes there is more standing room, but I think it is rather rare for metros to be so busy that you can’t get on (at least on my part of the network), so do we really need more standing room?

    I imagine the ability to run both with and without overhead line would be hugely advantageous. Could open the door to running on NR infrastructure up the old Blyth and Tyne.

    I also wonder what max linespeed they will be aiming for. Journey times could be cut down, especially on the Sunderland line, if it is greater than the existing 80km/hr.
     
    Last edited: 22 Jun 2019
  14. MetroCar4058

    MetroCar4058 Member

    Messages:
    518
    Joined:
    18 Jun 2014
    Metro has its own Indussi based system which is fitted to the tracks down there.

    It’s clear that the new stock will be based on Metro designs. In terms of seating, there will be less seats and the current trains are awful in terms of wasted space. It is true that outside of peak times they can meet demand, but during the peaks crowding is awful and the current design encourages crowding around the doors which is inefficient. It is expected that the seating design will be more longitudinal in nature.

    Funding for this is being sought after in the TCF round 2 bid. There is no expectation that that line will be part of Metro, it is a different, heavy rail proposal.
     
  15. HugePilchard

    HugePilchard Member

    Messages:
    204
    Joined:
    18 Apr 2011
    Location:
    Tyne & Wear
    I travel daily through the central belt at peak times, and whilst I'm usually able to board a train there are occasions (especially if there has been disruption) when I've been unable to get on to the first couple of trains due to crowding.

    Even then, it's a squash most days due to the way the current design encourages people to gather around the doors. If passengers can be encouraged to move down the carriage, then I'm all for it.
     
  16. MetroCar4058

    MetroCar4058 Member

    Messages:
    518
    Joined:
    18 Jun 2014
    Also, I must add that these trains will be servicing the network for ~30 years so they must be future-proofed.
     
  17. hacman

    hacman Member

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    22 Jul 2011
    The current fleet has Indusi train stop signalling protection fitted, and to get around the requirements the Durham Coast line is fitted with dual AWS/TPWS + Indusi between Pelaw Junction and South Hylton. This also results in additional space being left between trains, which is somewhat less than ideal.

    The new trains were supposed to coincide with the replacement of signalling systems across the rest of the Metro network, but any mention of signalling seems to have gone totally quiet, meaning that unless this pops up as a new project after the fleet replacement we're going to be using the current arrangements for the foreseeable.

    Ideally we'd have seen a semi-ATO / CBTC signalling system introduced along with higher speeds to allow the network to operate more efficiently, but perhaps delaying this could be a good thing, as it will allow Network Rail time to get their ideas straight with regards to ERTMS implementation in the region, meaning that any new system specified for Metro could be directly compatible, rather than the current overlay/kludge.

    Bidders would be free to make the trains respond to both Indusi and TPWS/AWS, but this is not likely since it's superfluous to requirements, and would complicate testing and acceptance for little benefit.

    The new fleet invitation to tender originally specified both 1500V DC and 25KV AC power supply compatibility, in addition to the exploration of independent power options, both for off wires running in an emergency (as a limp-home feature for power failures), and for longer distance. 25KV is now no longer a hard requirement, with extended battery (or other IP) running preferred. This was allegedly due to weight restrictions, but my guess would be the true reason was cost.

    Of course, this doesn't preclude a bidder including 25KV AC support in their design, either out of the box, or as passive provision - especially since there is not really such a thing as a "DC traction package" these days, with most modern vehicles using AC direct drive traction hardware for reasons of efficiency.

    In terms of seating, this has been left to the discretion of the bidders, provided the capacity numbers are met. So we may see a full "tube" style layout, with seats along the sides of cars only, or a (more suitable IMHO) hybrid layout similar to the S-Stock. The current trains do reach capacity at times, and there are aspects of the design that encourages space to be wasted, but we're not yet anywhere near the point where the full tube layout is required, especially if the new trains are one long fixed consist, rather than the pairs of twin-articulated cars we have now with extra cabs in the middle that are not required. Issues with the current timetable also contribute to the current levels of crowding, which is something the new, more reliable fleet should help resolve. The new fleet will also very likely open up the possibility of technological solutions to this too - such as passenger counting hardware being able to feed into realtime travel information, letting passengers know where is best to stand on the platform to spread people out, or if the train behind is considerably more empty. Once the foundations are in place (hint, these are the same as those for the on-train WiFi), you can start to do all sorts of interesting stuff. Some companies in Japan even have their RTI app show the AC temperature in the coaches!

    The tender does include rather specific wording as to the width of doorways, plus the addition of an "inset" space either side to try and prevent some of the current passenger circulation issues.

    One thing that is pretty much certain though - the passenger seat alongside the driver will be a thing of the past. Network Rail, the ORR and others will be unlikely to grant a safety case for a vehicle where passengers are seated in such a position on a mixed-use railway, and the existing cabs are not fit for purpose (cramped, no space for secondman/assessor, new fleet likely to require more space for modern controls, etc). If we're lucky we may get a glass wall behind the driver like the new Merseyrail stock, but don't be surprised if that's out of Nexus price range!
     
    Last edited: 24 Jun 2019
  18. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    20,515
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Redcar
    It's always struck me as bizarre that they were ever built with such a layout! Does anyone know the thinking behind it? A glass partition I could understand but to have a half-width cab? Odd! Hopefully the new trains will come with a glass partition though (even if the bit directly behind the driver is blocked off, I wouldn't fancy having someone leaning over my shoulder!) as it's one of the best things about that network having the forward view.
     
  19. hacman

    hacman Member

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    22 Jul 2011
    I guess it was due to them being built as "not-quite-trains", and was a good way to add an extra seat seeing as capacity was the aim. Interestingly the original design didn't even feature an external door into the cab, which given the cabs were originally smaller than they are now would have been somewhat unpleasant!

    Whilst it's a great and unique feature of the network, it's not overly practical, and it is quite a surprise that the idea of a glass cab wall has come about again in the Merseyrail specification, seeing as where this was a feature on BR stock it was removed due to being impractical.

    That said, there are a few other interesting design choices throughout the current Metro fleet and the wider network, some of which were clearly intended to distinguish the network from a normal suburban rail operation, likely to aid in the PTEs case that they should retain control.
     
  20. Scott M

    Scott M Member

    Messages:
    276
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2014
    Fair enough, guess more room is required, which no doubt there will be from reading the replies in here.
     
  21. Scott M

    Scott M Member

    Messages:
    276
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2014
    Fair - perhaps the new design will incorporate AWS/TPWS as I imagine network rail will be pushing for it.

    Regarding Blyth and Tyne, guess it depends on whether northern make a good go at it. Metro tends to get good passenger numbers due to frequency, if northern just send one pacer up every hour it would be a bit of a waste and likely cart around fresh air for the most part.
     
    Last edited: 25 Jun 2019
  22. Scott M

    Scott M Member

    Messages:
    276
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2014
    Very informative post - thank you! Regarding the higher speeds, how much of an impact would this have across the network? Obviously journey times to Sunderland would be quicker, but how much of the rest of the 80km/hr speed restrictions are due to the limits of the trains themselves vs limitations of track? E.g. could we see 100km/hr on the straight section between Jarrow and Bede? Is the track quality of metro as good as network rail and able to support high speed, or is it a cheap track just designed to support slow speed light rail?
     
  23. Meerkat

    Meerkat Established Member

    Messages:
    1,337
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2018
    Disappointing that 25KV has been dropped. I was hoping that Sunderland would switch to 25KV so proper electric trains could get there.
     
  24. AutoKratz

    AutoKratz Member

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    26 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Washington
    I think the small driver’s cab and front passenger seat were due to the fact they weren’t seen as full trains but “Supertrams” so there was no need to follow railway norms like a full width cab. Plus they were originally designed to be able to be potentially operated on-street in the future without significant modifications.

    The metro has loads of quirks like this where normal railway procedures or systems were adapted - just look at the 2 colour signalling system rather than the normal green > yellow > red you get on the normal rail network. The signalling was originally going to be tramway signalling until the DfT stepped in.

    In terms of higher speeds I reckon the only places where the speed could be raised from 80kmh would be on the Sunderland extension between Pelaw and Stadium of Light so I’m not sure there’d be much point.
     
  25. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    20,588
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    Even if they only have DC power collection I would strongly suspect it will still be an AC traction package with 3 phase drives. Is there anything new around using DC motors nowadays?
     
  26. hacman

    hacman Member

    Messages:
    147
    Joined:
    22 Jul 2011
    Subject to the track being in appropriate condition, faster speeds would likely be attainable between the following stations, as these are places where the current fleet can, and sometimes does, reach top speed for a period of time:
    • Callerton Parkway - Bank Foot (barriers required on Bank Foot crossing to maximise potential)
    • Kingston Park - Fawdon
    • West Jesmond - Jesmond
    • Jesmond - Haymarket
    • Central Station - Gateshead
    • Heworth - Pelaw
    • Pelaw - Hebburn
    • Hebburn - Jarrow
    • Jarrow - Bede
    • Tyne Dock - Chichester
    • Pelaw - Fellgate
    • Fellgate - Brockley Whins
    • Brockley Whins - East Boldon
    • East Boldon - Seaburn
    • Pallion - South Hylton (subject to signalling constraints)
    • Benton - Palmersville
    • Palmersville - Northumberland Park
    • Shiremoor - West Monseaton
    • Cullercoats - Tynemouth (angle of approach into Tynemouth station is a limiting factor)
    • Tynemouth - North Shields (subject to condition of the tunnel and cuttings)
    • Percy Main - Howdon
    • Howdon - Hadrian Road (subject to the condition of Willington Viaduct, which already has a speed restriction below the current 50mph in place)
    • Wallsend - Walkergate
    • Byker - Manors (subject to the construction of the Byker Viaduct)
    The following sections may also benefit, subject to the acceleration and braking capabilities of the new fleet:
    • Wansbeck Road - Regent Centre
    • Gateshead - Gateshead Stadium
    • Gateshead Stadium - Felling
    • Felling - Heworth
    • Seaburn - Stadium of Light
    • Longbenton - Four Lane Ends
    • North Shields - Meadow Well
    • Walkergate - Chillingham Road
     
  27. Scott M

    Scott M Member

    Messages:
    276
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2014
    Be interesting to see how this could impact on journey times!
     
  28. MetroCar4058

    MetroCar4058 Member

    Messages:
    518
    Joined:
    18 Jun 2014
    Just to clarify, without any engineering work a few of these sections wouldn't be able to have higher speeds as they are already restricted below 80kmh. For example:
    • West Jesmond - Jesmond: Linespeed drops down to I think 55 when the route approaches enters the tunnel.
    • Jesmond - Gateshead: Linespeed is between 80 and 60 in this area, lowest between JES and HAY I believe.

    If I'm honest, its nice to speculate but a lot of money will need to be spent to look into any changes in linespeed should the new fleet be any faster, but with limited funding and limited demand for faster journeys on the majority of these stretches, I doubt this will be a big priority. I'd put a punt on Pelaw - South Hylton being the only place we will see the trains moving faster, which I assume Network Rail would also like to see to squeeze more capacity on the line.

    There should be some improvements in journey times and increased resilience between Pelaw and South Shields if Nexus is successful in their Transforming Cities Tranche 2 funding due to the duelling of the line between Pelaw and Bede.
     
  29. jkkne

    jkkne Member

    Messages:
    131
    Joined:
    13 Aug 2012
    Are they looking at sharing the line with the freight traffic or constructing a new one? I didn’t realise how well used that Port of Tyne link was.
     
  30. Arctic Troll

    Arctic Troll Established Member

    Messages:
    9,809
    Joined:
    12 Sep 2013
    Location:
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Very little difference, even the longest stretches are barely a couple of miles long. No point engineering for higher linespeeds.

    The time savings will come from better acceleration. But I don't think journey times will change, the acceleration used to make the timetable more robust.
     

Share This Page