(21/12/2013 16:44)507009 Wrote: [ -> ] (21/12/2013 08:20)WAITING FOR THE 437 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the above comments on relaibility and capacity at peak periods, and special events further back my argument that the failure to deliver new rolling stock by now means that we are having to "make do"..
If people try the train and find that they squashed like sardines in uncomfortable situations it will put them off using the train again. Passenger growth is expected to grow year on year..A quick paint and polish will not help this.
As for being told to be 'Patient' I think 32 years is long enough thank you..So please let people make their point on a forum without being patronised.
I think my point is valid..
I thank you
I don't think anyone has patronised you, to be fair. The thing is, everyone's welcome to their opinion but others are entitled to disagree with that opinion based on their own observations.
Regarding the capacity issue, up to 14 additional 508s have been refused in recent years due to disagreements with leasing fees and refurbishment costs. If they were truly serious about the capacity problem, you would think some of these would've been obtained.
The generally accepted lifespan of the 507/8 EMUs is 40 years, so by the time of the proposed replacement (around 2019), they will be around this age.
A train refresh won't address the capacity issues but it's not supposed to. The trains are grubby externally and looking tired inside, so it's a welcome aesthetic improvement in the interim. This has no impact on the wait for replacement stock: 2018-2020 have been the ballpark dates for replacement for a while.
I think being told to be patient is patronising..
I enjoy reading other peoples views. Some very good points made.. I just feel that if Merseytravel and or Merseyrail had ordered new rolling stock 2-3 years ago instead of wasting money on things like the tram proposals and moving from Hatton Gardens may be it would have been money better spent.
(22/12/2013 13:05)WAITING FOR THE 437 Wrote: [ -> ]I just feel that if Merseytravel and or Merseyrail had ordered new rolling stock 2-3 years ago instead of wasting money on things like the tram proposals and moving from Hatton Gardens may be it would have been money better spent.
Completely agree with this. My understanding was Merseytravel actually owned the offices in Hatton Garden, yet they have moved to Mann Island where they rent the office space for a bill that runs into the millions each year. Add in the complete farce that was Merseytram, and the failed bid to bring the rail infrastructure in-house... The amount of money they have wasted must be huge.
My opinion is that new rolling stock will not be with us before the mid 2020s, possibly 2030 at the latest. Quite simply Merseytravel will not be in a financially stable position to lease any new rolling stock for many years to come. The next major issue is other operators, by 2025-2030 the Class 319 units that will be on the City Line in 1-2 years will need replacing. The majority of the UKs Class 15x fleet will be going for scrap, with either new EMUs or DMUs to replace them. The amount of rolling stock that will need to be manufactured will far exceed our output bcapabilities, and a small operator like Merseyrail with a relatively small order in comparison to other TOCs will be at the bottom of the pile.
This is for a different part of the forum , but the fiasco over the trams was caused because most councils that make up Merseytravel apart from Liverpool and Knowsley thought that a tram to Liverpool Airport made more sense and then it became political football between all the other council that make up Merseytravel.
Merseytravel would still love to have a Merseytram.
I dont know enough of the reasoning for the relocation of Merseytravel's Head Office functions .
A great and familiar six car formation on the Southport line yesterday: 507003 and 507004. The other allocations on this line were 507001 + 507019, 507026 + 508127, 507025 + 508136 and 507029 + 508124. The two 'newest' units on the Merseyrail network, 507032 and a recently overhauled 507033, were together on the West Kirby line.
As for the refurbishment, my vote for the first to be treated goes to 508139. The interior of this is dull, smelly and very tired looking.
My candidates for the first to go are 507010, 507017, 507020, 507025, 507033, 508103, 508108, 508110, 508112, 508115, 508122, 508125, 508127, 508130, 508139 and 508141.
In summary, a lot of them need doing!
From the first one being done to the last which will probably be the kirkdale accident victim , how long do they think this exercise will take place.
(22/12/2013 10:30)wirralbus Wrote: [ -> ]Could a 10 Minute frequency get through Liverpool Central without a complete rewriting of the Ormskirk and Kirkby lines which need to terminate , having to use the turnback siding could cause delays when the service is not running to time and passengers from the Ormskirk line will not like have to get out of there train at sandhills if that is used to maintain the service .
You can't have a 10 minute service to Hunts Cross without redesigning the trackwork between there and South Parkway. With only a single line from Hunts Cross West it won't work
(23/12/2013 13:57)jtd508110 Wrote: [ -> ]My candidates for the first to go are 507010, 507017, 507020, 507025, 507033, 508103, 508108, 508110, 508112, 508115, 508122, 508125, 508127, 508130, 508139 and 508141.
In summary, a lot of them need doing!
508130 has now replaced 507033 on overhaul
Excellent that I won't see 130 for a while - hate that unit!
To be honest, I think 002 has a pretty poor interior and in hindsight should be on my list of units that need a fresh interior. The paint by the seats is peeling in most places and it has suffered a few batterings such as on last train west kirby train into liverpool on A level results weekend and a few other occasions.
I think it will be based on overhauls and cleaning schedules as opposed to worst units first.