Tyne & Wear Metro Fleet Replacement: Awarded to Stadler

[DanNCL]

Which now begs the question, when were the first units originally forecast to be entering service?

July 2023.
Production has been pretty much on time, delivery and introduction is where the delays are. If I’m not mistaken around half of the entire class is complete in Switzerland ready to be delivered as soon as the issue identified a few months ago has been resolved and a fix implemented.

 

[hacman]

July 2023.
Production has been pretty much on time, delivery and introduction is where the delays are. If I’m not mistaken around half of the entire class is complete in Switzerland ready to be delivered as soon as the issue identified a few months ago has been resolved and a fix implemented.

Is this likely something that is being fixed in software with traction re-profiling, or something that will require more invasive modifications to the units?

 

[Paul_10]

Is this likely something that is being fixed in software with traction re-profiling, or something that will require more invasive modifications to the units?

Although Nexus have said the units currently on Tyneside won't be sent back to Switzerland, the fact it was even mentioned would tell me it was a possibility that could of happened.

Either way until we see any signs of daylight testing then I have my doubts we will see see these units in service this year.

 

[hacman]

Although Nexus have said the units currently on Tyneside won't be sent back to Switzerland, the fact it was even mentioned would tell me it was a possibility that could of happened.

Either way until we see any signs of daylight testing then I have my doubts we will see see these units in service this year.

I suspect they’ve said that to try and keep their critics at bay and save face, though they’ve done themselves no favours by not actually stating what the issue is.

Stadler hardware is very modular, and even if more substantial modifications were needed it would likely prove vastly cheaper to contract any work out to a UK works than drag them all the way back.

 

[DanNCL]

Although Nexus have said the units currently on Tyneside won't be sent back to Switzerland, the fact it was even mentioned would tell me it was a possibility that could of happened.

I think that was just to keep the likes of the Chronicle off their backs for 30 seconds. Sending them back was never seriously considered. There’d have to be something quite considerably wrong with them for that and as limited testing has continued that’d suggest the issue isn’t that major, just one that prevents much further progression towards introduction.

I suspect they’ve said that to try and keep their critics at bay and save face, though they’ve done themselves no favours by not actually stating what the issue is.

Stadler hardware is very modular, and even if more substantial modifications were needed it would likely prove vastly cheaper to contract any work out to a UK works than drag them all the way back.

Nexus have vaguely said what it is, that it’s an issue with adhesion during specific poor weather conditions. It’s vague but it’s better than the ‘teething troubles’ one might have expected from Nexus.

Cheaper to retrofit any mods to the already delivered units in the UK but for the undelivered units easier to do the mods in Switzerland before sending them through the Channel Tunnel, which is why no more units have arrived despite there now being space for them at Gosforth.

 

[ExRes]

Report on se gen today that 555001 & 555020 have been seen in Southern Germany heading North with a possible Wednesday arrival in the UK, we shall see ...

 

[hacman]

Report on se gen today that 555001 & 555020 have been seen in Southern Germany heading North with a possible Wednesday arrival in the UK, we shall see ...

Hopefully this is a sign that Stadler are close to resolving the traction issue!

 

[DanNCL]

Report on se gen today that 555001 & 555020 have been seen in Southern Germany heading North with a possible Wednesday arrival in the UK, we shall see ...

Is 020 a typo for 002 or is 020 definitely the unit in the consist? Reason I ask is because 020 isn’t on the list of several units I’ve got as complete in Switzerland so if that is complete production is further along than thought.

Hopefully this is a sign that Stadler are close to resolving the traction issue!

Fingers crossed. Now to crack on with the rest of the testing so that we can finally get these things in service!

 

[ExRes]

Is 020 a typo for 002 or is 020 definitely the unit in the consist?

020 is what the contributor to se gen has put, nothing as yet on the RailAdventure GmbH Aktuelle Sichtung facebook which is where I'd expect to see pictures of the transfer

 

[chiltern trev]

Think your thinking of the Metro Futures here, the seating layout definitely wasn't part of that. It was more about grab rails and seat covers. If I'm right, it was done by the invited smaller group research they done in the earlier stages and if I'm right it was all 2 by 2 bays, 1 by 2 bays or fully longitudinal.

The mass public consultation did ask about your views on the 3 types of seating arrangements mentioned above.

 

[ExRes]

Report on se gen today that 555001 & 555020 have been seen in Southern Germany heading North with a possible Wednesday arrival in the UK, we shall see ...

A little more info this morning although the contributor states just one 555 on (not yet showing on RTT) 7Q42 Dollands Moor Sidings to Wembley Receptions 1-7, there is a path for the power cars though tomorrows 1900 6Z54 Kings Norton OTPD to Wembley Receptions 1-7

 

[hacman]

The mass public consultation did ask about your views on the 3 types of seating arrangements mentioned above.

The consultation I took part in overlayed the proposals onto a plan of a single unit from the existing fleet. 2+2 bays were not an option either, with "airline" style seating shown as the option for transverse and hybrid arrangement. These two factors alone would be enough to skew the data, especially when the survey was provided without the context of Nexus' ambitions to increase service frequency.



Sadly, we're now stuck with the selected linear-only arrangement for at least 15-20 years.

 

[DanNCL]

The consultation I took part in overlayed the proposals onto a plan of a single unit from the existing fleet. 2+2 bays were not an option either, with "airline" style seating shown as the option for transverse and hybrid arrangement. These two factors alone would be enough to skew the data, especially when the survey was provided without the context of Nexus' ambitions to increase service frequency.

View attachment 156072

Sadly, we're now stuck with the selected linear-only arrangement for at least 15-20 years.

I remember this consultation. If the green layout had instead been bays of 4 on the transverse side (like on the S8 stock) that would probably have won. With only airline-style offered in the consultation for the transverse seating, its not a surprise that longitudinal won.

 

[hacman]

I remember this consultation. If the green layout had instead been bays of 4 on the transverse side (like on the S8 stock) that would probably have won. With only airline-style offered in the consultation for the transverse seating, its not a surprise that longitudinal won.

Exactly - even more so if the extended 5-car layout of the new trains was shown!

I'm not sure why they used that style of airline seating in the consultation at all, as that would never have been practical for a rapid transit system.

The other option that wasn't shown was to have mixed styles in different cars - having a small section of double 2+2 directly behind each cab and then hybrid/linear in the centre cars would have been a good compromise!

 

[DanNCL]

I'm not sure why they used that style of airline seating in the consultation at all, as that would never have been practical for a rapid transit system.

In order to get the answer they wanted, I suspect.

 

[ExRes]

A little more info this morning although the contributor states just one 555 on (not yet showing on RTT) 7Q42 Dollands Moor Sidings to Wembley Receptions 1-7, there is a path for the power cars though tomorrows 1900 6Z54 Kings Norton OTPD to Wembley Receptions 1-7

Now showing on RTT

Thursday - 0046 7Q55 Wembley Rec 1-7 to York Holgate Sdgs (0812 arrival) & 2150 7Q56 to Pelaw Goods Loop (0026 arrival)

 

[jkkne]

In order to get the answer they wanted, I suspect.

I’d assume metro makes its money on match days and through the central core were you either want as much space as humanely possible to get people moving or you’re not on long enough to care.

 

[Killingworth]

I’d assume metro makes its money on match days and through the central core were you either want as much space as humanely possible to get people moving or you’re not on long enough to care.

Inevitable that the majority of short hoppers will have different views to those travelling between Newcastle and Sunderland in much smaller numbers. From South Gosforth into town I'd often stand even if seats available. Trying a trip to Sunderland recently I would have preferred an airline type seat to travelling side ways. I still think it wouldn't have been too hard to have a few such seats at the back and front of each train. We can only wait to see how it goes.

 

[hacman]

I’d assume metro makes its money on match days and through the central core were you either want as much space as humanely possible to get people moving or you’re not on long enough to care.

Except, making money isn't the objective of a system like this and catering to football matches is a very small, even if optically significant, part of Metro's overall purpose. This is demonstrated by the way that engineering works are often scheduled on game days.

If Metro were a privately operated, for-profit endeavour then we'd have likely seen it only run from Longbenton to Heworth, and it would run Monday - Friday peak hours and special events only; very like how commuter rail systems in the US operate.

Metro exists to provide a service on the basis that improved transit serves as a catalyst to economic growth by way of providing people with access to employment, education and leisure.

 

[MetroCar4058]

Except, making money isn't the objective of a system like this and catering to football matches is a very small, even if optically significant, part of Metro's overall purpose. This is demonstrated by the way that engineering works are often scheduled on game days.

If Metro were a privately operated, for-profit endeavour then we'd have likely seen it only run from Longbenton to Heworth, and it would run Monday - Friday peak hours and special events only; very like how commuter rail systems in the US operate.

Metro exists to provide a service on the basis that improved transit serves as a catalyst to economic growth by way of providing people with access to employment, education and leisure.

Part of it is to make some money back… it’s not a charity…

 

[hacman]

Part of it is to make some money back… it’s not a charity…

It makes a loss of several million pounds every year - the rest of the funding is made up of government grants both local and central.

Whilst not a charity, it is a non-profit exercise owned and run by local government; at best offsetting losses rather than making money.

The way a system like Metro "makes money" is by boosting economic activity in the region, which is why the operational funding formula and project/capital funding applications focus heavily on the amount of economic activity each journey is projected to generate rather than the farebox revenue.

 

[DanNCL]

The latest delivery is delayed at Frethun for at least 24 hours. Not sure why.

Except, making money isn't the objective of a system like this and catering to football matches is a very small, even if optically significant, part of Metro's overall purpose. This is demonstrated by the way that engineering works are often scheduled on game days.

If Metro were a privately operated, for-profit endeavour then we'd have likely seen it only run from Longbenton to Heworth, and it would run Monday - Friday peak hours and special events only; very like how commuter rail systems in the US operate.

Metro exists to provide a service on the basis that improved transit serves as a catalyst to economic growth by way of providing people with access to employment, education and leisure.

Part of it is to make some money back… it’s not a charity…

It’s not intended to generate profit.
It is however totally reasonable to expect them to try recovering as much of the running costs as possible from the farebox. And for as long as revenue protection is so poor, it doesn’t matter what passenger numbers are like, revenue will be poor regardless as so many people know they’ll not get caught fare dodging.

Sort out fare evasion and not only will the revenue staff pay for themselves, there’ll be more money to go towards the daily running costs too.

 

[hacman]

And for as long as revenue protection is so poor, it doesn’t matter what passenger numbers are like, revenue will be poor regardless as so many people know they’ll not get caught fare dodging.

Sort out fare evasion and not only will the revenue staff pay for themselves, there’ll be more money to go towards the daily running costs too.

Realistically the easiest way to boost revenue protection is to gate all the stations, and have the gates manned for the duration of service. Sadly as mentioned this comes with a cost, but said cost should be easy to justify if the outcomes are delivered upon.

Combine this with a better partnership with the Police to ensure that anyone found "bumping" is pursued with substantial prejudice and you'll immediately cut down on the number of people who are in the system that either haven't paid or just shouldn't be there to begin with.

I'd say that folding the current MPU into the BTP and having BTP responsible for the whole system would be a good step too - simplify where possible!

Perhaps this is something our soon-to-be-elected Mayor can work on?

 

[bramling]

Realistically the easiest way to boost revenue protection is to gate all the stations, and have the gates manned for the duration of service. Sadly as mentioned this comes with a cost, but said cost should be easy to justify if the outcomes are delivered upon.

Combine this with a better partnership with the Police to ensure that anyone found "bumping" is pursued with substantial prejudice and you'll immediately cut down on the number of people who are in the system that either haven't paid or just shouldn't be there to begin with.

I'd say that folding the current MPU into the BTP and having BTP responsible for the whole system would be a good step too - simplify where possible!

Perhaps this is something our soon-to-be-elected Mayor can work on?

The problem is how on earth do you gate all the stations? Most of the quick wins are already gated (though not always manned), the remainder are all pretty difficult due to the presence of multiple entrances.

Assuming this problem can be sorted somehow, you then have the problem of dealing with what will be the inevitable problem of staff being subject to threatening behaviour and assault, particularly if lone working. Just to introduce a place of safety for staff will require significant building works. And then there’s then problem of actually filling vacancies - who would actually want to man a gateline at somewhere like Meadowwell or Tyne Dock?

Whilst keeping the existing gatelines fully operational would no doubt help a bit, this isn’t a full solution as unlike some other systems the Metro has a lot of local journeys, it certainly isn’t biased just for journeys into/out of Newcastle city centre, nor even to the bigger destinations like South Shields or Sunderland.

Unfortunately some of the original design ideas which were a good idea in the 70s are now the cause of problems for which there aren’t any easy solutions.

 

[hacman]

The problem is how on earth do you gate all the stations? Most of the quick wins are already gated (though not always manned), the remainder are all pretty difficult due to the presence of multiple entrances.

Assuming this problem can be sorted somehow, you then have the problem of dealing with what will be the inevitable problem of staff being subject to threatening behaviour and assault, particularly if lone working. Just to introduce a place of safety for staff will require significant building works. And then there’s then problem of actually filling vacancies - who would actually want to man a gateline at somewhere like Meadowwell or Tyne Dock?

Whilst keeping the existing gatelines fully operational would no doubt help a bit, this isn’t a full solution as unlike some other systems the Metro has a lot of local journeys, it certainly isn’t biased just for journeys into/out of Newcastle city centre, nor even to the bigger destinations like South Shields or Sunderland.

Unfortunately some of the original design ideas which were a good idea in the 70s are now the cause of problems for which there aren’t any easy solutions.

It all comes down to cost in the end.

There are still some quick wins out there, with stations like Regent Centre, Longbenton, Four Lane Ends, West Jesmond, and others being un-gated still, and as you say the gates that are installed need to actually be closed for the duration of service.

 

[DanNCL]

Realistically the easiest way to boost revenue protection is to gate all the stations, and have the gates manned for the duration of service. Sadly as mentioned this comes with a cost, but said cost should be easy to justify if the outcomes are delivered upon.

Combine this with a better partnership with the Police to ensure that anyone found "bumping" is pursued with substantial prejudice and you'll immediately cut down on the number of people who are in the system that either haven't paid or just shouldn't be there to begin with.

I'd say that folding the current MPU into the BTP and having BTP responsible for the whole system would be a good step too - simplify where possible!

Perhaps this is something our soon-to-be-elected Mayor can work on?

The problem is how on earth do you gate all the stations? Most of the quick wins are already gated (though not always manned), the remainder are all pretty difficult due to the presence of multiple entrances.

Assuming this problem can be sorted somehow, you then have the problem of dealing with what will be the inevitable problem of staff being subject to threatening behaviour and assault, particularly if lone working. Just to introduce a place of safety for staff will require significant building works. And then there’s then problem of actually filling vacancies - who would actually want to man a gateline at somewhere like Meadowwell or Tyne Dock?

Whilst keeping the existing gatelines fully operational would no doubt help a bit, this isn’t a full solution as unlike some other systems the Metro has a lot of local journeys, it certainly isn’t biased just for journeys into/out of Newcastle city centre, nor even to the bigger destinations like South Shields or Sunderland.

Unfortunately some of the original design ideas which were a good idea in the 70s are now the cause of problems for which there aren’t any easy solutions.

It all comes down to cost in the end.

There are still some quick wins out there, with stations like Regent Centre, Longbenton, Four Lane Ends, West Jesmond, and others being un-gated still, and as you say the gates that are installed need to actually be closed for the duration of service.

It wouldn’t be possible to gate them all.
A massively increased roaming revenue staff presence would make a huge difference.

Agree about the idea of merging the Metro police unit into the BTP.

As for the elected mayor, assuming the Labour candidate wins I wouldn’t expect her to do anything to change the status quo.

 

[Volvictof]

Just to touch on the subject of having every station gate lined and manned.

You'd need three staff at every station (to make sure that there are always two working if one is on a break), so this is 3x60=180
You’d need at least three shifts so 3x180 = 540.
Now each CSA earns about £26,000 (actually a little more)
So 540 times £26k is about £14m.
That £14m doesn’t take into account the fact that you’d need more ancillary staff to support that massive growth in CSA numbers;
More managers, more HR, more Payroll etc etc etc.
Let’s not forget the actual cost of the ticket barriers themselves, which I would imagine would dwarf the staff costs, each single unit being extremely expensive. You’d also need to factor in building some form of break room at any station where staff are expected to man a gate line. The costs are rising again…
also, all the CSAs are entitled to catch the last train home, so I’m not sure how you’d keep the stations manned then.

How much would you be expecting to make from tickets if this was the plan?

 

[DanNCL]

Just to touch on the subject of having every station gate lined and manned.

You'd need three staff at every station (to make sure that there are always two working if one is on a break), so this is 3x60=180
You’d need at least three shifts so 3x180 = 540.
Now each CSA earns about £26,000 (actually a little more)
So 540 times £26k is about £14m.
That £14m doesn’t take into account the fact that you’d need more ancillary staff to support that massive growth in CSA numbers;
More managers, more HR, more Payroll etc etc etc.
Let’s not forget the actual cost of the ticket barriers themselves, which I would imagine would dwarf the staff costs, each single unit being extremely expensive. You’d also need to factor in building some form of break room at any station where staff are expected to man a gate line. The costs are rising again…
also, all the CSAs are entitled to catch the last train home, so I’m not sure how you’d keep the stations manned then.

How much would you be expecting to make from tickets if this was the plan?

I wouldn’t suggest any more barriers but simply increasing the roaming revenue presence.
How many CSAs (roughly) are there at present and how much would it cost to double that number?

 

[Volvictof]

I wouldn’t suggest any more barriers but simply increasing the roaming revenue presence.
How many CSAs (roughly) are there at present and how much would it cost to double that number?

Perhaps a couple of hundred? Certainly after this recruitment drive. They earn around £23,600. So to double the numbers I’d geuss arounce half a million quid a year. Then again you’d need to double the managers too, numbers for which I have no idea.
But really you’d not need to double them anyway, as a lot of them are currently on gate line. I’d just want enough to have a couple of more CST teams on duty at the same time. (The roving revenue teams, formerly known as blue coats to some, but now all CSAs wear blue coats), I’d have one roving the coast, one down the south shields line and one down on network rail. I think that would be enough to make it somewhat likely that if you travel without a ticket you‘re risking a fine on enough occasions that financially you are better off just paying for a ticket.

 

[danielnez1]

Exactly - even more so if the extended 5-car layout of the new trains was shown!

I'm not sure why they used that style of airline seating in the consultation at all, as that would never have been practical for a rapid transit system.

The other option that wasn't shown was to have mixed styles in different cars - having a small section of double 2+2 directly behind each cab and then hybrid/linear in the centre cars would have been a good compromise!

I've said it before, and I am preaching to the quire, but the methodology and protocol of that study could have easily invalidated the results of that study, and it was not run by a group with a public transport background either. Sunderland City Council should have kicked up more of a stink back then and it would have likely made a difference.