Tyne & Wear Metro Fleet Replacement: Awarded to Stadler

[Killingworth]

As of the current design they will have 104 seats, with 4 wheelchair areas, and 4 'multi-purpose' areas. The wheelchair areas have 3 perch seats, the 'multi-purpose' areas have 4 perch seats, making 28 perch seats. They then have capacity for 492 standees (6ppl/m2).

I suspect the queues at South Shields after the Great North Run will not seem any shorter.

 

[ainsworth74]

I suspect the queues at South Shields after the Great North Run will not seem any shorter.

Surely the real metric in such a situation is less whether the queues feel shorter but whether they're cleared quicker?

 

[Killingworth]

Surely the real metric in such a situation is less whether the queues feel shorter but whether they're cleared quicker?

Having avoided those queues I can't say, but the camaradie before and after the event is such that only first timers are much bothered, unless it rains. If I hadn't a car using strategy I'd use the bus for speed. Probably the last year for me, if it goes ahead.

 

[ModernRailways]

I suspect the queues at South Shields after the Great North Run will not seem any shorter.

I've never seen what it's like till the TV show, if the staff on the ground don't know how to empty the train and then fill it then you won't notice a change. If staff at South Shields guide people into the trains and make them use all the space unlike currently then it will continue as it is. I do suspect however that we'll see an increase in people needing medical assistance because trains should be fuller. However, one point I've made about the GNR is filling trains is great but if people further along the line can't get on, and if people struggle to get off other than at key interchange stations where lots of people get off then you cause more pain.

 

[MetroCar4058]

I've never seen what it's like till the TV show, if the staff on the ground don't know how to empty the train and then fill it then you won't notice a change. If staff at South Shields guide people into the trains and make them use all the space unlike currently then it will continue as it is. I do suspect however that we'll see an increase in people needing medical assistance because trains should be fuller. However, one point I've made about the GNR is filling trains is great but if people further along the line can't get on, and if people struggle to get off other than at key interchange stations where lots of people get off then you cause more pain.

This year was a farce because they only used the office staff who aren’t trained in anything crowd related as the face of Metro on the station and decided to place years of experience outside the station standing around like donkeys. I do feel like this was in part for the TV cameras.

Additionally they didn’t have the two exits which didn’t help them, but the plans they had for the station did include an emergency exit, which could’ve been used and was subsequently not built. Again cost cutting.

GNR is a day when any intermediate stations on the SSS branch get a bit of a poorer offering, but the trains are only sent out 90% full for this reason. I don’t understand your point about medical issues, the current trains are crammed full and don’t have aircon nor efficient air moving design which contributes to the issues we have significantly.

 

[Swanny200]

They have just had funding approved so that they can dual the single track stretches between Pelaw and Bede partly sharing the heavy rail track to the Jarrow terminal which they then think will give a 10 minute Metro service, will probably be completed in time for the new stock entering service.

 

[Tetchytyke]

if people struggle to get off other than at key interchange stations where lots of people get off then you cause more pain.

The wider aisles and wider doors will make a huge difference to this, as it will actually be possible to get past people standing in the aisle. On the current trains you can forget it.

I think the new trains will gobble up the GNR crowds in the same way the S7/S8s do in London.

 

[hacman]

There’s now an article on the Stadler site that confirms these units will only be 80KM/h capable:

https://www.stadlerrail.com/en/medi...f-42-metro-trains-in-newcastle-upon-tyne/693/

Seems length-wise they are closer to the 60m than the maximum 65m that was permitted in the tender too...

There are a few missed opportunities here!

 

[Meerkat]

There’s now an article on the Stadler site that confirms these units will only be 80KM/h capable:

https://www.stadlerrail.com/en/medi...f-42-metro-trains-in-newcastle-upon-tyne/693/

Seems length-wise they are closer to the 60m than the maximum 65m that was permitted in the tender too...

There are a few missed opportunities here!

50mph restricts the opportunities for main line extensions?

 

[hacman]

50mph restricts the opportunities for main line extensions?

I don’t think it inherently rules them out, but obviously would make pathing harder.

It’s more that it restricts the option for reducing journey times, especially on longer stretches.

 

[Killingworth]

The option for extra units sounds promising, or it did until the present situation blew up.

The current flexibility to operate a single unit may be missed.

The size of this order compared with Berlin puts things in perspective. We can't produce sufficient substantial regular orders to keep British rail manufacturers production lines open over the long term. This order seems to have dragged on for a very long time.

 

[ivzem]

The size of this order compared with Berlin puts things in perspective

Remember that the quoted figure for Berlin is for carriages, not for trains, and that Berlin is a lot bigger than Newcastle though still smaller than London.

 

[mwmbwls]

50mph restricts the opportunities for main line extensions?

Two questions :Which main line extensions did you have in mind? Is not the rate of acceleration not the critical issue on metro systems?

 

[Meerkat]

Two questions :Which main line extensions did you have in mind? Is not the rate of acceleration not the critical issue on metro systems?

Not sure, but mainline extensions have been rumoured at various times. Certainly won’t be going up the ECML at 50mph!

 

[swt_passenger]

Not sure, but mainline extensions have been rumoured at various times. Certainly won’t be going up the ECML at 50mph!

I think there were once some pretty much unsubstantiated rumours that the Ashington/Blyth stuff might have been Metro, but I always thought it pretty unlikely. Maybe people were confused by the possibility of Nexus having oversight of the eventual service...

 

[hacman]

Is not the rate of acceleration not the critical issue on metro systems?

It's a bit of both for Metro. Despite the name, Metro isn't strictly a "metro" as it were, being more of a hybrid of a number of different types of system owing to how it was constructed.

If we see further extensions using shared routes, this will add to that hybrid element even further.

When a system is self contained, acceleration tends to be the main thing. But when you are trying to mix Metro services in with 75mph traffic on routes like the Sunderland line, headline speed is also an issue too if there is a substantial differential - which there is here, considering that all the mainline stock in the region is capable of at least 75mph, and in some cases 90mph!

As has already been mentioned, a top speed of less than 75mph (or ideally 90mph) does very much limit any possibility for extensions that would need to share trackage with the ECML.

That said, 50mph is pretty unambitious all round in many ways. There are certainly a few sections on the existing Nexus-owned network that would benefit from a slight increase, allowing a small but noticeable reduction of end-to-end journey times.

I think there were once some pretty much unsubstantiated rumours that the Ashington/Blyth stuff might have been Metro, but I always thought it pretty unlikely. Maybe people were confused by the possibility of Nexus having oversight of the eventual service...

There's not really been any final confirmation on how the powers in the region would seek to actually integrate this...

We see lots of talk of various options, and it seems each time it is discussed those that are doing the talking have switched their position.

I think given the current rate of progress the residents of south-east Northumberland would probably settle for a hand-powered draisine if it actually got things moving!

 

[MotCO]

As has already been mentioned, a top speed of less than 75mph (or ideally 90mph) does very much limit any possibility for extensions that would need to share trackage with the ECML.

That said, 50mph is pretty unambitious all round in many ways. There are certainly a few sections on the existing Nexus-owned network that would benefit from a slight increase, allowing a small but noticeable reduction of end-to-end journey times.

But could the Metro achieve speeds of 75mph (or even 90mph) if it has to stop at every station? I'm not aware of how far apart the Metro stations are spaced, but presumably it could not hit 75mph and then decelerate between stations?

 

[hacman]

But could the Metro achieve speeds of 75mph (or even 90mph) if it has to stop at every station? I'm not aware of how far apart the Metro stations are spaced, but presumably it could not hit 75mph and then decelerate between stations?

In some places, yes. Notable examples include

Callerton Parkway - Bank Foot
West Jesmond - Jesmond
Jesmond - Haymarket
Central Station - Gateshead
Pelaw - Hebburn
Hebburn - Jarrow
Jarrow - Bede
Benton - Palmersville
Palmersville - Northumberland Park
Shiremoor - West Monkseaton
Cullercoats - Tynemouth
Percy Main - Howdon
Wallsend - Walkergate
And a good portion of the Sunderland line south of Pelaw.

 

[Killingworth]

In some places, yes. Notable examples include

Callerton Parkway - Bank Foot
West Jesmond - Jesmond
Jesmond - Haymarket
Central Station - Gateshead
Pelaw - Hebburn
Hebburn - Jarrow
Jarrow - Bede
Benton - Palmersville
Palmersville - Northumberland Park
Shiremoor - West Monkseaton
Cullercoats - Tynemouth
Percy Main - Howdon
Wallsend - Walkergate
And a good portion of the Sunderland line south of Pelaw.

I'd agree south of Pelaw and a few others, but accelerating to 75mph and slowing down again between places like Jesmond and West Jesmond wouldn't be of much benefit on times and require extra power for the unit. It's uphill out of town and it needs slowing down before the station for the junction coming south. Its only 3/4 of a mile.

 

[AutoKratz]

Nexus were offered 2 traction packages by Stadler. One was 80kmh max with a better acceleration rate and braking dynamics and the other was 100kmh but with poorer acceleration.

Most metro stations are about 2 minutes apart on average so acceleration was prioritised which I have to say is a sensible decision.

A number of the places listed here for higher speeds aren’t worth it anyway. Some 80kmh sections are too short to be worth upgrading, in some areas trains don’t do 80kmh anyway even though the speed limit is 80kmh and in others the gradient, route characteristics or signalling wouldn’t allow for upgrading the top speed in any event.

 

[ModernRailways]

In some places, yes. Notable examples include

Callerton Parkway - Bank Foot
West Jesmond - Jesmond
Jesmond - Haymarket
Central Station - Gateshead
Pelaw - Hebburn
Hebburn - Jarrow
Jarrow - Bede
Benton - Palmersville
Palmersville - Northumberland Park
Shiremoor - West Monkseaton
Cullercoats - Tynemouth
Percy Main - Howdon
Wallsend - Walkergate
And a good portion of the Sunderland line south of Pelaw.

As others have stated most of those could not be upgraded. By the time you get up to speed you would be braking again, some stations have slow approaches, some the gradients fight against the train, and others it's simply down to signalling and power constraints. Out of your list the only possible options due to the length of track etc would be;

Callerton Parkway - Fawdon
Pelaw - Bede (with several drops)
Palmersville - Northumberland Park
Sunderland extension

It would simply be pointless upgrading the trains to achieve a faster speed when acceleration would be best. Faster trains would see journey times reduce, but not significantly due to the majority of stations being small distance apart. Getting trains back up to speed quickly is therefore more beneficial and benefits the majority of stations.

 

[hacman]

As others have stated most of those could not be upgraded. By the time you get up to speed you would be braking again, some stations have slow approaches, some the gradients fight against the train, and others it's simply down to signalling and power constraints. Out of your list the only possible options due to the length of track etc would be;

Callerton Parkway - Fawdon
Pelaw - Bede (with several drops)
Palmersville - Northumberland Park
Sunderland extension

It would simply be pointless upgrading the trains to achieve a faster speed when acceleration would be best. Faster trains would see journey times reduce, but not significantly due to the majority of stations being small distance apart. Getting trains back up to speed quickly is therefore more beneficial and benefits the majority of stations.

Ultimately some of the shorter sections I mention would depend on the acceleration and braking profiles, but it's worth considering that the current timetable doesn't push even the existing fleet to it's limits - quite possibly a sensible decision given its age and reliability.


The list you've extracted from my initial rough thoughts doesn't include the following:
Shiremoor - West Monkseaton
Cullercoats - Tynemouth
Wallsend - Walkergate

These would also be good candidates - for the most part plain line, without curves or excessive gradient, and some of the sections the current stock does already reach full speed on.

Either way, that still represents a fairly large chunk of the network, not considering the potential for future expansion.

I agree that acceleration and braking performance is very important, but given that what the new fleet will be capable of would be better than the existing vehicles regardless, an improvement in both areas could have been had.

That said, so long as the bogies and other mechanical components are suitable, this may not be as much of a fixed decision as it would have been in the past - as newer traction technology lends itself to being uprated or reconfigured quite well compared to older equipment.

 

[ivzem]

A link to a factsheet has appeared on Stadler's website here (under City Transport). Unfortunately the link to the English version is currently broken, but the German version is up and confirms a length of 59.9 m for the whole set, a top speed of 80km/h and a maximum acceleration of 1.35 m/s². The end bogies are unpowered, all other bogies are.

Text of the German factsheet (I'll replace this with the English version once it's available):

METRO EMU
Nexus, Tyne and Wear, UK

Nexus, ein Bahnbetreiber im Nordosten Englands, hat im Januar 2020 42 neue METRO-Züge bei Stadler bestellt. Die neuen Fahrzeuge werden auf dem Schienennetz der Tyne and Wear Metro in der Region um Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead, South Tyneside, North Tyneside und Sunderland im Nordosten Englands eingesetzt. Die leichten fünfteiligen Triebwagen ermöglichen einen effizienten und kostengünstigen Betrieb. So benötigen die neuen Fahrzeuge erheblich weniger Energie, was auf ihre Leichtbauweise, die Rückgewinnung von Bremsenergie und die modernen sowie hocheffizienten Traktionsstromrichter zurückzuführen ist. Die Energieversorgung erfolgt über eine Oberleitung mit 1500 V DC. Die Fahrzeuge sind zudem für die Integration eines Energiespeichersystems vorbereitet und können damit auch auf Erweiterungsstrecken eingesetzt werden, die zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt möglicherweise hinzukommen. Die Fahrzeuge sind auf eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von 80 km/h ausgelegt. Der Innenraum der Fahrzeuge ist hell und offen gestaltet. Es gibt spezielle Multifunktionsbereiche für Rollstühle, Kinderwagen, Gepäck und Fahrräder. Das Innenraumkonzept wird das Sicherheitsempfinden der Fahrgäste durch Videoüberwachung, Schutzsysteme für den Türbetrieb und klare Warnanzeigen verbessern. Eine gute thermische und akustische Isolierung sorgt für ein komfortables Raumklima, neu entwickelte Drehgestelle mit Luftfederung führen zu einem verbesserten Fahrgefühl.

Technische Merkmale
Technik
– Leichter Wagenkasten aus Strangpressprofilen
– Hervorragende Kollisionssicherheit sorgt für sicheren Mischbetrieb im Vollbahnverkehr
– Neu entwickelte Jakobs-Motordrehgestelle und Laufdrehgestelle mit Luftfederung
– Scheiben- und Magnetschienenbremsen
– Moderne Fahrzeugleittechnik
– Automatische Frontkupplung für Mehrfachtraktion
– Schwenkschiebetüren und Schiebetritte für ebenerdigen Einstieg
– Geringer Energieverbrauch durch Fahrzeuge in Leichtbauweise, Rückgewinnung von Bremsenergie und moderne Traktionsstromrichter
– Dank leistungsstarker Traktionsbatterien hängt der Notbetrieb nicht von der Energiezuführung ab. Die Fahrzeuge sind für die spätere Installation eines grossen Energiespeichersystems vorbereitet, mit dessen Hilfe sie auch auf oberleitungsfreien Erweiterungsstrecken betrieben werden können

Komfort
– Heller, fahrgastfreundlicher Innenraum mit einzigartigem Design
– Acht Einstiegstüren pro Seite für raschen Passagierfluss
– Ebenerdiger Zugang an allen Einstiegen dank Schiebetritten
– Grosszügige Multifunktionsbereiche und Rollstuhlplätze
– Modernes Fahrgastinformationssystem und VSS
– Leistungsfähige Klimaanlage und Bodenheizung

Personal
– Grosszügiger Führerraum über die gesamte Breite mit ausgezeichneten Sichtlinien für den Triebfahrzeugführer
– Ergonomisch gestaltetes Führerpult
– Automatische Seitentür für bequemen Zugang zum Führerraum

Zuverlässigkeit / Verfügbarkeit / Wartbarkeit / Sicherheit
– Redundante Traktionsausrüstung mit wartungsfreundlichen, wassergekühlten IGBT-Stromrichtern
– Fahrzeug-Ferndiagnose zur Unterstützung der zustandsorientierten Instandhaltung

Fahrzeugdaten

Kunde Nexus
Einsatzgebiet Tyne and Wear Metro
Spurweite 1435 mm
Bezeichnung METRO EMU
Speisespannung 1500 V DC
Achsanordnung 2'(Bo)'(Bo)'(Bo)'(Bo)'2'
Max. Achslast 12.5 t
Federung (Sekundär/Primär) Luftfederung + Gummi-Metallfederelement
Anzahl Fahrzeuge 42
Inbetriebsetzung 2023 / 2024
Sitzplätze (nur 2. Klasse) 104
Klappsitze Keine
Stehplätze 493
Fussbodenhöhe 940 mm SOK
Einstiegsbreite 1400 mm
Längsdruckkraft 800 kN
Länge über Kupplung 59 900 mm
Fahrzeugbreite 2650 mm
Fahrzeughöhe 3445 mm
Drehgestellachsstand
Motordrehgestell 2200 mm
Laufdrehgestell 2000 mm
Triebraddurchmesser, neu 720 mm
Laufraddurchmesser, neu 720 mm
Dauerleistung am Rad 942 kW
Maximale Leistung am Rad 1320 kW
Anfahrzugskraft 140kN
Anfahrbeschleunigung brutto 1.35 m / s²
Bremsweg Betriebsbremsung 250 m
Bremsweg Notbremsung 150 m
Höchstgeschwindigkeit 80 km / h

 

[MotCO]

A link to a factsheet has appeared on Stadler's website here (under City Transport). Unfortunately the link to the English version is currently broken, but the German version is up and confirms a length of 59.9 m for the whole set, a top speed of 80km/h and a maximum acceleration of 1.35 m/s². The end bogies are unpowered, all other bogies are.

Text of the German factsheet (I'll replace this with the English version once it's available):

[English translation courtesy of Google Translate (EOE)]

METRO EMU

Nexus, Tyne and Wear, UK


Nexus, a rail operator in the north-east of England, ordered 42 new METRO trains from Stadler in January 2020. The new vehicles will be used on the Tyne and Wear Metro network in the region around Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead, South Tyne-side, North Tyneside and Sunderland in the north-east of England. The light five-part railcars enable efficient and inexpensive operation. The new vehicles require considerably less energy, which is due to their lightweight construction, the recovery of braking energy and the modern and highly efficient traction converters. Power is supplied via an overhead line with 1500 V DC. The vehicles are also prepared for the integration of an energy storage system and can therefore also be used on expansion routes that may be added at a later date. The vehicles are designed for a top speed of 80 km / h. The interior of the vehicles is bright and open. There are special multifunctional areas for wheelchairs, strollers, luggage and bicycles. The interior concept will improve passengers' sense of security through video surveillance, protection systems for door operation and clear warning displays. Good thermal and acoustic insulation ensures a comfortable room climate, newly developed bogies with air suspension lead to an improved driving experience.


Technical features
Technology
- Light car body made of extruded profiles
- Outstanding collision safety ensures safe mixed operation in full rail Traffic
- Newly developed Jakobs motor bogies and barrel bogies with air suspension
- Disc and magnetic rail brakes
- Modern vehicle control technology
- Automatic front coupling for multiple traction
- Swivel sliding doors and sliding steps for entry at ground level
- Low energy consumption thanks to lightweight vehicles, braking energy recovery and modern traction converters
- Thanks to powerful traction batteries, emergency operation does not depend on the energy supply. The vehicles are prepared for the later installation of a large energy storage system, with the help of which they can also be operated on catenary-free extension lines

Comfort
- Bright, passenger-friendly interior with a unique design
- Eight entry doors per side for rapid passenger flow
- Ground level access to all entrances thanks to sliding steps
- Generous multifunctional areas and wheelchair spaces
- Modern passenger information system and VSS
- Powerful air conditioning and underfloor heating

Staff
- Generous cab over the entire width with excellent lines of sight for the driver
- Automatic side door for easy access to the cab

Reliability / availability / maintainability / security
- Redundant traction equipment with maintenance-friendly, water-cooled IGBT converters
- Remote vehicle diagnostics to support condition-based maintenance

Vehicle data
Customer Nexus
Field of application Tyne and Wear Metro
Track width 1435 mm
Description METRO EMU
Supply voltage 1500 V DC
Axle arrangement 2 '(Bo)' (Bo) '(Bo)' (Bo) '2'
Max. Axle load 12.5 t
Suspension (secondary / primary) air suspension + rubber-metal spring element
Number of vehicles 42
Commissioned in 2023/2024
Seats (2nd class only) 104
Folding seats None
Standing room 493
Floor height 940 mm SOK
Entry width 1400 mm
Longitudinal compressive force 800 kN
Length over coupling 59 900 mm
Vehicle width 2650 mm
Vehicle height 3445 mm
Bogie axle stand
Motor bogie 2200 mm
Bogie 2000 mm
Drive wheel diameter, new 720 mm
Impeller diameter, new 720 mm
Continuous power at the wheel 942 kW
Maximum power at the wheel 1320 kW
Starting traction 140kN
Starting acceleration gross 1.35 m / s²
Braking distance service braking 250 m
Braking distance emergency braking 150 m
Top speed 80 km / h

 

[507 001]

Considering the new Merseyrail units are 75mph with acceleration that is apparently better than a 331 (which have been described as psychotic!), I find it strange that they’ve gone for 50mph units. I suspect theres something in the light rail legislation used for the actual metro network that limits top speed to 50, but the run out to Sunderland?

 

[hacman]

Considering the new Merseyrail units are 75mph with acceleration that is apparently better than a 331 (which have been described as psychotic!), I find it strange that they’ve gone for 50mph units. I suspect theres something in the light rail legislation used for the actual metro network that limits top speed to 50, but the run out to Sunderland?

I'm not aware of any legislative reason for this.

It's most likely that a traction package capable of more than 50mph would have added cost, and Nexus opted against that seeing that their network is only rated for 50mph.

Someone mentioned above that Stadler proposed two traction packages, one capable of the 1.3m/s/s acceleration rate in the agreed design with a 50mph limit, and one with a higher top speed but a lower acceleration rate. To me that doesn't quite add up though given the comparative specification of the class 777, which achieves a 1.1m/s/s acceleration rate despite being a longer unit with less wheelsets and traction motors. The FLIRT variant that has been provided for Greater Anglia can also reach 100mph at 1.3m/s/s in the 3 car configuration, and that's despite these units having a diesel powerplant module and only two powered bogies - so the technology is there.

It seems a bit of a shame really, but then again there have been a few areas with these vehicles that represent missed opportunities.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I find it strange that they’ve gone for 50mph units

The max speed on the network is 80km/h, no point going for more. Given the network has a high density stopping pattern, I can't think of many places you'd get to go faster before having to brake for the next station.

Should a change ever be needed, I'm sure a software upgrade is all is needed to allow a higher top speed.

 

[ModernRailways]

The max speed on the network is 80km/h, no point going for more. Given the network has a high density stopping pattern, I can't think of many places you'd get to go faster before having to brake for the next station.

Should a change ever be needed, I'm sure a software upgrade is all is needed to allow a higher top speed.

Precisely, the only section of the network where you would see any notable improvements would be the Sunderland extension. There are a few other sections but they are few and far between so not worth a change.

 

[hacman]

The first train has been driven under its' own power into the new depot at Howden yesterday. 4017 was the leading unit, paired with 4041.

I'm guessing there have been no issues, so we should see the last stages of this being commissioned completed shortly, with use following not long after.

 

[whoosh]

I'm not aware of any legislative reason for this.

It's most likely that a traction package capable of more than 50mph would have added cost, and Nexus opted against that seeing that their network is only rated for 50mph.

Someone mentioned above that Stadler proposed two traction packages, one capable of the 1.3m/s/s acceleration rate in the agreed design with a 50mph limit, and one with a higher top speed but a lower acceleration rate. To me that doesn't quite add up though given the comparative specification of the class 777, which achieves a 1.1m/s/s acceleration rate despite being a longer unit with less wheelsets and traction motors. The FLIRT variant that has been provided for Greater Anglia can also reach 100mph at 1.3m/s/s in the 3 car configuration, and that's despite these units having a diesel powerplant module and only two powered bogies - so the technology is there.

It seems a bit of a shame really, but then again there have been a few areas with these vehicles that represent missed opportunities.

I don't know the answer to this, perhaps someone with more engineering knowledge might know, but in relation to Merseyrail and GA units in comparison to Tyne & Wear; the extra speed and traction power needed to get to that speed - would that need a different wheel profile? Different suspension settings? How would that impact the existing track on T&W if those things were different?

I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the official designation of 'light railways' was for a maximum of 60mph.