I'm going to assume when Bolton news says "coupling one unit to another" they actually mean one carriage to another. The auto couplers on the ends of the units are of a generic design found on hundreds if not thousands of different trains around the world.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Northern Class 195: Construction/Introduction Updates
- Thread starter Haydn1971
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,301
Especially as it states all the trains are built in Spain, when in fact now they are being assembled in Newport. And there are 101, not 98 new trains.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, that's how I read it too, which would agree with the issue that has been reported here.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,694
Lots of anti EU comments unsurprisingly, if the British had built them this would never ever happen we always make perfect everything!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Anyone saying that has never travelled on anything with typical Derby poor build quality.
Siemens is the benchmark - nobody else comes close.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,933
Plenty of issues with the 700s when introduced as well.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
True, though most of these were not down to actual build quality.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Not yet they aren't, and all the engineering will still come from Spain.
Just as the 80x is a Japanese train whether built in Kasado, Pistoia or Newton Aycliffe.
Yes, there are some components which come from UK suppliers, but the major stuff doesn't.
That's also largely true of trains from Derby by the way.
Sleeperwaking
Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 166
I saw a video of a 195 being tested for water tightness at the Newport factory on LinkedIn the other week, so can't be far off now.
Aha - found the post eventually (link). It's mainly just a short video, with accompanying text: "First CAF Newport train in water test".
Various Northern drivers/ conductors such as @Llama and @Adam0984 have confirmed that they won't be entering service in May. This has been confirmed on the class 331 introduction thread as well as this thread
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,301
Stadler will be an interesting comparison.
It was my understanding the first 331(111) assembled in Llanwern was delivered to Northern last month, from 507021's useful Northern fleet list. Strictly speaking as per the thread title, you are correct that there hasn't been a 195 out of Newport to date.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,859
I mean they are a different class of train...
The Northern Star
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 422
195s restart Monday. With a new evening path off Edge Hill added to the ones that were already there.
New path: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/N53165/2019/04/16/advanced
New path: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/N53165/2019/04/16/advanced
The Northern Star
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 422
Confirmed by the project manager and one of the driver trainers for the course
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,586
If it was unit end couplers they'd still be testing single units, I imagaine and the description of the coupler as "too big" sound more like a fixed bar fouling the sides of (what we trainspotters call) a drag box.
But technically everything being discussed here is also the same as what's being discussed in that thread and I don't think the TOPS number or the fact that one is Electric and one is diesel actually matter
Last edited:
It is the intermediate couplings that are the issue, and Northern's press statement (which I no longer have, since this happened a few weeks ago) confirms that. Not quite sure how Seamus has got the wrong end of the stick, but he's managed it.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I *think* that's a unit completed in Spain which has been put through Newport for some final tests.
None of the Northern/TPE trains were due to be assembled at Newport, although programme delays might have altered that plan.
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
I posted this; wonder if they'll take notice:
Anamyd Nawor 12th April 6:27 pm
The problem is with the internal bar couplers between each of the vehicles within a given unit, not the external (e.g. Dellner) couplers on the unit ends. The actual problem is that the housings that the internal bar couplers sit in aren't wide enough for the tight curves / bends on UK tracks. Those tracks aren't to the European TSI (Technical Specifications for Interoperability) that the trains were built to! It's a good job that this issue was caught at this stage and not after the Northern units had entered passenger service or the West Midlands Trains or Transport for Wales CAF multiple-unit train builds had started. I believe it also affects what will be the TransPennine Express units, but not the TransPennine Express or Caledonian Sleeper locomotive-hauled passenger coaches, despite being CAF-built.
Anamyd Nawor 12th April 6:27 pm
The problem is with the internal bar couplers between each of the vehicles within a given unit, not the external (e.g. Dellner) couplers on the unit ends. The actual problem is that the housings that the internal bar couplers sit in aren't wide enough for the tight curves / bends on UK tracks. Those tracks aren't to the European TSI (Technical Specifications for Interoperability) that the trains were built to! It's a good job that this issue was caught at this stage and not after the Northern units had entered passenger service or the West Midlands Trains or Transport for Wales CAF multiple-unit train builds had started. I believe it also affects what will be the TransPennine Express units, but not the TransPennine Express or Caledonian Sleeper locomotive-hauled passenger coaches, despite being CAF-built.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,933
Most of what's CURRENTLY being discussed here might be common to 331s (and largely also 397s, and presumably forthcoming 196s), but there are a lot more factors to their introduction than one fault common between multiple fleets.
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
what needed 5mm of what...?
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Gap probably
That seems to imply that the issue is with the permanent way rather than the stock, which is contrary to what we have been told in internal communications.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
I read it as them saying our tracks aren't the right type for their special little train, basically admitting they screwed up. Considering they helped build the 332's, I'm surprised this is an issue.
Nymanic
Member
Since the 332s and 333s have 3+2 seating, I assume the carriage body is slightly wider, which might just make a difference.
It's unfortunate that the 195s and 331s weren't built to the same width, for the sake of extra standing space or future reconfiguration, although clearance issues would have probably delayed their introduction further.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
They're 24 meter carriages so need to be narrow otherwise they'd be banned from certain routes.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Like Hitachi's issues on signalling interference, TSI conformance works both ways.
Both stock and infrastructure have to conform if that's what the train technical spec said.
Both stock and infrastructure have to conform if that's what the train technical spec said.
- Status