CAF class 197 Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[221101 Voyager]

And while COVID might get them off the hook, in pretty much every case of a TOC doing a fleet replacement they've ended up keeping a few older trains because they didn't order enough of the new ones. Oops.

Bit like London Overground ordering 3 coach 378's that are now 5 coaches! I bet TfW will have the same issues and regret their choices and spec and will say please Sir (CAF) can we have some more!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bit like London Overground ordering 3 coach 378's that are now 5 coaches! I bet TfW will have the same issues and regret their choices and spec and will say please Sir (CAF) can we have some more!

Yes, lengthening them all by one coach (3 to 4 and 2 to 3) would also be a good solution (plus do the work to the Cambrian to allow 6-car working, 3 to each destination). Would put 1st in all units, it's money for old rope particularly from tourists on what can be a very long journey.

 

[221101 Voyager]

Yes, lengthening them all by one coach (3 to 4 and 2 to 3) would also be a good solution (plus do the work to the Cambrian to allow 6-car working, 3 to each destination). Would put 1st in all units, it's money for old rope particularly from tourists on what can be a very long journey.

From what I know trains are very slow in Wales aren't they, I've never been there so I've not experienced it first hand. Isn't 100 Mph a bit OTT for most of Wales?

 

[Speed43125]

Isn't 100 Mph a bit OTT for most of Wales?

Headline figures.

But in fairness the Civities do accelerate very well for such high gearing.

 

[221101 Voyager]

Headline figures.

But in fairness the Civities do accelerate very well for such high gearing.

Fair enough but are Civities any good as I've not heard anyone singing their praises?

 

[py_megapixel]

Fair enough but are Civities any good as I've not heard anyone singing their praises?

Specced properly, they can be pretty good. The problem with them is that the TOCs that have ordered them have botched the interior spec incredibly badly.

Their acceleration is impressive, they have nice big windows and generally feel modern and airy inside. Their main problem is the bumpy ride, which I feel can be at least partially put down to the poor choice of seat, in the Northern units.

 

[Anonymous10]

Specced properly, they can be pretty good. The problem with them is that the TOCs that have ordered them have botched the interior spec incredibly badly.

Their acceleration is impressive, they have nice big windows and generally feel modern and airy inside. Their main problem is the bumpy ride, which I feel can be at least partially put down to the poor choice of seat, in the Northern units.

Cost cost cost it's all about the cost need I. Say more

 

[Speed43125]

Fair enough but are Civities any good as I've not heard anyone singing their praises?

Specced properly, they can be pretty good.

Well that's the issue isn't it! I'm a little concerned TfW may have cheaped out on the FLIRTs too, none of what they've so far done gives me any confidence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Specced properly, they can be pretty good. The problem with them is that the TOCs that have ordered them have botched the interior spec incredibly badly.

Their acceleration is impressive, they have nice big windows and generally feel modern and airy inside. Their main problem is the bumpy ride, which I feel can be at least partially put down to the poor choice of seat, in the Northern units.

The main problem I find with the Northern and TfW units is that they ordered them with a window layout that could not have any sensible seating layout aligned with it because the window width is not a bay width. WMT proved that CAF do offer a layout which has the windows the same width as a Standard class bay. So it's just unthinking, really.

I wonder were WMT charged more for the alignable window layout they chose?

 

[221101 Voyager]

Specced properly, they can be pretty good. The problem with them is that the TOCs that have ordered them have botched the interior spec incredibly badly.

Their acceleration is impressive, they have nice big windows and generally feel modern and airy inside. Their main problem is the bumpy ride, which I feel can be at least partially put down to the poor choice of seat, in the Northern units.

Fair enough. I've been on a 755 and was very impressed with it, so hopefully the Welsh ones will be as good. I've never been on a Civity so can't say anything about them yet.

 

[berneyarms]

looking at the train plans in

Transport for Wales defend new Welshpool trains

But illustration appears to show less seats, tables and toilets

www.mywelshpool.co.uk

It appears that a 3 coach 197 with first class areas will lose about 40 standard class seats compared with a 3 coach 175.
A two coach 197 without first class will lose about 20 seats compared with a 2 coach 175, whilst a two coach 197 including first class would only have about 90 standard class seats -- totally inadequate. The people responsible for such ideas must be !!!!****!!!! (censored words)

Aren’t the sets with First Class always going to joined to another set between Manchester and Swansea?

That will be an increase in capacity.

 

[Speed43125]

Are the 197's going to have the weird and ugly shaped roof of the 196?

The little box at the cab ends? yes

 

[221101 Voyager]

The little box at the cab ends? yes

This bit.

Looks like a 66 that's been flattened! Hideous, especially in a light colour, in grey it would look nicer like the 197's probably will be. Is there any photos of what the 197's look like yet?

 

[py_megapixel]

This bit. View attachment 82862

Looks like a 66 that's been flattened! Hideous, especially in a light colour, in grey it would look nicer like the 197's probably will be. Is there any photos of what the 197's look like yet?

A minor detail in the styling of the cab roof is the least of the problems with the 197...

 

[Anonymous10]

A minor detail in the styling of the cab roof is the least of the problems with the 197...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Aug 2020 ==


Yes that's what I meant. All vehicles would, in that case, be powered.

Oh I thought they had 2 powered and 3 unpowered at least it wouldn't be slow

 

[221101 Voyager]

A minor detail in the styling of the cab roof is the least of the problems with the 197...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Aug 2020 ==


Yes that's what I meant. All vehicles would, in that case, be powered.

Oh gosh! Bright red, I don't know whether the orange of the 196 roof or the red of this is worse! To me the 195, 196 & 197 already looked dated in my eyes. I think the design has already aged badly as it's hardly classy, modern or revolutionary in any way. Put the cab end on a 150/2 and it would look like a "new sprinter!" But uglier!

 

[craigybagel]

Aren’t the sets with First Class always going to joined to another set between Manchester and Swansea?

That will be an increase in capacity.

Correct - and on the sections of the network that currently see trains run close to capacity the number of services running is being increased. But why let such facts get in the way of all the Doom and Gloom being spread here ....

 

[Bikeman78]

Cost cost cost it's all about the cost need I. Say more

Ian Walmsley has mentioned it a few times. If you have poor suspension combined with hard seats then you will feel every bump.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I can't see any 158s needed to be retained as they won't be needed, If any fleet would be retained I think it would be the 175's as they look good after there recent refurbs plus they are TFWs youngest units.

Sorry, the bit about 158s being retained is what I thought should happen (because I think they should have fewer 197s than have been ordered), not what is planned to happen.

I think I'm right in saying that Liverpool-Shrewsbury is an hourly service but that only half the trains will continue on to Cardiff providing a two hourly service.

That was what one of the documents said. Another suggested it would be hourly Cardiff-Shrewsbury with only half the trains continuing to Liverpool.

It appears that a 3 coach 197 with first class areas will lose about 40 standard class seats compared with a 3 coach 175.
A two coach 197 without first class will lose about 20 seats compared with a 2 coach 175, whilst a two coach 197 including first class would only have about 90 standard class seats -- totally inadequate. The people responsible for such ideas must be !!!!****!!!! (censored words)

I think you may have the wrong number of seats for the 175s, unless there are tip-up seats making a big difference. I make it:

• 2-car 175 vs 2-car 197: 197 has 2 fewer seats
• 3-car 175 vs 3-car 197: 197 has 2 more seats
• 3-car 175 vs 1st class 197: 197 has 12 fewer seats (28 fewer if only looking at standard class capacity)

There are no 2-car 197s planned with first class. The seating capacity of the units without first class is therefore much the same as a 175. However, the seat-pitch on a 175 is (depending on whether I chose to believe my tape measure or TfW's spin) either 1cm or 2cm greater. The 175 manages to get a toilet in every vehicle too, meaning they are a far better use of space. More ground-level luggage stack capacity on a 2-car 175 than on a 2-car 197 as well I believe (I don't know what luggage stacks exist in the centre car of a 175).

I'm not sure of the capacity of a 158 (I think the number I have may be pre-refurbishment) but I think a 2-car 197 has 18 fewer seats than a 2-car 158.

Yes, lengthening them all by one coach (3 to 4 and 2 to 3) would also be a good solution

No it wouldn't. They would still have worse legroom than a 175 and fewer good view seats than either 158s or 175s. Even more-importantly, they would still be unable to make use of electrification and would still have no toilet in one of the end cars. We need less of them not more. It would solve the capacity problem on the Cambrian (compared to the planned 2-car 197s) and that's the only thing of value that suggestion would acheive.

Specced properly, they can be pretty good. The problem with them is that the TOCs that have ordered them have botched the interior spec incredibly badly.

Their acceleration is impressive, they have nice big windows and generally feel modern and airy inside. Their main problem is the bumpy ride, which I feel can be at least partially put down to the poor choice of seat, in the Northern units.

Big windows? Another element of the botched spec perhaps, but my tape measure found Northern's to be 129.5cm x 76.5cm with 48cm pillars between them. A 175's windows are, I think, 155x65cm with pillars at 35cm while Ian Walmsley's August 2020 column in Modern Railways states that he would set the maximum pillar size at 300mm. I make that 18cm wider pillars than necessary on a 195.

The main problem I find with the Northern and TfW units is that they ordered them with a window layout that could not have any sensible seating layout aligned with it because the window width is not a bay width. WMT proved that CAF do offer a layout which has the windows the same width as a Standard class bay. So it's just unthinking, really.

Depends on what the bay width is. TfW's spec for the 197s is I believe a bay pitch of 180cm. The 196s have MORE windows than TfW and Northern, so presumably the windows are smaller still than the 195's. The seat-pitch on WMT's bays must therefore be really tight to align with windows less than 130cm wide. To align with TfW's 180cm bay pitch you would need much bigger windows. The only train I've measured with windows big enough (actually slightly too big, at 181cm wide) are class 156s. Be aware however that for two rows of airline seats to take up the same space as a 180cm bay (and therefore keep the seats aligned with windows thoughout the carriage) the airline seat pitch would need to be 90cm (significantly better than a 175).

Aren’t the sets with First Class always going to joined to another set between Manchester and Swansea?

That will be an increase in capacity.

Most of them are planned to be used between Manchester and Swansea yes, but 14 units (I think that's how many were ordered with 1st) seems a bit much for just that (which I think would be 9 diagrams). Thus either they are planning to send the 3-car portion through to Milford Haven / Carmarthen (which would be a smaller reduction in capacity west of Swansea than the alternative of 2-car 197 replacing a 3-car 175) or a few 1st class units will appear elsewhere. If the 3-car unit on the Manchesters is the one detached at Swansea, the numbers look about right for all Holyhead-Cardiff workings to have first class (some being LHCS the others being 3-car 197s) though TfW have not confirmed this.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry, the bit about 158s being retained is what I thought should happen (because I think they should have fewer 197s than have been ordered), not what is planned to happen.....

Just a gentle reminder to all that we absolutely do welcome people posting their own ideas/suggestions.

However, to avoid confusion, we do ask for these to be posted exclusively in the Speculative Ideas forum section please.

Thanks

 

[Prestige15]

Fair enough. I've been on a 755 and was very impressed with it, so hopefully the Welsh ones will be as good. I've never been on a Civity so can't say anything about them yet.

CAF (Northern/Sleepers so far) are known for its firm ride. Can't remember what youtube video it was but one comment that it was describe as 'A train with fred flintstone bogies'

 

[Anonymous10]

So will the bumpiness of a 197 be similar to a pacer

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends on what the bay width is. TfW's spec for the 197s is I believe a bay pitch of 180cm. The 196s have MORE windows than TfW and Northern, so presumably the windows are smaller still than the 195's. The seat-pitch on WMT's bays must therefore be really tight to align with windows less than 130cm wide. To align with TfW's 180cm bay pitch you would need much bigger windows. The only train I've measured with windows big enough (actually slightly too big, at 181cm wide) are class 156s. Be aware however that for two rows of airline seats to take up the same space as a 180cm bay (and therefore keep the seats aligned with windows thoughout the carriage) the airline seat pitch would need to be 90cm (significantly better than a 175).

I think you've got that a bit off. You don't have the bay width set to one window width, you have it set to one window width plus one pillar width (actually two half-pillars, one either side). Or you do the clever thing that was done with 158s which is to alternate the two, so a table has a window plus two full pillars, and a pair of airlines just a window, which cleverly takes account of the fact that airline seats require less space because there isn't wasted space between seat backs.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think you've got that a bit off. You don't have the bay width set to one window width, you have it set to one window width plus one pillar width (actually two half-pillars, one either side).

Good point, you're right of course. So on a 195 (I think a 197 is the same), assuming my measurements are correct, the align-able bay seat pitch would be 129.5+48 = 177.5cm which is still less than the bay pitch TfW have specified so TfW need larger windows to make their tables align with the windows not smaller windows like a 196 has. That said, are all the windows the same size (I've just assumed they are and only measured one window on a 195 very quickly before getting off)? It's possible that what WMT have done with the 196s is specify smaller windows for alignment with airline-style seats in the middle of the coach but kept the end windows the same as a 195 to align with bays only slightly tighter than TfW's.

Or you do the clever thing that was done with 158s which is to alternate the two, so a table has a window plus two full pillars, and a pair of airlines just a window, which cleverly takes account of the fact that airline seats require less space because there isn't wasted space between seat backs.

Clever in some respects but not others. The 158 airline seat pitch isn't really good enough (along with the unreliable air-con that's the one of the 158's few flaws) and giving a table two full pillars means views would be partially restricted (unless you have really thin pillars so that the thickness of the seat back plus the passenger's head moves their eyes past the pillar). It means you have transitions between bay and airline seating where the airline seating faces the back of a table seat. Personally, I think bays should be grouped together in the middle of a vehicle/section with the transition to airline being acheived by having the back of the first airline seat against the back of the last bay seat. Doing it that way maximises the number of back-to-back seats allowing bins or luggage to be placed between the seat backs.

 

[Wolfie]

Hear! We risk heading in a rather American direction if such ostentatious threats of litigation become normalised as a way to conduct business.

If companies at best try to circumvent and at worst flout the law to save themselves money they bring it on themselves. Given TOCs general attitude over things like ticketing l say sue them early and often! The sooner certain vile groups disappear from all public contracts the better!

 

[Envoy]

It looks to me like these 197’s won’t have destination display panels on the sides (like the Hitachi 800’s). Surely this is very short sighted especially as these trains are designed to allow splitting/joining? It would make life so much clearer to the travelling public if for example at Shrewsbury, the coaches for Pwllheli / Aberystwyth were clearly marked to avoid people getting on the wrong section according to the split at Machynlleth. Likewise, it would be great if the coaches heading west of Swansea were clearly marked on those services coming down from Manchester. In fact, this would help to keep that section of the train clear of people who might for example only be going from Cardiff to Neath. (If such people for stations between Cardiff & Swansea boarded the west Wales section, it could well mean that passengers who have to be on the rear section can’t find a seat and have to move at Swansea).

I know that other split points will obviously occur on various routes. Even without the split situation, it certainly clarifies to the travelling public where the train/each coach is going.

 

[Doveymain158]

They will have them but more like northern design on the 195/331

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clever in some respects but not others. The 158 airline seat pitch isn't really good enough (along with the unreliable air-con that's the one of the 158's few flaws) and giving a table two full pillars means views would be partially restricted (unless you have really thin pillars so that the thickness of the seat back plus the passenger's head moves their eyes past the pillar). It means you have transitions between bay and airline seating where the airline seating faces the back of a table seat. Personally, I think bays should be grouped together in the middle of a vehicle/section with the transition to airline being acheived by having the back of the first airline seat against the back of the last bay seat. Doing it that way maximises the number of back-to-back seats allowing bins or luggage to be placed between the seat backs.

The pitch issue is solved by having fewer bays. But I don't agree there's an issue with the 158 pitch, just the type of seat. With thinner-backed seats, the pitch is quite generous.

I have never found my view out of a 158 in a table seat to be in any way obscured. They are the best rolling stock in the UK with regard to window view, bar none, in my view. I'd love to see the 197 the same.

 

[Domh245]

It looks to me like these 197’s won’t have destination display panels on the sides (like the Hitachi 800’s). Surely this is very short sighted especially as these trains are designed to allow splitting/joining? It would make life so much clearer to the travelling public if for example at Shrewsbury, the coaches for Pwllheli / Aberystwyth were clearly marked to avoid people getting on the wrong section according to the split at Machynlleth. Likewise, it would be great if the coaches heading west of Swansea were clearly marked on those services coming down from Manchester. In fact, this would help to keep that section of the train clear of people who might for example only be going from Cardiff to Neath. (If such people for stations between Cardiff & Swansea boarded the west Wales section, it could well mean that passengers who have to be on the rear section can’t find a seat and have to move at Swansea).

I know that other split points will obviously occur on various routes. Even without the split situation, it certainly clarifies to the travelling public where the train/each coach is going.

They won't have the same sort as the 800s do, but they are required to have side display panels under PRM, which these do in the windows. Hopefully they are able to arrange something like on the 377s which show the splitting pattern well, but I wouldn't have my hopes up

 

[Bletchleyite]

They won't have the same sort as the 800s do, but they are required to have side display panels under PRM, which these do in the windows. Hopefully they are able to arrange something like on the 377s which show the splitting pattern well, but I wouldn't have my hopes up

Nor would I given that TfW doesn't seem to show portion working correctly on any display, anywhere, ever.

It doesn't, to be fair, help that they don't enter it in the timetable systems correctly, and often prat about with it on the fly to deal with their chronic stock shortage (which the 197s should at least help).