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

[Envoy]

Thanks for the swift responses. If the destination display is mounted in a window, then surely it would obscure vision for any passenger in such a seat - even if mounted high?

You would think that with a new fleet, that TfW would get it sorted so that correct portion displays are shown.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for the swift responses. If the destination display is mounted in a window, then surely it would obscure vision for any passenger in such a seat - even if mounted high?

They do a bit but not massively. It's not an unusual thing to do as it avoids another hole in the bodyside, and being open to the air of the air-conditioned saloon prevents steaming up and damp damage.

 

[Envoy]

They do a bit but not massively. It's not an unusual thing to do as it avoids another hole in the bodyside, and being open to the air of the air-conditioned saloon prevents steaming up and damp damage.

Thanks for that.

 

[samuelmorris]

Thanks for the swift responses. If the destination display is mounted in a window, then surely it would obscure vision for any passenger in such a seat - even if mounted high?

You would think that with a new fleet, that TfW would get it sorted so that correct portion displays are shown.

Every side display obscures the view to some degree I thought? It isn't usually an issue except on 745/755s to my knowledge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Every side display obscures the view to some degree I thought? It isn't usually an issue except on 745/755s to my knowledge.

Voyagers, 80x and Pendolinos have the displays in a separate bodyside hole (in the door in the Pendolino's case). They often steam up and seem unreliable possibly as a result of that.

They are a bit big on the Stadlers for some reason; fortunately other stock doesn't replicate that. More usual is that they sit in the space that would be used by a window opener if there was one, so you don't tend to look out of there anyway.

 

[py_megapixel]

Voyagers, 80x and Pendolinos have the displays in a separate bodyside hole (in the door in the Pendolino's case). They often steam up and seem unreliable possibly as a result of that.

They are a bit big on the Stadlers for some reason; fortunately other stock doesn't replicate that. More usual is that they sit in the space that would be used by a window opener if there was one, so you don't tend to look out of there anyway.

Displays, in general, is one of the things that I think the Civities get very right. They are easy and the interior TFT panels lay out the information in a clear, simple to understand way, while the exterior ones have big, clear letters and clearly display the coach letter. The only problem they have is that you can't read the outside ones in direct sunlight, but that seems to be an issue with all trains, and buses as well.

As for them taking up window space - they don't really, at least not in a meaningful way. The photo on Wikipedia illustrates this very well- they're a long way above head level for almost all passengers, and for the few that might find their view obstructed, there are plenty of other seats with unobstructed windows.
(By Superalbs - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Picture shows the interior of a Northern Class 331.

 

[Envoy]

Don't they come with sprung hooks for jackets - which I find most useful on the Hitachi 800’s? Can the above seat racks take cases of a size demanded by the likes of Easyjet & Ryan Air for storage above heads?

 

[py_megapixel]

Don't they come with sprung hooks for jackets - which I find most useful on the Hitachi 800’s? Can the above seat racks take cases of a size demanded by the likes of Easyjet & Ryan Air for storage above heads?

Overhead racks on 195s are huge.

No jacket hooks (but then they might be in the TfW spec) - though I rarely see anyone use them anyway!

 

[Envoy]

Overhead racks on 195s are huge.

No jacket hooks (but then they might be in the TfW spec) - though I rarely see anyone use them anyway!

I find the hooks to be very useful. Suppose it is a hot thundery day in summer & you are in a business suit: sodden raincoat can go overhead and suit jacket needs to come off (due to heat) & can be hung on the hook - where it will be clean and isolated from any damp overhead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find the hooks to be very useful. Suppose it is a hot thundery day in summer & you are in a business suit: sodden raincoat can go overhead and suit jacket needs to come off (due to heat) & can be hung on the hook - where it will be clean and isolated from any damp overhead.

Putting a wet coat on one would be inconsiderate as it'd soak the knees of the person behind because of how they hang down, so, yes, their purpose is basically for suit jackets. So I guess anyone who wears a suit considers them useful, and anyone who doesn't doesn't!

 

[Rhydgaled]

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.

The ATW refurb of the 158s was very good, I found the seats to be the best of the modern thin seats and almost all of the table bays (which there are quite a good number of) are perfectly aligned with the windows as you say (I think there might be one bay that isn't). The openning windows do partly restrict the view in a few of the bays but other than that the bays are generally great. The airline-style seats are a bit tight for my 6ft something height (I'm somewhere between 6ft 2in and 6ft 4in I think), I do fit in them when I first sit down but the pitch is not what I'd call 'generous' and is nowhere near sufficient for the really comfy (but thicker-backed) softer seats some of the Northern 158s had a few years ago. I think the seat pitch in airline on a class 175 is 4cm greater than on a 158.

Contrast that to a 197; yes the airline seat pitch is a bit better than a 158, but it's no 175 and there seems to be very few bays that even come close to being fully aligned with the windows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here's the seating plans:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3deuCda1S8DtrEXOjReOwJe0c2MtAbfxcotywPpvWwHsPwZGpRjerIvaKHpIY1XIYWL5_6BK_oxenSEwrrRFEGgPnuRSZij3o9sn2G9plZAmywl0ABh81N-44EDNEWZqkSEMN_jwZhRltiAYhcdGDSP-w=w846-h600-no

Almost no tables, including in 1st, are in any way aligned to the windows, which is really very, very poor.

 

[Envoy]

That’s not a very clear image (above) but from what I can make out, things do not look good with many seats by pillars. Surely they can do better than that? Perhaps TfW can put a clearer image on here? Surely you guys are reading this!

What are the green areas - baggage?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Here's the seating plans:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3deuCda1S8DtrEXOjReOwJe0c2MtAbfxcotywPpvWwHsPwZGpRjerIvaKHpIY1XIYWL5_6BK_oxenSEwrrRFEGgPnuRSZij3o9sn2G9plZAmywl0ABh81N-44EDNEWZqkSEMN_jwZhRltiAYhcdGDSP-w=w846-h600-no

Almost no tables, including in 1st, are in any way aligned to the windows, which is really very, very poor.

Indeed; just 4 bays on the whole train seem to be anywhere near aligned, the centre coach of the 3-car units being a complete dud with one bay having the view blocked for all 4 passengers (most of the others are blocked just for one side of the table, like the bays on a 153). I've counted 2 of the 4 bays in 1st as being in the 'almost aligned' category, with there only being 2 'almost aligned' bays in standard in those units (the other units have 4 'almost aligned' standard class bays, two of which are lost to the 1st class area). Apart from specifying unit end gangways, almost no thought appears to have been given to what is needed on the routes the 197s are intended to operate.

 

[irish_rail]

Indeed; just 4 bays on the whole train seem to be anywhere near aligned, the centre coach of the 3-car units being a complete dud with one bay having the view blocked for all 4 passengers (most of the others are blocked just for one side of the table, like the bays on a 153). I've counted 2 of the 4 bays in 1st as being in the 'almost aligned' category, with there only being 2 'almost aligned' bays in standard in those units (the other units have 4 'almost aligned' standard class bays, two of which are lost to the 1st class area). Apart from specifying unit end gangways, almost no thought appears to have been given to what is needed on the routes the 197s are intended to operate.

Don't you just love change for changes sake.
The 175s are good trains and work well on inter regional , semi intercity trains. Such a shame the service is being degraded in quality.

 

[Rhydgaled]

That’s not a very clear image (above) but from what I can make out, things do not look good with many seats by pillars. Surely they can do better than that? Perhaps TfW can put a clearer image on here? Surely you guys are reading this!

What are the green areas - baggage?

Green is used on a few different things, one of which being the outline of the fixed tables I think, but yes some of the green areas are for luggage storage. The luggage areas seem to be as follows:

• DMSL - one 650mm luggage rack
• MSL - one 650mm luggage rack
• DMS - one 844mm luggage rack
• DMC - two 494mm luggage racks (this coach is shown as DMS FIRST CLASS on the diagram)

This means total luggage rack capacity as follows (with 158 and 175/0 for comparison):

• class 158 (2-car) - 3,820mm (three 58cm luggage racks and two 104cm racks per train)
• class 175/0 (2-car) - 2,600mm (two 650mm luggage racks per coach)
• class 197 2-car units - 1,494mm
• class 197 3-car units (standard only) - 2,144mm
• class 197 3-car units (with 1st class) - 2,288mm

I don't know how big the luggage racks are in coach B on a 175, but given the 2-car units already have more ground-level luggage rack capacity than a 3-car 197 I don't think that matters. I've 'shown my working' for the 175s and 158s in case you think I've got it wrong and want to check on the real trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's a big difference there, though, in that 175s have overheads that are barely big enough to put your coat on, whereas Civity ones are so large that you can fit a 120 litre rucksack up there (and yes, I've done it) - so basically anything any passenger is likely to have will fit, if they're strong enough to put it up. So the Civity certainly wins on overall luggage capacity.

 

[Pacerman99]

There's a big difference there, though, in that 175s have overheads that are barely big enough to put your coat on, whereas Civity ones are so large that you can fit a 120 litre rucksack up there (and yes, I've done it) - so basically anything any passenger is likely to have will fit, if they're strong enough to put it up. So the Civity certainly wins on overall luggage capacity.

Plus, looking at the seating plan there is also quite a large 'multi use' area in the DMSL that can be used to store luggage.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Plus, looking at the seating plan there is also quite a large 'multi use' area in the DMSL that can be used to store luggage.

I can't see anywhere marked as 'multi use area', the large empty space in the DMSL opposite the bikes is marked 'CATERING'.

 

[Bikeman78]

Here's the seating plans:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3deuCda1S8DtrEXOjReOwJe0c2MtAbfxcotywPpvWwHsPwZGpRjerIvaKHpIY1XIYWL5_6BK_oxenSEwrrRFEGgPnuRSZij3o9sn2G9plZAmywl0ABh81N-44EDNEWZqkSEMN_jwZhRltiAYhcdGDSP-w=w846-h600-no

Almost no tables, including in 1st, are in any way aligned to the windows, which is really very, very poor.

Yet the class 397 have good seat to window alignment so CAF can build decent trains.

 

[Caaardiff]

I really can't see the public saying 'let's not take that TfW train because you can't see out of the window!'
What i can see the public saying is 'hopefully i can get a seat on that TfW train rather than standing'
The busier trains will be commuters who really won't care. The quieter trains will have leisure travellers who will like a view. If the seat they have doesn't have a good view, they can probably just move!
It's really not that big a deal. Capacity over views wins here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet the class 397 have good seat to window alignment so CAF can build decent trains.

TfW have basically broken the alignment by cramming an extra row in in the centre section (as per the Desiro). It would appear to me, otherwise, that a Class 158 style layout, alternating table bays and pairs of airline rows, would produce a pretty much (not perfect, but to the point nobody would really whine about it) aligned layout in that bodyshell.

First Class could have been slightly better aligned by moving the luggage racks, though getting that 100% would be hard because the window layout is based on Standard spacing.

 

[Efini92]

Here's the seating plans:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ACtC-3deuCda1S8DtrEXOjReOwJe0c2MtAbfxcotywPpvWwHsPwZGpRjerIvaKHpIY1XIYWL5_6BK_oxenSEwrrRFEGgPnuRSZij3o9sn2G9plZAmywl0ABh81N-44EDNEWZqkSEMN_jwZhRltiAYhcdGDSP-w=w846-h600-no

Almost no tables, including in 1st, are in any way aligned to the windows, which is really very, very poor.

At least they have been smart enough to have a gangway connection. That was a really poor mistake not having one on the 195/331.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At least they have been smart enough to have a gangway connection. That was a really poor mistake not having one on the 195/331.

Agreed, though less of an issue for Northern where the intention wasn't for quite as much multiple working. With TfW planning every Manchester-South Wales train to be 3+2 and with most Cambrian Coast trains portion-worked they would have been mad going without.

 

[Efini92]

I wonder if the coupler will be compatible with a 195/331 or a 196

 

[craigybagel]

I wonder if the coupler will be compatible with a 195/331 or a 196

I'd be very surprised if they're not mechanically at least, if only because I can't see CAF going to the expense of procuring/designing a different coupler for an otherwise design. Whether or not the different units will be able to couple electrically is another matter though of course.

 

[6Gtraincrew]

I'd be very surprised if they're not mechanically at least, if only because I can't see CAF going to the expense of procuring/designing a different coupler for an otherwise design. Whether or not the different units will be able to couple electrically is another matter though of course.

Happy to be corrected, but I think I read somewhere that because of the gangway connection the couplers had to be mounted upsidedown (or at least different in some way). So compatible with a 196 but not a 195.

 

[craigybagel]

Happy to be corrected, but I think I read somewhere that because of the gangway connection the couplers had to be mounted upsidedown (or at least different in some way). So compatible with a 196 but not a 195.

Ah I see - that is certainly entirely plausible!

Before we get deafened with people predicting all kinds of chaos from CAFs running around Manchester unable to be rescued by Northern units however, I would like to point out that the 175s also have that same issue and it doesn't seem to cause much problems.

 

[Envoy]

I really can't see the public saying 'let's not take that TfW train because you can't see out of the window!'
What i can see the public saying is 'hopefully i can get a seat on that TfW train rather than standing'
The busier trains will be commuters who really won't care. The quieter trains will have leisure travellers who will like a view. If the seat they have doesn't have a good view, they can probably just move!
It's really not that big a deal. Capacity over views wins here.

These trains will be used on some very scenic routes. Some people will be making the trips because of the scenery. If they have paid money and are stuck behind a pillar - they won’t be happy. If they see people already occupying the seats with a view and just working on computers or staring at phones - they will be even more unhappy.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Yet the class 397 have good seat to window alignment so CAF can build decent trains.

Yes, although some have said that the bogies offer poor ride the class 397 does seem to be a decent train in most respects (aside from the hard seats which were chosen by the operator, chossing CAF doesn't dictate those seats) from what I've read, though I haven't managed to get a ride on one.

I really can't see the public saying 'let's not take that TfW train because you can't see out of the window!'

No, but I can see tourists who come to see lines marketed as scenic being annoyed. More-importantly, Railfuture Wales and SARPA have pointed out that pepole with certain medical conditions (and a subset of elderly pepole) may decide they are unable to risk travel on TfW long-distance services due to the limited toilet provision.

What i can see the public saying is 'hopefully i can get a seat on that TfW train rather than standing'

Not on the Cambrian, that's for sure. The number of coaches per train is expected to be the same as now and the seating capacity of a 197 is a fair bit less than the 158s the Cambrian has at the moment.