CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[PHILIPE]

Wait why would ERTMS prevent use of more than two vehicles?

Radio reception.. I don't know all the ins and outs but it doesn't work in so much as it doesn't connect with what would be the front vehicles.

 

[Doveymain158]

Radio reception.. I don't know all the ins and outs but it doesn't work in so much as it doesn't connect with what would be the front vehicles.

Its the GSMR and ERTMS that do not connect with the Radio block centre which gives the driver movement authority.

 

[Anonymous10]

Just a reminder that the discussion topic of this thread is "Caf-Civity for TfW".

Please do not use this to discuss speculation about service frequencies etc.

I've split off some off topic speculative threads about services in Pembrokeshire to this thread:

(3) Speculation on better services for Pembrokeshire | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

Thanks

thanks

 

[squizzler]

Reading this thread has convinced me that the readily available class 195 was a much better option than any alternative options put forward by forum contributors.

They may well be cheap and cheerful yet are powerful statement of intent to invest in Welsh rail going forward. The rail network is growing and these units will be useful somewhere even if the Welsh traffic outgrows their usefulness.

My take on their being fewer onboard lavatories than ideal for the envisioned long distance services they are intending to run, is that the number is probably sufficient for future services they will be displaced to in a decade or so.

I also suspect the reports of the imminent demise of diesel have been very much exaggerated. I don't see why we can't look at biodiesel for trains in future. Wales has a large resource of possible biofuel feedstock in the form of 'brash' from its timber plantations for which no current economical use exists. Whilst undeniably not a sexy as hydrogen fuel cells, so-called second generation biofuels that redeem the catastrophe of the 'first generation' ones that consumed food crops remain under development.

Also, those writing their obituaries for infernal combustion might note Airbus and Boeing only have combustion engined plans in their catalogues, almost all blue water ships today have marine diesels (or LPG if you are very lucky) and the humble motorcar is almost entirely available in petrol or diesel still withe the number of electric models sold still being very much a minority. Rail continues to lead in the proportion of trips undertaken on electric power vis-a-vis other modes.

The increased dispersal of the population after the pandemic is likely to make the rail services in Wales more busy in future as those incomers will still need to travel and are more likely to do so by rail and over longer distances than the natives. I suspect that the trains will be displaced at a young age onto new railways, which if East West rail is any guide, may not be immediately electrified.

So in short, better that the railway get new units and start building ridership, that in turn will lead demand for new fleets of units, that will grow demand, etc, than to keep patching up the current ageing fleet in the hope that a perfect train - and perfect (electrified) infrastructure to run it on - will become available in the near future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, those writing their obituaries for infernal combustion might note Airbus and Boeing only have combustion engined plans in their catalogues

The thing about planes is that stringing 25kV through the sky might be a bit difficult even when compared to boring out Ffestiniog Tunnel to wire the Conwy Valley

(To be fair that's only partly a joke; there are certainly Swiss electrified lines, particularly narrow gauge, which are entirely comparable to wiring that)

Shipping is certainly an issue. I think there needs to be serious look at a return to sail and of solar power. Cargo ships do not need to move quickly; if you want to move freight fast you fly it.

 

[Energy]

Reading this thread has convinced me that the readily available class 195 was a much better option than any alternative options put forward by forum contributors.

Well the other options proposed are:

• Class 755 - This is preferable as they are better units in almost every way but they have too small fuel capacity and are expensive.
• Electrify - Wonderful but too expensive.
• Keeping the 175s and 158s. This will leave TfW with 3 rather different fleets of DMUs, not ideal for maintenance and driver training and may be more expensive leases on the 175s than the 197s. This also is less likely to win them the franchise, one of the big points is that the CAFs will be assembled in Wales, unlikely to happen for an order of 20-30 units. The other big point was replacing most of the rolling stock (only 67s remaining), this is a pretty important point as it was fairly clear that the Welsh Government was fed up with old rolling stock and wanted that to change.

KeolisAmey had a pretty amazing bid for the franchise, near complete replacement of rolling stock (old rolling stock has been a problem for a while) and partial electrification of the SW Metro, just to afford this they needed to save some money on the 197s.

 

[Rhydgaled]

They may well be cheap and cheerful yet are powerful statement of intent to invest in Welsh rail going forward.

I disagree re. statement of intent. I see it as the opposite; a statement of intent NOT to invest in electrification.

The rail network is growing and these units will be useful somewhere even if the Welsh traffic outgrows their usefulness.

My take on their being fewer onboard lavatories than ideal for the envisioned long distance services they are intending to run, is that the number is probably sufficient for future services they will be displaced to in a decade or so.

That's an interesting take on it - a short stay on long-distance services followed to by a move to shorter-distance stopping services with new lines openning would make the suituation rather more acceptable provided their replacments on the long-distance services represent a return to the high quality offered by 158s and 175s. For example there are proposals for a Swansea area metro - if the 197s were to be moved there after a few years I'd be less concerned about the interior spec although the Swansea metro should really have something capable of electric traction (though not necessarily pure EMUs).

I also suspect the reports of the imminent demise of diesel have been very much exaggerated. I don't see why we can't look at biodiesel for trains in future. Wales has a large resource of possible biofuel feedstock in the form of 'brash' from its timber plantations for which no current economical use exists. Whilst undeniably not a sexy as hydrogen fuel cells, so-called second generation biofuels that redeem the catastrophe of the 'first generation' ones that consumed food crops remain under development.

Also, those writing their obituaries for infernal combustion might note Airbus and Boeing only have combustion engined plans in their catalogues, almost all blue water ships today have marine diesels (or LPG if you are very lucky) and the humble motorcar is almost entirely available in petrol or diesel still withe the number of electric models sold still being very much a minority. Rail continues to lead in the proportion of trips undertaken on electric power vis-a-vis other modes.

I'm not talking about an 'imminent' demise of diesel; but withdrawal of 175s in the 2040s seems to me more likely to be compatible with staying under 1.5 degrees of warming than keeping DMUs through to 2057 if Civities are involved. The inability of aviation to decarbonise is all the more reason to push further to decarbonise other modes; with net-zero we will have a small carbon budget each year that is within what the forests can absorb and aviation is looking likely to swallow most of that at the moment.

So in short, better that the railway get new units and start building ridership, that in turn will lead demand for new fleets of units, that will grow demand, etc, than to keep patching up the current ageing fleet in the hope that a perfect train - and perfect (electrified) infrastructure to run it on - will become available in the near future.

I agree that perfect infrastructure is not realistic in the short term, but as a perfectionist I think we should be aiming for the perfect train for an imperfect infrastructure that is as good as we can acheive. The imperfect infrastructure that I think is realistic in the next 10 years is (as far as Wales is concerned) much the same as today but with wires extended from Woverhampton to Shrewsbury. The perfect train for Cambrian services would then be some form of 3-car bi-mode incorporating the best features of 158s, 175s, 442s and 444s. Whether the best self-power mode available then will be Diesel, Hydrogen, Battery or LPG is to be determined. The perfect train should help build ridership by being an attractive product that passengers are happy to recommend.

Well the other options proposed are:

• Class 755 - This is preferable as they are better units in almost every way but they have too small fuel capacity and are expensive.
• Electrify - Wonderful but too expensive.
• Keeping the 175s and 158s. This will leave TfW with 3 rather different fleets of DMUs, not ideal for maintenance and driver training and may be more expensive leases on the 175s than the 197s. This also is less likely to win them the franchise, one of the big points is that the CAFs will be assembled in Wales, unlikely to happen for an order of 20-30 units. The other big point was replacing most of the rolling stock (only 67s remaining), this is a pretty important point as it was fairly clear that the Welsh Government was fed up with old rolling stock and wanted that to change.

KeolisAmey had a pretty amazing bid for the franchise, near complete replacement of rolling stock (old rolling stock has been a problem for a while) and partial electrification of the SW Metro, just to afford this they needed to save some money on the 197s.

While 3 fleets is not ideal, 2 of them (158s and 175s) could be replaced with a single long-distance bi-mode fleet over time between 2030 and 2040. Also, there is a potnetial need for two different types (although ideally they would share components) in future if more services can be added to allow a mix of fast and stopping trains in north Wales. The stopping train to Manchester from Llandudno would benefit from doors at thirds but the rest need comfortable units for long distance (semi-)fast services. Plus Northern and WMT had already placed orders with CAF so the 20-30 units could still have been assembled in Wales.

 

[RealTrains07]

So in short, better that the railway get new units and start building ridership, that in turn will lead demand for new fleets of units, that will grow demand, etc, than to keep patching up the current ageing fleet in the hope that a perfect train - and perfect (electrified) infrastructure to run it on - will become available in the near future.

Their will be demand for new fleets anyway. Because every fleet gets to a point when it has to go no matter how much demand increases.

Getting rid of fleets early for convenience though is just wasteful and damages the environment

The 197 is a cheap stop gap really. The best use for these trains is probably cascading them to more suitable welsh services over time or even other TOCs?

The 197 and civity in general in terms of DMU commuter train were the only option as neither hitachi or bombardier have a DMU platform. (Especially the latter since the end of turbostar production)

The main issue with the 197s is purely route suitability which is mainly been driven by the fact that most of their routes have been run by intercity style trains for a while now

 

[Mrs. Fortescue]

I take it that you aren't a fan of 197s @Rhydgaled?

You'll be amazed how the vast majority of Joe Public really doesn't care too much about seats/window alignment. As long as the train gets them to where they are travelling on time and isn't over-crowded, happy days.

I must say, I do chuckle at the way some are acting over a set of trains that haven't even been built yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must say, I do chuckle at the way some are acting over a set of trains that haven't even been built yet.

To be fair, the 195s have been built and are basically the same but for the gangway, seats and seat layout, so those of us who have been on one do know what they'll be like.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I take it that you aren't a fan of 197s @Rhydgaled?

You'll be amazed how the vast majority of Joe Public really doesn't care too much about seats/window alignment. As long as the train gets them to where they are travelling on time and isn't over-crowded, happy days.

I must say, I do chuckle at the way some are acting over a set of trains that haven't even been built yet.

That's right, I'm no fan. I'm complaining now (and have been complaining for years now) because when they've all been built it'll be too late to complain - we'll be stuck with them for 30 odd years. I have been on a 195, and an 800, and I have a great deal of facts and figures about the 197s (including a drawing of the interior which shows window positions and appears to be perfectly to scale). I think I know exactly what they're going to be like, and it's not something I think is suitable for long distances services. Local stoppers fine, but most of those need electric traction or should do within the next 15 years.

As for Joe Public not careing, what percentage of Joe Public uses trains and is the 'vast majority' you mention actually the vast majority of people as a whole or just the vast majority of current rail users? I really don't know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's right, I'm no fan. I'm complaining now (and have been complaining for years now) because when they've all been built it'll be too late to complain - we'll be stuck with them for 30 odd years.

As for Joe Public not careing, what percentage of Joe Public uses trains and is the 'vast majority' you mention actually the vast majority of people as a whole or just the vast majority of current rail users? I really don't know.

FWIW I think people do notice seat comfort, luggage space and the likes. I've certainly heard those sorts of things commented about. They don't seem to care about door positions, though. I can't imagine there would be any complaints if say the Aber/Pwll was to use 3-car 170s (and indeed I think CT did use 170s on it in the past).

 

[Rhydgaled]

FWIW I think people do notice seat comfort, luggage space and the likes. I've certainly heard those sorts of things commented about. They don't seem to care about door positions, though. I can't imagine there would be any complaints if say the Aber/Pwll was to use 3-car 170s (and indeed I think CT did use 170s on it in the past).

There's no reason to complain about the door position per-se (except perhaps one, but I'm not sure about that). However, there are a few things that often come along with doors-at-thirds which you might hear people complaining about:

• increased standing room due to wider doors (395s being the only train I can think of with single leaf doors at thirds)
• reduced toilet provision (this seems to be the main complaint from Railfuture and SARPA about the 197s)
• poor legroom (although that seems to apply to 90% of rolling stock regardless of door position, narrower doors mean you have more space for other things)
• toilets you can see from your seat*
• lack of internal door between saloon and the outside world, making it draughty (sometimes first class saloons do get a partition door)
• different saloon ambiance (this may be related to the previous one)

* I didn't actually think of this one, my grandmother thought trains with doors at thirds had no toilets at all so I showed her a seat plan of a 170 or 185 and she was horrified at where the toilet was - she said she wouldn't feel very comfortable walking to the loo in full view of passengers - with a vestibule door in the way you go out into the vestubule which makes it a biit more private

 

[Bletchleyite]

• different saloon ambiance (this may be related to the previous one)

This can be a benefit. Three smaller saloons instead of one big one reduces the "big long tube" effect and can mean a more private feel.

 

[Caaardiff]

Those with criticism of the 197 need to accept they have been ordered and are being built. The discussion over these is continually going around in circles, but as yet TfW's are not in service and there is very little change of the order being changed. Comments about comfort, luggage space and the likes still doesn't prove that people won't travel on them. Pacer Patrol is right, the majority of people will not care. People use the train because they need to get to places. What TfW and the whole train network need to do is make train travel more competitive and affordable, not continually increasing prices, which is the main reason for people choosing different option... Not... the position of a seat or how comfy it is.
How about we revisit the topic in 12 months or so time when they are in service and the feedback from the general public comes in and facts are given about a drop in traffic?
Ultimately there were few options for what TfW need on the network. Generally 3-4 cars are sufficient for most of the peak network.
I personally would love to see the 158's and 175s remain and a real reform of the whole network come into action as the 197s arrive. However the 158's are now 30 years old, with the 175's being a more suitable 20 years old to keep on. The issue with keeping the 175s as i see it would be where they would be maintained. Alstom will transfer to CAF and i'm not sure the Depot would be big enough to maintain both CAF and the fleet of 175's.
The 175's go off lease in May 2022 and the 158's in October 2022, so I imagine if anyone else is taking them on then plans are already drawn up, or being drawn up with other TOCs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While there's a lack of floor level provision, luggage space on 197s will be great, particularly compared with the 175 racks that barely fit your coat. The overheads are massive - a 120 litre rucksack with a tent strapped to it fits. It just requires passengers to put the effort in to put it up there (and to help others if they can't do it themselves). All the CAF stock has massive overhead racks, the largest the UK has seen since the Mk1 coach.

 

[43096]

As for Joe Public not careing, what percentage of Joe Public uses trains and is the 'vast majority' you mention actually the vast majority of people as a whole or just the vast majority of current rail users? I really don't know.

That's an interesting point. The vast majority of people don't use the train at all. I'd throw in that the railway has been saying to its customers "don't travel with us" for the last 12 months or so, which is both an incredible message and one that is very hard to recover from. Given the likely long-term reduction in commuting, the railway will have to find alternative sources of customers - likely leisure travel. You don't do that by serving up the sort of dross we've had for years in terms of new trains, customer service and the assumption that everyone is a fare dodger until proven otherwise. Constantly dumbing down the offering (abysmal seats, lack of luggage space, no catering) at the same time as cars get ever more comfortable, is a road to oblivion - time the railway woke up if it wants to be a genuine option for more people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's an interesting point. The vast majority of people don't use the train at all. I'd throw in that the railway has been saying to its customers "don't travel with us" for the last 12 months or so, which is both an incredible message and one that is very hard to recover from. Given the likely long-term reduction in commuting, the railway will have to find alternative sources of customers - likely leisure travel. You don't do that by serving up the sort of dross we've had for years in terms of new trains, customer service and the assumption that everyone is a fare dodger until proven otherwise. Constantly dumbing down the offering (abysmal seats, lack of luggage space, no catering) at the same time as cars get ever more comfortable, is a road to oblivion - time the railway woke up if it wants to be a genuine option for more people.

TfW of course aren't only going that way, they're also getting Mk4 sets in, which certainly will offer a quality InterCity experience. They're also reportedly looking for more.

Of course the Cambrian won't get to enjoy those, being stuck with inadequate 2-car 197s, though that's yet another thing you've got the ridiculous decision to install ETCS to thank for. They should have installed son-of-RETB as per the similar long single-track Scottish routes and trialled ETCS on some little low-demand-all-year-round branch line somewhere.

 

[craigybagel]

They should have installed son-of-RETB as per the similar long single-track Scottish routes and trialled ETCS on some little low-demand-all-year-round branch line somewhere.

As a matter of interest, which line do you think they should have chosen instead? I'm struggling to think of any that ticks as many boxes as the Cambrian did at the time of the resignalling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And as I've asked you before - which line should they have chosen instead?

Pick a small branch line that barely carries any traffic at any time of year and has a passing loop and a level crossing. Ormskirk-Preston maybe? Or even the Heart of Wales Line which barely even fills a 153 in the height of August.

The Cambrian continues to suffer and suffer again because of this idiotic decision.

 

[craigybagel]

Pick a small branch line that barely carries any traffic at any time of year and has a passing loop and a level crossing. Ormskirk-Preston maybe? Or even the Heart of Wales Line which barely even fills a 153 in the height of August.

Neither of those were in desperate need of resignalling at the time in question. Plus if the line is too quiet it's not going to provide the same level of use as a trial - the Cambrian gives multiple trains running over long distances, junctions, permissive working, a busy TMD, all kinds of valuable sources of info that a quiet branch line won't provide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Neither of those were in desperate need of resignalling at the time in question. Plus if the line is too quiet it's not going to provide the same level of use as a trial - the Cambrian gives multiple trains running over long distances, junctions, permissive working, a busy TMD, all kinds of valuable sources of info that a quiet branch line won't provide.

And messes it up for everyone. Seriously, passengers need to come first, not the desire to use a piece of live railway as a test track.

Here's a thread to continue this line of discussion, but it is one of those decisions that makes me incredibly angry - the railway seriously disadvantaging passengers just so they could prat about with some new unproven kit.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/better-places-to-trial-etcs-than-the-cambrian.213994/

 

[squizzler]

I disagree re. statement of intent. I see it as the opposite; a statement of intent NOT to invest in electrification.

Either the trains are hopeless and we can proceed with electrification or they are so brilliant that people will query the need for wires. Which is it?

As for Joe Public not careing, what percentage of Joe Public uses trains and is the 'vast majority' you mention actually the vast majority of people as a whole or just the vast majority of current rail users? I really don't know.

If the majority of British people don't use trans then Donald Trump's inauguration crowd was the biggest of all time. Actually over half the public will use trains in a normal year, and the trend is increasing.

How about we revisit the topic in 12 months or so time when they are in service and the feedback from the general public comes in and facts are given about a drop in traffic?

Chance would be a fine thing.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I very much agree with you regarding 197's, as for the 77 units on order the plan is 50 based at Chester & 27 at Mach. These numbers aren't achievable as the depots as they are can't take them numbers.

There won't be 27 class 197s at Machynlleth; only 21 units are planned to be fitted with ETCS and that is 3 units fewer than the current 158 fleet.

I disagree re. statement of intent. I see it as the opposite; a statement of intent NOT to invest in electrification.

Either the trains are hopeless and we can proceed with electrification or they are so brilliant that people will query the need for wires. Which is it?

Eh? Whether the trains are hopeless or brilliant has nothing to do with them being a statement of intent not to invest in electrification. You don't buy 77 brand new DMUs if you are intending to electrify much of your network within the working life of said DMUs.

over half the public will use trains in a normal year, and the trend is increasing.

Ok, so if we say 55% of the public can be counted as 'existing rail users' and the vast majority of 'existing rail users' will continue to use rail regardless of the interior spec then 50% of the population don't care about the interior spec.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Eh? Whether the trains are hopeless or brilliant has nothing to do with them being a statement of intent not to invest in electrification. You don't buy 77 brand new DMUs if you are intending to electrify much of your network within the working life of said DMUs.

Or at least design them from the outset to be convertible from diesel to electric

 

[Bletchleyite]

Eh? Whether the trains are hopeless or brilliant has nothing to do with them being a statement of intent not to invest in electrification. You don't buy 77 brand new DMUs if you are intending to electrify much of your network within the working life of said DMUs.

Given that said DMUs have "second hand value" (yes, I know they are leased), why not? There are plenty of older DMUs on routes that will not be electrified for the foreseeable, both in Wales and elsewhere.

What you're saying is a bit like saying "I won't buy a car because I'm only going to need one for a year because a new station is going to be opened in my town". You would buy one, then flog it when it was no longer needed.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Given that said DMUs have "second hand value" (yes, I know they are leased), why not? There are plenty of older DMUs on routes that will not be electrified for the foreseeable.

What you're saying is a bit like saying "I won't buy a car because I'm only going to need one for a year because a new station is going to be opened in my town". You would buy one, then flog it when it was no longer needed.

True but that would mean going through the pain of procurement, commissioning, crew training, maintenance staff training, handling of old and new trains during the handover etc etc
There are enough examples over the last few years - the Anglia new fleet procurement and the TPE being a good examples. Far easier just to acquire your trains and maintain the competencies on them than bugger around reequipping. Noticeable is the way ARL / TFL have extended and double extended some of their 378s, and acquired single voltage and dual voltage 710s - similar platforms.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Or at least design them from the outset to be convertible from diesel to electric

Indeed. If I thought they would be easy to convert to EMUs I would be suggesting routes where they could be suitable (such as a Swansea metro) rather than calling for the bulk of the fleet to be cancelled.

Given that said DMUs have "second hand value" (yes, I know they are leased), why not? There are plenty of older DMUs on routes that will not be electrified for the foreseeable, both in Wales and elsewhere.

What you're saying is a bit like saying "I won't buy a car because I'm only going to need one for a year because a new station is going to be opened in my town". You would buy one, then flog it when it was no longer needed.

Your analogy implies I don't already have a car, and doesn't include a concept analogous to the choice of a diesel-mechanical unit versus a diesel-electric designed for later conversion to EMU. If I already had a car I would not need to buy one for the year and could still sell (or scrap) the one I had once the station opens. TfW-RS inherrited 'a car' in the form of 51 existing high-quality DMUs. Yes that fleet was insufficient to introduce the promised extensions of the Liverpool-Chester service or extra capacity on Manchester-Swansea, but they didn't need to order anywhere near 77 units. Also, in the event of a rolling programme of electrification, the 'second hand value' of a pure DMU will be reduced as there will be progressively less work for them and, by the end of their useful life, insufficient work for the entire DMU fleet (161 Civity DMUs is far more than I believe would be required in 2050 if the full TDNS programme is implemented). I very much want to see the TDNS implemented in full and see 161 Civity DMUs as a barrier to that.

 

[BayPaul]

I can't help but think that the only reason for the 197s is a political one to be able to say >50% of the trains will be built in Wales. Otherwise, why would they not have gone for a much simpler option of having all 231s for their regional fleet, perhaps with a few more Mk4 sets. They might possibly be more expensive to build, but I would have thought that the savings that come from a uniform fleet would have offset most of that cost.

Cargo ships do not need to move quickly; if you want to move freight fast you fly it.

Off topic, but I can't let that one go. Absolutely not! Cargo ship schedules are vitally important to keeping freight out of the air and in the sea, which is a vastly more efficient place to put it. Some cargoes can move slow, particularly bulk cargoes, but the capital cost starts getting high (of the cargo existing and being owned by someone, but not in use). For container ships there is a reason there has been a shift of schedules towards faster ships - demand. Putting sails on ships can make them less efficient - a modern 15,000+ TEU container ship is vastly more efficient than a smaller vessel, but is far too big to make sails anywhere near viable - moving to smaller ships would be environmentally bad. The marine industry's future probably lies in biofuels for long distance trade

 

[Bletchleyite]

Off topic, but I can't let that one go. Absolutely not! Cargo ship schedules are vitally important to keeping freight out of the air and in the sea, which is a vastly more efficient place to put it. Some cargoes can move slow, particularly bulk cargoes, but the capital cost starts getting high (of the cargo existing and being owned by someone, but not in use). For container ships there is a reason there has been a shift of schedules towards faster ships - demand. Putting sails on ships can make them less efficient - a modern 15,000+ TEU container ship is vastly more efficient than a smaller vessel, but is far too big to make sails anywhere near viable - moving to smaller ships would be environmentally bad. The marine industry's future probably lies in biofuels for long distance trade

How would moving to smaller ships so as to avoid the burning of diesel entirely be environmentally bad? I'm sorry, I can't see that as anything other than nonsense.

The real fix of course is to stop shipping manufactured goods and food half way round the world when it can be produced locally (including a view to eating more seasonally). Which, to get back on topic again (amazingly), is a benefit of building Class 197s in Wales!