CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[craigybagel]

So why shouldn't we use the Desiro series as an example of the sort of build quality and passenger environment we deserve to expect?

Personally, I'm quite happy with 101 "cheap" new trains, because I'd bet my house that if Stadler was chosen, we'd have got much less.

And let's not forget that that much vaunted Desiro quality does come with a massive drawback when in DMU form in terms of how heavy those units are. Bad for the track, lower top speeds, and very thirsty. I think it's pretty noteworthy that Siemens have never built a DMU for the UK before or since the 185s.

 

[anthony263]

Went passed the factory in Newport this morning on the train and apart from all the completed class 196 carriages there was a front and centre carriage for the class 197s which looked to be completed.

 

[RealTrains07]

D: The existing units are going to need replacing sooner rather then later, especially the 158s. Doing it now is much cheaper in the long run then kicking the can for a few more years

Replacing 175s (trains which are 21 years old) is unjustifiable. 158s have the prospect of a future whilst the 175s unlikely once replaced by the 197s

 

[Rhydgaled]

Fair enough, I'll change my question then. Was the decision to order 158s, 170s and 175s idiotic?

Good question; that's a hard one, particularly in the case of the 158s. Would it have been feasible to build bi-mode units back then? I'm guessing not - in which case perhaps the answer is that building some was sensible but far fewer DMUs should have been needed than what BR ending up having to order. I guess the 197s, 196s, 195s, 175s and 170s can all be considered in the same way; that it is idiotic that we are in a position that ordering DMUs even needs to be considered but one can understand some of the reasons why those ordering them made the decisions they did. In 1981, BR wanted Aberdeen to Penzance wired by 2001, which I suspect would have rendered most if not all of the Turbostar orders unecessary. If they had been ordered at the same time as the 170s, I think the class 197s/196s are a less idiotic design than the 170s - the Civities combine rapid dwell times and rapid acceleration, making them ideal for stopping services, whereas the 170s apparently are not geared optimumly for such work.

158 - 134 seats 0 tip up (Total 134) / 59 standing room
175-2 car - 118 seats 16 tip up (Total 134) / 58 standing room
175-3 car - 186 seats 20 tip up (Total 206) / 91 standing room

197-2 car - 116 seats 5 tip up (Total 121) / 79 standing room
197-3 car standard - 186 seats 8 tip up (Total 194) / 118 standing room
197-3 car with First - 158 standard 16 First 8 tip up (Total 182) / 120 standing room

So an overall drop in seating capacity of 12/13 seats by each type but more standing capacity

If I put aside the issue of failure to electrify, this is the crux of matter in my view. The 197s were ordered to work long-distance services where passengers should not be expected to stand. And yet, facilities that would be useful to long distance passengers (seats, toilets, tables, legroom) are reduced and standing capacity increased and for what? To reduce dwell times, yes, but these are regional express services - they are typically not stopping every five minutes and where they are (eg. the Cambrian Coast) many of the stations are lightly used. So the total impact of increased dwell times along the whole route is much less that it would be for a metro service. The 197s were ordered to do a very different job to the 196s, so why is the door width the same? 444s are very different to 450s. If I continue to ignore the issue of the power source I would welcome the 197s if they were to be used on short-distance stoppers (for example - to introduce a metro system around Swansea).

likely an increase in capacity on those workings with First that will likely be 5 car for most if not all of the journey.

I think the order was for 14 units with first class. I think Swansea-Manchester requires 9 or 10 diagrams. Nine units would I think only be requiring about 64% availability from the fleet and ten units would be around 71% - I suspect therefore that they were intending either to run the 3-car unit through to Milford Haven (possibly declassifying first class) or using them on Holyhead-Cardiff which I'm guessing would just be the 3-car unit (with 1st class) by itself. Admittedly we don't know what the balance of the first class diagrams would be used for.

Don't forget the Welsh angle as well - the large order helped justify CAF opening a factory in Newport. It's hard to see that happening without the big order

Did all the franchise bidders have something from CAF in their plans then? The factory was already under construction in Jan 2018 and the franchise wasn't awarded until May 2018.

A: A large uniform fleet with gangways is necessary for the massive timetable improvements planned.
B: You get much more efficiencies through training and maintenance with a uniform fleet
C: It's likely there was a discount for buying in bulk
D: The existing units are going to need replacing sooner rather then later, especially the 158s. Doing it now is much cheaper in the long run then kicking the can for a few more years

I wouldn't say a uniform fleet is necessary for the timetable improvements, but it's helpful. I fully agree with items B and C and partially with item D. Kicking the can a few years would however have given time for an outbreak of sense to emerge and electrification to go ahead.

All new rolling stock have problems

Agreed, I expect there will be teething problems with the FLIRTs as well; they are just far better suited to their intended role than the 197s.

the existing rolling stock needs replacing, they are at the end of their lifespans now & do not give the passengers a good experience whilst travelling.

I don't agree here; the 158s aren't far off the end of their lifespan (I'd give them until 2030) but they can give the passengers a good experience. The 175s aren't so near the end of their lives (I might give them until 2040) and they can also give the passengers a good experience in the right circumstances.

 

[PHILIPE]

This thread may be of some interest where are a number of Northerns CAF built 195s have had to be withdrawn from service. WMR 196s, although none yet in traffic, are going to be inspected

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-withdraws-some-caf-trains-due-to-yaw-bracket-failures.216119/

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 2018 TfW franchise evolved "organically" over a couple of years, in an iterative process led by WG and a number of bidders.
It wasn't like the DfT franchise bids where there are fully-detailed competitive bids which are suddenly contracted to the winner.
WG probably decided early on that a CAF bid was preferred because of the offer to build locally.
The eventual contracts are also to WG standard, which is closer to local government practice than central government like DfT.
Whether that turns out well or otherwise we will one day find out!

 

[berneyarms]

This thread may be of some interest where are a number of Northerns CAF built 195s have had to be withdrawn from service. WMR 196s, although none yet in traffic, are going to be inspected

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-withdraws-some-caf-trains-due-to-yaw-bracket-failures.216119/

That exact problem happened with the CAF built Mark 4 coaches for Iarnród Éireann as well.

Some serious remedial welding was required.

 

[507021]

I don't agree here; the 158s aren't far off the end of their lifespan (I'd give them until 2030) but they can give the passengers a good experience. The 175s aren't so near the end of their lives (I might give them until 2040) and they can also give the passengers a good experience in the right circumstances.

I think 2030 is very optimistic for the 158s at this particular moment in time, to be honest.

 

[Energy]

WG probably decided early on that a CAF bid was preferred because of the offer to build locally.

Its a lot easier spending loads of money on new trains for highly subsidised services when the new trains are assembled in Wales, providing jobs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good question; that's a hard one, particularly in the case of the 158s. Would it have been feasible to build bi-mode units back then?

Bi-modes are a funny thing. Even 10 years ago, they were the target of the naysayers - too heavy, won't work, etc etc etc. Then the 80x has come along and become (whatever you might think of the seats) a phenomenal success and proven the naysayers wrong (as usual), most notably transforming Paddington from a cloud of diesel fug and stink of human excrement to a much more pleasant place.

But going back to the 1990s when the 158s were built, turbo diesel was the future and seen as clean, efficient, economical and environmentally friendly compared with petrol - the particulate issue wasn't quite understood. So there was no reason to bother with the complexity of building the extra kit into the unit.

 

[Class172]

In 1981, BR wanted Aberdeen to Penzance wired by 2001, which I suspect would have rendered most if not all of the Turbostar orders unecessary. If they had been ordered at the same time as the 170s, I think the class 197s/196s are a less idiotic design than the 170s - the Civities combine rapid dwell times and rapid acceleration, making them ideal for stopping services, whereas the 170s apparently are not geared optimumly for such work.

Whilst the 170s are well-known for being a bit sluggish off the mark, and hence not best-suited to stopping services, it should perhaps be noted that a good number of them were never originally ordered for such purposes even if they do so now. Some of the early operators of Turbostars were Midland Mainline and Hull Trains, which used them on limited stop regional/intercity services. In fact if you consider the other early operators (Central Trains/Anglia Railways/SWT), they were predominantly used on regional services, which is where the class is arguably most at home, and not on stopping services on the Harrogate or Robin Hood lines for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst the 170s are well-known for being a bit sluggish off the mark, and hence not best-suited to stopping services, it should perhaps be noted that a good number of them were never originally ordered for such purposes even if they do so now. Some of the early operators of Turbostars were Midland Mainline and Hull Trains, which used them on limited stop regional/intercity services. In fact if you consider the other early operators (Central Trains/Anglia Railways/SWT), they were predominantly used on regional services, which is where the class is arguably most at home, and not on stopping services on the Harrogate or Robin Hood lines for example.

Completely agreed - TfW might indeed do well swapping the classes over - the superb acceleration of the 197s, like Northern's 195s, will make mincemeat of EMU style timetables on DMU stopping services.

About the only route they'll go on (if it hasn't washed away by then) for which they are perfectly designed is the Conwy Valley and the Pwllheli stopper!

 

[507021]

Bi-modes are a funny thing. Even 10 years ago, they were the target of the naysayers - too heavy, won't work, etc etc etc. Then the 80x has come along and become (whatever you might think of the seats) a phenomenal success and proven the naysayers wrong (as usual), most notably transforming Paddington from a cloud of diesel fug and stink of human excrement to a much more pleasant place.

I agree dual mode units do have their uses, but procuring those instead of completing GWML electrification in full was a dreadful decision.

Sure, the GWR IETs may have saved a few quid in the short term, but when/if the paused/cancelled GWML electrification schemes are ever reinvestigated in the future, then they're going to cost far more money than they would have if they went ahead when they were first planned. I don't really understand the logic of any of the DfT's decisions in all honesty, but there we go.

Anyway, I think now's a good time to go back to discussing the 197s.

 

[krus_aragon]

If they're not rolling in cash, why have gangways at all,

The new timetable is designed around splitting and joining services. As well as the current splitting and joining of Cambrian-Birmingham services at Machynlleth and Shrewsbury, new services will split/join at Swansea (Manchester-Milford dropping the 1st class unit) and Chester (Liverpool-Llandudno/Cardiff).

Stakeholders on the Cambrian were quite specific about keeping the ability to walk through between units, as services can be quite crowded at the Brimingham end. Gangways let you grab a seat wherever one's available, and swap units if needed whenever you like, rather than run between them while its at a station. That wisdom seems to have been applied to the other splitting services too.

Fair enough, I'll change my question then. Was the decision to order 158s, 170s and 175s idiotic?

The 175 certainly went through some major shifting of goalposts, given its muddled design history with the 180 as a long-distance unit for First North Western services to London. But it's hard to make good decisions when things are going as pear shaped as they did with the West Coast Moderinsation (and the subsequent Moderation of Competition rules for Virgin).

The historic decline in passenger numbers left them considering ordering some 1-car 175s back at the turn of the century; now that WOULD have been idiotic in hindsight!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Its a lot easier spending loads of money on new trains for highly subsidised services when the new trains are assembled in Wales, providing jobs.

The problem will be finding work for Newport after the current builds are complete.
Poor quality trains did for Alstom/MetCamm in Birmingham, after all.

 

[PHILIPE]

Stakeholders on the Cambrian were quite specific about keeping the ability to walk through between units, as services can be quite crowded at the Brimingham end. Gangways let you grab a seat wherever one's available, and swap units if needed whenever you like, rather than run between them while its at a station. That wisdom seems to have been applied to the other splitting services too.

Makes it easier for the passengers to change portions on finding out they are in the wrong portion due to being confused as to which is front and rear changing on the reversal at Shrewsbury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Makes it easier for the passengers to change portions on finding out they are in the wrong portion due to being confused as to which is front and rear changing on the reversal at Shrewsbury.

Also means the trolley and guard can get through.

Unless precluded by the unit being high speed (over 110mph) and so needing a pointy nose, it makes absolute sense to have gangways on any unit used for portion working.

 

[Kite159]

An issue I can see with the 197 is the decrease of number of toilets on the train. As both 158s & 175s have 2 toilets.

 

[PHILIPE]

An issue I can see with the 197 is the decrease of number of toilets on the train. As both 158s & 175s have 2 toilets.

I can't turn it up without wading through the thread but this has already been discussed at length

 

[craigybagel]

Good question; that's a hard one, particularly in the case of the 158s. Would it have been feasible to build bi-mode units back then? I'm guessing not - in which case perhaps the answer is that building some was sensible but far fewer DMUs should have been needed than what BR ending up having to order. I guess the 197s, 196s, 195s, 175s and 170s can all be considered in the same way; that it is idiotic that we are in a position that ordering DMUs even needs to be considered but one can understand some of the reasons why those ordering them made the decisions they did. In 1981, BR wanted Aberdeen to Penzance wired by 2001, which I suspect would have rendered most if not all of the Turbostar orders unecessary. If they had been ordered at the same time as the 170s, I think the class 197s/196s are a less idiotic design than the 170s - the Civities combine rapid dwell times and rapid acceleration, making them ideal for stopping services, whereas the 170s apparently are not geared optimumly for such work.

To be honest (and I'm hoping this can be a rare thing we actually agree on!) I think the idiocy lies with the British government in not investing in electrification. There shouldn't be a debate over bimodes because there should be enough electrified track to make it moot.

However, the point I was getting at is that those units had a disastrous entry into service. I suspect people at the time thought that ordering them was idiotic. Fast forward to now and it's a very different story - and I suspect the same will be true with the CAF units, both the ones already built and those still to come.

If I put aside the issue of failure to electrify, this is the crux of matter in my view. The 197s were ordered to work long-distance services where passengers should not be expected to stand. And yet, facilities that would be useful to long distance passengers (seats, toilets, tables, legroom) are reduced and standing capacity increased and for what? To reduce dwell times, yes, but these are regional express services - they are typically not stopping every five minutes and where they are (eg. the Cambrian Coast) many of the stations are lightly used. So the total impact of increased dwell times along the whole route is much less that it would be for a metro service. The 197s were ordered to do a very different job to the 196s, so why is the door width the same? 444s are very different to 450s. If I continue to ignore the issue of the power source I would welcome the 197s if they were to be used on short-distance stoppers (for example - to introduce a metro system around Swansea).

We've had this door argument over and over - and those of us who work these routes keep telling you that the wider doors really are a good thing. We're not imagining this - we've seen the queues on the platforms trying to board 158s and 175s with our own eyes!

I think the order was for 14 units with first class. I think Swansea-Manchester requires 9 or 10 diagrams. Nine units would I think only be requiring about 64% availability from the fleet and ten units would be around 71% - I suspect therefore that they were intending either to run the 3-car unit through to Milford Haven (possibly declassifying first class) or using them on Holyhead-Cardiff which I'm guessing would just be the 3-car unit (with 1st class) by itself. Admittedly we don't know what the balance of the first class diagrams would be used for.

Again, until we know what the timetable is it's really hard to comment on this one.

Did all the franchise bidders have something from CAF in their plans then? The factory was already under construction in Jan 2018 and the franchise wasn't awarded until May 2018.

We'll never know - especially since 2 of the 4 bids were withdrawn before the award anyway!

I wouldn't say a uniform fleet is necessary for the timetable improvements, but it's helpful. I fully agree with items B and C and partially with item D. Kicking the can a few years would however have given time for an outbreak of sense to emerge and electrification to go ahead.

It is with all the interworking of units that's likely to take place. And to put it in a way that'll appeal to some people on this board, it's the only way you'll get extra units for the Cambrian.

Electrification isn't going ahead. Get used to it. In 10 years time we'd just be even more desperate for more units, only now they'd cost a lot more.

I don't agree here; the 158s aren't far off the end of their lifespan (I'd give them until 2030) but they can give the passengers a good experience. The 175s aren't so near the end of their lives (I might give them until 2040) and they can also give the passengers a good experience in the right circumstances.

With all due respect, you're typing this presumably from your own home - certainly by your own admission you've not been on a train for a year. The people telling you these units are knackered are the ones working on them day in day out. I'd like to think we're slightly better informed. You can give them as long as you want - but it doesn't change the facts.

The new timetable is designed around splitting and joining services. As well as the current splitting and joining of Cambrian-Birmingham services at Machynlleth and Shrewsbury, new services will split/join at Swansea (Manchester-Milford dropping the 1st class unit) and Chester (Liverpool-Llandudno/Cardiff).

Stakeholders on the Cambrian were quite specific about keeping the ability to walk through between units, as services can be quite crowded at the Brimingham end. Gangways let you grab a seat wherever one's available, and swap units if needed whenever you like, rather than run between them while its at a station. That wisdom seems to have been applied to the other splitting services too.

Indeed. I'm amazed people are finding the gangways as something to moan about. I'm sure there would be even more complaints if they were ordered without them! It feels like parts of this thread belong in parody....

The 175 certainly went through some major shifting of goalposts, given its muddled design history with the 180 as a long-distance unit for First North Western services to London. But it's hard to make good decisions when things are going as pear shaped as they did with the West Coast Moderinsation (and the subsequent Moderation of Competition rules for Virgin).

Well said. The fact they've come out of it to be pretty popular trains today despite all that is quite an achievement!

The historic decline in passenger numbers left them considering ordering some 1-car 175s back at the turn of the century; now that WOULD have been idiotic in hindsight!

Big improvement on a 153 though

An issue I can see with the 197 is the decrease of number of toilets on the train. As both 158s & 175s have 2 toilets.

Again, this has been discussed earlier in the thread. This problem has been overrated. Those of us with experience on the existing units know that in reality the toilet provision really is sufficient. They're not used anywhere near as much as you would think. You only have to see how rarely there is a queue for the toilet on those occasions when 150s substitute for other units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, this has been discussed earlier in the thread. This problem has been overrated. Those of us with experience on the existing units know that in reality the toilet provision really is sufficient. They're not used anywhere near as much as you would think. You only have to see how rarely there is a queue for the toilet on those occasions when 150s substitute for other units.

The toilet problem is more a reliability one with CETs, i.e if one fails you've got none. One with a manual door and track dump would be fine (other than the obvious issues with accessibility etc), one CET with a power door isn't as they fail too often.

Pwllheli to Mach is a fair way with no toilets at any of the stations, Brum to Aber a long way with few stations having them.

For this reason in my view all units of any length should have at least 2 toilets, but 2 in a 4 car or 3 in a 5 is fine.

 

[Energy]

Indeed. I'm amazed people are finding the gangways as something to moan about. I'm sure there would be even more complaints if they were ordered without them! It feels like parts of this thread belong in parody....

Its interesting how upset some on this forum are by the 197s coming to replace old trains, especially considering that the ex-ATW fleet is overall pretty ancient and tired out.

People are treating minor problems like they mean the cancellation of the order.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its interesting how upset some on this forum are by the 197s coming to replace old trains, especially considering that the ex-ATW fleet is overall pretty ancient and tired out.

People are treating minor problems like they mean the cancellation of the order.

The only reason I'd cancel the order is because of the appalling quality reputation of CAF, and I agree bi-modes aren't applicable to Wales as there won't be wires any time soon.

However, I do think a number of very poor choices are being made with regard to the interiors, lengths and ETCS fitment (much as I think the colour scheme is very nice! )

 

[Energy]

interiors

Seats are difficult, they were probably tied into a fainsa order. We don't know what the Sophia with a good cushion is like, it could be OK.

lengths

What about it? 2/3 cars in multiple is fine.

ETCS

Easy to retrofit when the unit is ETCS ready. In paper they have enough etcs units anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about it? 2/3 cars in multiple is fine.

I suppose you could call it a minor branch line, but I still think the Cambrian is going to be a problem, and should have been based on 3-car units and SDO/the relevant works being done. OK, you're going hourly to Aber so that's a nominal doubling to there, but I wouldn't underestimate the "sparks effect" of a considerably improved service (hourly is vastly more useful than two-hourly) with new trains, even cheapo CAF ones with Sophia seats.

The 2-car units will be fine for extending the long-distance stuff, but the Conwy Valley is about the only place where demand is always low enough that you can just run 2 all the time on its own and be sure to seat everyone. (Standing is unacceptable on long-distance "InterCity" services - these are not half-hour commuter journeys into cities).

 

[Energy]

I suppose you could call it a minor branch line, but I still think the Cambrian is going to be a problem, and should have been based on 3-car units and SDO/the relevant works being done.

Is it a problem with the double 158s at the moment? If it is a problem in the future then it's easy to fit some if the 3 car units with ETCS.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it a problem with the double 158s at the moment? If it is a problem in the future then it's easy to fit some if the 3 car units with ETCS.

It's certainly a problem towards Pwllheli in summer and on bank holiday weekends - in Central Trains days the Pwllheli portion was 156+153 which is far more capacity than even a 3-car CAF unit. Fitting 3-cars with ETCS would indeed help matters (because other lines might be quieter on those days due to less commuting) but I don't believe this is planned.

2-car towards Pwllheli in the middle of summer will leave people behind, and with a 2-hourly service that is really not OK.

 

[PHILIPE]

Is it a problem with the double 158s at the moment? If it is a problem in the future then it's easy to fit some if the 3 car units with ETCS.

There is a problem with 2 x 158s at Pwllheli due to ETCS and their inability to communicate with different Radio systems. No problem with a 158 but incompatible radio systems at the location.

 

[Caaardiff]

It's certainly a problem towards Pwllheli in summer and on bank holiday weekends - in Central Trains days the Pwllheli portion was 156+153 which is far more capacity than even a 3-car CAF unit. Fitting 3-cars with ETCS would indeed help matters (because other lines might be quieter on those days due to less commuting) but I don't believe this is planned.

2-car towards Pwllheli in the middle of summer will leave people behind, and with a 2-hourly service that is really not OK.

You dont order new trains to up capacity over a few days during summer. The majority of the time the Cambrian copes just fine with 2 cars. Very rarely is anyone left behind, but yes sometimes it's standing room only. It would be a waste if time ordering 3 cars which run around half empty most of the year, especially if it also means little advantage deploying them elsewhere. What needs to be looked at is more frequency during those peak summer periods if possible rather than longer trains.

The 2-car units will be fine for extending the long-distance stuff, but the Conwy Valley is about the only place where demand is always low enough that you can just run 2 all the time on its own and be sure to seat everyone. (Standing is unacceptable on long-distance "InterCity" services - these are not half-hour commuter journeys into cities).

Which has been said many a time.... the majority of TfWs overcrowded services ARE half hour commuter service. The peak services along the Marches to Cardiff, Telford to/from Birmingham, Warrington to/from Manchester. By the time TfW services leave or arrive at the core stations before or after those sections then standing room only is rare and seats are available.

The toilet problem is more a reliability one with CETs, i.e if one fails you've got none. One with a manual door and track dump would be fine (other than the obvious issues with accessibility etc), one CET with a power door isn't as they fail too often.

Pwllheli to Mach is a fair way with no toilets at any of the stations, Brum to Aber a long way with few stations having them.

For this reason in my view all units of any length should have at least 2 toilets, but 2 in a 4 car or 3 in a 5 is fine.

What is your data about CET reliability based on? I can tell you it's pretty good. Single 150s and 153s run around a fair bit of the network with one toilet and its company policy to take it out of service ASAP should there not be one available. It would be very rare for a toilet to be out of use for a whole journey unless it isn't avoidable. In any case, again the cost and loss if seats in order a train with 2 toilets 'just in case one fails' far outweighs the convenience if having 2.

It's becoming very tiring the same topics and unfounded criticisms being brought up every couple of weeks resulting in the same pages and pages of repetitive discussion. They aren't going anywhere. Let's just wait until the things are in service!

 

[507021]

Its interesting how upset some on this forum are by the 197s coming to replace old trains, especially considering that the ex-ATW fleet is overall pretty ancient and tired out.

People are treating minor problems like they mean the cancellation of the order.

A lot of people seem to be the same with the 769s, despite the fact they're finally settling down into service. Yes they're massively late, but show me a class of multiple unit which has entered service on time, and without teething issues, over the last couple of decades.

I don't remember the 230s and 484s ever receiving the same level of hysterical vitriol the 769s have.

The only reason I'd cancel the order is because of the appalling quality reputation of CAF

I know CAF aren't perfect by any means, but I genuinely can't understand why you're so heavily critical of these units when they won't even be operating in your area.

Unlike the more profitable TOCs, the likes of Northern and TfW Rail aren't exactly flush with cash and don't have a whole lot of choice. It's very much a choice of quantity or quality, both isn't a realistic option financially. Besides, it's not like the Civity UK platform is based on cattle trucks with engines, is it?

(much as I think the colour scheme is very nice! )

Good grief, something positive about the 197s!