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

[Rhydgaled]

whether a few trains in Wales still run on diesel in the next few years will make no difference whatsoever to the level of global warming being experienced.

It's not 'the next few years', it's the next 30-40 years. Using 35 years as the mid-point, that takes the last few units (expected to arrive in 2024) through to 2059, 9 years after the UK is supposed to be net-zero.

And why do you assume that no easy route exists to changing the mode of operation?

No pantograph well on the roof, no traction motors and no through-wiring for traction power between vehicles. The E-Voyager programme had fewer stumbling blocks than that and still didn't go ahead.

The issue with the 197s is that they are almost like for like replacing the 158s and 175s. Yes, there will be more of them, but replacing 2 and 3 car units with 2 and 3 car units is incredibly short sighted. Ok, Swansea to Manchester is meant to be run by 2 + 3 to give 5 car units. But all it will take is a period of disruption or more units than normal needing repairs, and it'll be too easy for a 2 or 3 vice 5 car set to turn up on a diagram.
And the Cambrian line is getting no capacity increase at all, with the same 2 + 2 car sets running to Machynlleth and then dividing to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli as now.

Yes, the other issue (the first being the decarbonisation aspect) is what they are replacing. If they were replacing 150s it would be a big improvement to the passenger experience (with the exception of the Sophia seats being less comfortable than the ones on the 150s would be if the seat pitch were to be increased). However, TfW intend to use 197s to replace 158s/175s which is a downgrade to the passenger experience.

 

[coppercapped]

It's not 'the next few years', it's the next 30-40 years. Using 35 years as the mid-point, that takes the last few units (expected to arrive in 2024) through to 2059, 9 years after the UK is supposed to be net-zero.

The contribution that a few dozen diesel units will make to a county's 'net zero' target in forty years time will be so small as to be immeasurable. If you're really worried then plant some more trees...

I repeat - it will make no significant difference at all to global CO2 emissions if the UK reaches 'net zero' by a particular date as emissions from countries which are still building large numbers of coal fired power stations, such as China, India and Indonesia, will outweigh those from the UK by orders of magnitude.

No pantograph well on the roof, no traction motors and no through-wiring for traction power between vehicles. The E-Voyager programme had fewer stumbling blocks than that and still didn't go ahead.

Regarding the conversion of the 197s to either straight electric or hybrid power. Two coach electric sets are an economic nonsense - amortising the cost of the overhead and electrical supply arrangements over penny numbers of passengers is a waste of money which could be better used elsewhere. It is highly unlikely that low traffic routes will be electrified, so any conversion would be to bi-mode.

I attended a lecture by Bombardier engineers at the IMechE some years ago on the various options for project Thor - and I can assure you that the issues - not only technical - were much greater than you imply.

Project Thor modelled two alternative ways of conversion to bi-mode. One involved removal of the diesel engine and accoutrements from one coach and its replacement by a transformer and rectifier with the addition of a pantograph and associated roof modifications. The other involved the building of a new coach which incorporated all the electrical gubbins and inserting it into an existing set, so the four coach trains would become five coaches long and the five coach trains would become six. In either case the train's power-to-weight ratio - and therefore its performance - when under diesel power would be reduced which was not acceptable for timekeeping reasons.

Engineering problems didn't kill the project. Financial and commercial issues did: the DfT was not willing to spend the money and no solution was found for the need to find suitable 125mph stock to back-fill for those trains which would be taken out of service for modification. The Voyagers were being very intensively diagrammed and Bombardier calculated that to permit the most economical conversion in terms of time and money at least five and preferably six trains would have to be worked on at any one time - one commissioning, one being stripped down and four in various stages of modification. Completing one set per month would have meant an eighty month programme - no suitable replacements could be identified at the time for use over a six and a half year period.

The Class 22X family use body mounted traction motors driving through cardan shafts to the wheels. So in principle the mechanical gearbox of the 197s could be replaced by a traction motor and the rest of the drive train left untouched. Whether adding a roof well, pantograph, transformer and electrical control gear to an existing coach or building a new body shell to suit would have to be decided closer to the time when any decision may be made.

Yes, the other issue (the first being the decarbonisation aspect) is what they are replacing. If they were replacing 150s it would be a big improvement to the passenger experience (with the exception of the Sophia seats being less comfortable than the ones on the 150s would be if the seat pitch were to be increased). However, TfW intend to use 197s to replace 158s/175s which is a downgrade to the passenger experience.

 

[krus_aragon]

The 197s should have at least been ordered as 4 or 5 car trains with SDO for shorter platforms.

But this wouldn't have been practical with the aspiration for splitting services. With the planned timetable (and assuming you could afford enough sets), that would mean 8+ cars for Birmingham-Machynlleth, Manchester-Swansea and Liverpool-Chester. You'd either have carriages overhanging the platforms at almost every station, or have to come up with a totally different timetable for the country.

 

[Roger B]

Given that the carbon dioxide emissions from countries such as China and India are orders of magnitude higher (tens or hundreds of times higher) than those from the UK - and will be increasing for the next couple of decades at least as they continue to build coal-fired power stations - whether a few trains in Wales still run on diesel in the next few years will make no difference whatsoever to the level of global warming being experienced.

And why do you assume that no easy route exists to changing the mode of operation?

Yes, the UK may be a relatively smaller polluter, but the UK government has recently committed the UK to zero carbon by 2050. These units will not help achieve that. There seems to be a consensus on this thread that acquiring this large fleet of 197s will delay electrification / change to other less-polluting propulsion modes than would otherwise have been the case. They will be running under the wires for part of some of their routes from when they are introduced into service, and this will only increase over the next few decades - noting comments made about likelihood of N Wales, etc being electrified.

And countries that generate larger proportions of carbon emissions are getting to grips with the issues, and driving down their carbon emissions. The Chinese government has recently given ambitious emissions reduction targets to major energy-consuming industries for emissions to peak by 2025, to achieve “steady” reductions by 2030 and “substantial” reductions by 2035. In response the steel industry which is responsible for more than 30% of total coal use in China, has said that its CO2 emissions would peak before 2025 and fall 30% from the peak by 2030. Doubtless such announcements will be greeted by some with a soupcon of scepticism. Time will tell.

I didn't assume anything about the ease or otherwise of changing mode of operation, rather I stated what I concluded from what I had read on this matter on this thread (eg posts #816, #910), and elsewhere. And yes, it's noted that some consider it 'should' be relatively easy - but the class 230 / 769 experiences (using 'proven' technologies) perhaps suggests that it may not be that straight-forward, especially given the constraints of the loading gauge over which much of the fleet will operate.

 

[tomuk]

Yes, the UK may be a relatively smaller polluter, but the UK government has recently committed the UK to zero carbon by 2050. These units will not help achieve that. There seems to be a consensus on this thread that acquiring this large fleet of 197s will delay electrification / change to other less-polluting propulsion modes than would otherwise have been the case. They will be running under the wires for part of some of their routes from when they are introduced into service, and this will only increase over the next few decades - noting comments made about likelihood of N Wales, etc being electrified.

And countries that generate larger proportions of carbon emissions are getting to grips with the issues, and driving down their carbon emissions. The Chinese government has recently given ambitious emissions reduction targets to major energy-consuming industries for emissions to peak by 2025, to achieve “steady” reductions by 2030 and “substantial” reductions by 2035. In response the steel industry which is responsible for more than 30% of total coal use in China, has said that its CO2 emissions would peak before 2025 and fall 30% from the peak by 2030. Doubtless such announcements will be greeted by some with a soupcon of scepticism. Time will tell.

I didn't assume anything about the ease or otherwise of changing mode of operation, rather I stated what I concluded from what I had read on this matter on this thread (eg posts #816, #910), and elsewhere. And yes, it's noted that some consider it 'should' be relatively easy - but the class 230 / 769 experiences (using 'proven' technologies) perhaps suggests that it may not be that straight-forward, especially given the constraints of the loading gauge over which much of the fleet will operate.

You could make the 197s hybrid on delivery if you swapped the existing RR/MTU power packs for the currently available Hybrid version. These would be more expensive but would give plenty of both fuel cost and emissions savings over the life of the units. Maybe instead of the expensive Stadlers the South Wales Metro could have had cheaper CAF 331 variants and no tram trains. If and when there is some on street running just get some cheap trams.

Converting to EMUs/Hybrid would be pretty easy as the power to weight ratio isn't as critical as with the voyagers so inserting an extra car like a class 321 with pantograph, traction motors would be no problem. Again as with the voyagers although technically easier the politics/commercial issues, particularly if you waited to half life or later, would be the bigger issue.

On emissions overall the UK is already one of the best in the G7 and that's without a large use of nuclear power or diesel cars like France. Although its important to reduced emissions worrying about 1tph of a diesel civity running under the wires for 30 miles to Birmingham or Manchester is complete nonsense.

 

[wobman]

You could make the 197s hybrid on delivery if you swapped the existing RR/MTU power packs for the currently available Hybrid version. These would be more expensive but would give plenty of both fuel cost and emissions savings over the life of the units. Maybe instead of the expensive Stadlers the South Wales Metro could have had cheaper CAF 331 variants and no tram trains. If and when there is some on street running just get some cheap trams.

Converting to EMUs/Hybrid would be pretty easy as the power to weight ratio isn't as critical as with the voyagers so inserting an extra car like a class 321 with pantograph, traction motors would be no problem. Again as with the voyagers although technically easier the politics/commercial issues, particularly if you waited to half life or later, would be the bigger issue.

On emissions overall the UK is already one of the best in the G7 and that's without a large use of nuclear power or diesel cars like France. Although its important to reduced emissions worrying about 1tph of a diesel civity running under the wires for 30 miles to Birmingham or Manchester is complete nonsense.

The priority for the Welsh assembly is the south Wales metro as it serves Cardiff and the valleys, that's why the South with its denser population gets bimodel and trimodel units. I don't think there was enough budget remaining after that investment for the rest of the franchise to get anything other than DMU's.

 

[cnjb8]

You could make the 197s hybrid on delivery if you swapped the existing RR/MTU power packs for the currently available Hybrid version. These would be more expensive but would give plenty of both fuel cost and emissions savings over the life of the units. Maybe instead of the expensive Stadlers the South Wales Metro could have had cheaper CAF 331 variants and no tram trains. If and when there is some on street running just get some cheap trams.

Converting to EMUs/Hybrid would be pretty easy as the power to weight ratio isn't as critical as with the voyagers so inserting an extra car like a class 321 with pantograph, traction motors would be no problem. Again as with the voyagers although technically easier the politics/commercial issues, particularly if you waited to half life or later, would be the bigger issue.

On emissions overall the UK is already one of the best in the G7 and that's without a large use of nuclear power or diesel cars like France. Although its important to reduced emissions worrying about 1tph of a diesel civity running under the wires for 30 miles to Birmingham or Manchester is complete nonsense.

Those tram trains will save loads in car emissions with street running though.

 

[tomuk]

Those tram trains will save loads in car emissions with street running though.

But there isn't any street running well apart from maybe 100 yards in Cardiff Bay but even that is apparently on hold. I have no problem with trams (tram trains I'm less keen) but you only order them when you have a concrete plan in place, not a number of vague ideas about possible extensions/line you may add sometime in the future.

 

[Jamesrob637]

But this wouldn't have been practical with the aspiration for splitting services. With the planned timetable (and assuming you could afford enough sets), that would mean 8+ cars for Birmingham-Machynlleth, Manchester-Swansea and Liverpool-Chester. You'd either have carriages overhanging the platforms at almost every station, or have to come up with a totally different timetable for the country.

Trains into Manchester from Wales will need 8-car at times by the middle of the decade!

 

[cnjb8]

But there isn't any street running well apart from maybe 100 yards in Cardiff Bay but even that is apparently on hold. I have no problem with trams (tram trains I'm less keen) but you only order them when you have a concrete plan in place, not a number of vague ideas about possible extensions/line you may add sometime in the future.

I’m not fully up to date with the project, and I thought that the on street running would bypass Central and Queen Street stations. An improved Valley Lines wouldn’t really increase emissions, but tram trains for a potential 100 yards of on street running seems very excessive

 

[craigybagel]

It's about future proofing - whilst the initial tramway section is only short, using tram trains means that future extensions can either be light or heavy rail in nature. If pure heavy rail trains were purchased, all future extensions would need to be to those standards.

In any case, 331s with their 100mph top speed would be overkill for the Valleys. The tram trains are pretty close to the ideal team you'd want for the Valleys even if they weren't being used on a tram way.

In any case though this all belongs on the South Wales metro thread, where no doubt all these points have been debated to death already. This is meant to be a discussion on the 197s, which are on order now and are coming, regardless of what should or shouldn't be going on the Valleys.

 

[wobman]

Trains into Manchester from Wales will need 8-car at times by the middle of the decade!

Especially with the proposed congestion charge starting in Manchester soon, more people will be pushed onto public transport.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The contribution that a few dozen diesel units will make to a county's 'net zero' target in forty years time will be so small as to be immeasurable. If you're really worried then plant some more trees...

Is 161 units 'a few dozen'?

I repeat - it will make no significant difference at all to global CO2 emissions if the UK reaches 'net zero' by a particular date as emissions from countries which are still building large numbers of coal fired power stations, such as China, India and Indonesia, will outweigh those from the UK by orders of magnitude.

Presumably the UK is calling on places like China to stop doing that and to decarbonise? If so, then the UK should be meeting net-zero itself - otherwise China etc. could say something similar about us. Why should they stop burning coal if the UK is going to keep burning diesel and tip the climate into meltdown? While the emmissions from 161 diesel trains (195s + 196s + 197s) would be tiny compared to large numbers of coal fired power stations, if global emissions exceed what is removed from the atmosphere even by a tiny amount the concentration of greenhouse gas will continue to increase. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY NEEDS TO GET TO NET-ZERO, prefrably net-negative emissions.

Regarding the conversion of the 197s to either straight electric or hybrid power. Two coach electric sets are an economic nonsense - amortising the cost of the overhead and electrical supply arrangements over penny numbers of passengers is a waste of money which could be better used elsewhere. It is highly unlikely that low traffic routes will be electrified, so any conversion would be to bi-mode.

Yes, convertion to bi-mode is far more likely than to a pure EMU, but 'bi-mode' might be IPEMU (an EMU with battery operation beyond the wires) depending on the exact scope of future electrification. Electrifying a line operated by 2-car units once an hour is probably nonsense but electrifying a route with three 4-car trains an hour, one of which divides on route to serve two non-electrified branches with 2-cars each...

I attended a lecture by Bombardier engineers at the IMechE some years ago on the various options for project Thor - and I can assure you that the issues - not only technical - were much greater than you imply.

Project Thor modelled two alternative ways of conversion to bi-mode. One involved removal of the diesel engine and accoutrements from one coach and its replacement by a transformer and rectifier with the addition of a pantograph and associated roof modifications. The other involved the building of a new coach which incorporated all the electrical gubbins and inserting it into an existing set, so the four coach trains would become five coaches long and the five coach trains would become six. In either case the train's power-to-weight ratio - and therefore its performance - when under diesel power would be reduced which was not acceptable for timekeeping reasons.

Engineering problems didn't kill the project. Financial and commercial issues did: the DfT was not willing to spend the money and no solution was found for the need to find suitable 125mph stock to back-fill for those trains which would be taken out of service for modification. The Voyagers were being very intensively diagrammed and Bombardier calculated that to permit the most economical conversion in terms of time and money at least five and preferably six trains would have to be worked on at any one time - one commissioning, one being stripped down and four in various stages of modification. Completing one set per month would have meant an eighty month programme - no suitable replacements could be identified at the time for use over a six and a half year period.

Thank you for the further information, it is interesting to hear more about the project. I expect many of these issues would also apply to any convertion of Civity DMUs to bi-mode, plus additional issues that wouldn't have applied in the e-Voyager case (principally the additonal cost of traction motors, which would be required for the Civity DMUs but not E-Voyager).

Something you have not mentioned which I have read online is that the Voyagers do not have traction power wiring between vehicles. This was presumably something that would have been changed by the programme (contributing to the amount of stripping down required and the length of time out of service for each set) since if not done it would mean only the vehicle(s) with a pantograph would be powered in electric mode.

It's about future proofing - whilst the initial tramway section is only short, using tram trains means that future extensions can either be light or heavy rail in nature. If pure heavy rail trains were purchased, all future extensions would need to be to those standards.

Which is the exact opposite of the class 197 order. The tram-trains are (I hope) about future-proofing, whereas the 197s are not in the least bit future-proofed as far as I can see.

Yes, the UK may be a relatively smaller polluter, but the UK government has recently committed the UK to zero carbon by 2050. These units will not help achieve that. There seems to be a consensus on this thread that acquiring this large fleet of 197s will delay electrification / change to other less-polluting propulsion modes than would otherwise have been the case. They will be running under the wires for part of some of their routes from when they are introduced into service, and this will only increase over the next few decades - noting comments made about likelihood of N Wales, etc being electrified.

My take on this is that the large fleet of class 197s reduces the likelyhood of electrification of routes such as Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury within the timeframe available for electrification. Given that Network Rail has identified Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury, the Marches Line, the North Wales Coast and Cardiff to Carmarthen as 'core electrification' in their assessment of what is required to decarbonise the rail industry I think this is very concerning.

worrying about 1tph of a diesel civity running under the wires for 30 miles to Birmingham or Manchester is complete nonsense.

One 2-car DMU per hour for 30 miles isn't much to worry about, but it isn't one 2-car DMU per hour it is potentially three 4-car DMUs per hour. If TfW had bi-modes for the Cambrian, there would the TfW service and potentially two WMR services each hour which should make a reasonable case to put forward for electrification to Shrewsbury. Without bi-modes for the Cambrian, you either have to cause a big upset by truncating the Cambrian services at Shrewsbury or run a 4-car (or maybe longer if you add a Wrexham portion to help cope with crowding) diesel into Birmingham, which knocks those carriages off the case (both business and environmental cases) for electrification. If that reduction in benefits from the electrification scheme is enough to kill the scheme, then electrification won't happen and the WMR services also stay diesel. The more diesel-only trains you build, the more electrification schemes you kill.

 

[tomuk]

One 2-car DMU per hour for 30 miles isn't much to worry about, but it isn't one 2-car DMU per hour it is potentially three 4-car DMUs per hour. If TfW had bi-modes for the Cambrian, there would the TfW service and potentially two WMR services each hour which should make a reasonable case to put forward for electrification to Shrewsbury. Without bi-modes for the Cambrian, you either have to cause a big upset by truncating the Cambrian services at Shrewsbury or run a 4-car (or maybe longer if you add a Wrexham portion to help cope with crowding) diesel into Birmingham, which knocks those carriages off the case (both business and environmental cases) for electrification. If that reduction in benefits from the electrification scheme is enough to kill the scheme, then electrification won't happen and the WMR services also stay diesel. The more diesel-only trains you build, the more electrification schemes you kill.

Midlands Connect are building the case for electrification. The business case is being built on speeding up the Shrewsbury to Birmingham locals to under an hour (near to 45 mins), increasing them to at least 3tph and providing an hourly through intercity service to London. The station usage for the line was approaching nearly 5m entries/exits mainly at Shrewsbury, Telford and Wellington This unfortunately dwarfs traffic off the Cambrian.

Not to mention the increased house building along the route in Shrewsbury, Telford, Shifnal and Wolverhampton. They are planning to build at least 1000 houses on the old Ironbridge Power Station alone. The TfW service is just a footnote.

The currently committed diesel only trains won't kill the case for electrification the railway will just lease the stock it needs the DMUs will just go off lease. There is a whole fleet of BR era DMUs that need replacing and at the current and even proposed rate of electrification a lot of them wont be with EMUs or BiModes it will be with the newer DMUs (Turbostars and Civities can easily be made at least Hybrid) cascaded from the services that do get electrified.

 

[supervc-10]

I can't see all the Civities staying with TfW their entire lives- there are small branchlines across the country which could potentially see them (and the 195s, and 196s), which is also why I'm not concerned about them being 2 and 3 car units.

Lets not forget too that biodiesel is a thing- whilst not ideal (to say the least), it does mean that you can keep running a diesel train past 2050. I think biofuels will be a big part of decarbonising in the future for where electrification remains difficult- remote rail operations and air travel being two key areas IMO.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I can't see all the Civities staying with TfW their entire lives- there are small branchlines across the country which could potentially see them (and the 195s, and 196s), which is also why I'm not concerned about them being 2 and 3 car units.

Lets not forget too that biodiesel is a thing- whilst not ideal (to say the least), it does mean that you can keep running a diesel train past 2050. I think biofuels will be a big part of decarbonising in the future for where electrification remains difficult- remote rail operations and air travel being two key areas IMO.

I agree that there are some branchlines where it could make sense to still be running diesels after 2050 - the manufacture of batteries is not exactly zero-carbon after all. The issue is that the 195s, 196s and 197s together represent far more diesels than those branchlines could possibily need if you assume that it is desirable to get everything listed for wiring in Network Rail's TDNS done by 2050.

 

[Cardiff123]

I agree that there are some branchlines where it could make sense to still be running diesels after 2050 - the manufacture of batteries is not exactly zero-carbon after all. The issue is that the 195s, 196s and 197s together represent far more diesels than those branchlines could possibily need if you assume that it is desirable to get everything listed for wiring in Network Rail's TDNS done by 2050.

Whilst I share your concerns about the immediate action that's needed to tackle climate change, I honestly fail to see what Keolis Amey could have done differently with their winning bid for the Wales & Borders franchise in 2018. TOCs cannot order new rolling stock with the vague possibility that at some point in future there might be a rolling programme of electrification in England & Wales. At the moment there is not, and there's no prospect of their being one. Unless UK Govt adopts the same rolling electrification policy as Scotland, Network rail's TDNS is just as ambition or aspiration.
Tram-trains and Stadler Flirts were able to be ordered because Welsh Govt now owns the Core Valley Lines and so can get electrification done on those lines. Welsh Govt don't own or control any other rail infrastructure in Wales and the current UK Govt isn't exactly friendly towards the devolved governments and Parliaments, so don't expect anything else to be devolved to Welsh Govt whilst the current incumbent is in number 10, no matter how much Welsh Govt screams and shouts about what it wants.

With no prospect of electrification anywhere outside of the CVL on the horizon in Wales, you can't expect TfW to have ordered bi-modes on the distant possibility Wales could get a rolling program of electrification. I think the progress on the CVL has shown, if you want improvements and upgrades to rail infrastructure in Wales, hand it over to Welsh Govt to get on with. Leave it up to Westminster, and when the 197s reach the end of their life, Wales will be ordering yet more DMUs to replace them.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Whilst I share your concerns about the immediate action that's needed to tackle climate change, I honestly fail to see what Keolis Amey could have done differently with their winning bid for the Wales & Borders franchise in 2018. TOCs cannot order new rolling stock with the vague possibility that at some point in future there might be a rolling programme of electrification in England & Wales. At the moment there is not, and there's no prospect of their being one. Unless UK Govt adopts the same rolling electrification policy as Scotland, Network rail's TDNS is just as ambition or aspiration.
Tram-trains and Stadler Flirts were able to be ordered because Welsh Govt now owns the Core Valley Lines and so can get electrification done on those lines. Welsh Govt don't own or control any other rail infrastructure in Wales and the current UK Govt isn't exactly friendly towards the devolved governments and Parliaments, so don't expect anything else to be devolved to Welsh Govt whilst the current incumbent is in number 10, no matter how much Welsh Govt screams and shouts about what it wants.

With no prospect of electrification anywhere outside of the CVL on the horizon in Wales, you can't expect TfW to have ordered bi-modes on the distant possibility Wales could get a rolling program of electrification. I think the progress on the CVL has shown, if you want improvements and upgrades to rail infrastructure in Wales, hand it over to Welsh Govt to get on with. Leave it up to Westminster, and when the 197s reach the end of their life, Wales will be ordering yet more DMUs to replace them.

Blaming Westminster for Wales' problems
Westminster provides all commuter trains from South Monmouthshire (ya know Wales)

These trains won't move for a very long time, they're too inherently political for WAG. The factory was too much a political win for them to cancel.

I have a feeling we'll see retractioning on these and would be surprised if work hasn't been done by CAF to look at this.

We won't see another DMU order for Wales, otherwise the FLIRTS for the unelectrified lines would be 197s. They're expecting further electrification in England, specifically the route to Gloucester

 

[TravelDream]

The 197 will offer significant increases in capacity versus the current 175/158s mainly used on the Marches line.
Swansea to Manchester is supposed to run as with a combined 2 and 3 unit train. That's more than double the capacity when 2-car 175s/158s are used.
Cardiff-Holyhead is now supposed to be run with Mark 4s instead of 197s which will also be four to five-car.
For the Cambrian line, the aim is to have the same capacity on each train (2+2 splitting at Mach), but to increase the frequency to hourly to Shrewsbury. I think most would rather an hourly 2 carriage train versus a 2 hourly 4 carriage train.
On bi-modes, it would be a total waste of money. The chances of the Marches/ Cambrian lines being electrified in the next few decades is basically zero.

But there isn't any street running well apart from maybe 100 yards in Cardiff Bay but even that is apparently on hold. I have no problem with trams (tram trains I'm less keen) but you only order them when you have a concrete plan in place, not a number of vague ideas about possible extensions/line you may add sometime in the future.

Street running in Cardiff and then heading up to the Valleys is impossible unless you want continuous disarray with the timetable. The Valley lines have far too much single-track running for it to ever work.
Some minister's/ consultant's vision had to be translated into reality and that's why we've seen the idea quietly jettisoned.
The current plan for the core Valleys is four per hour up each valley with 2 going to Central (as now) and 2 going to the redeveloped Bay. The core Pontypridd to Cardiff network will see 6 per hour to Central and 6 to the Bay.
Are the tram-trains perfect? No, in my opinion, but their use has real positives.
If they do get to run Aberdare/Merthyr/Treherbert to Queen Street is 45 minutes as promised, I think it'll be a real game-changer in terms of commuting. It'll also be hard to believe that in the not too distant past, these lines ran with an hourly service taking over an hour.

 

[Cardiff123]

Blaming Westminster for Wales' problems
Westminster provides all commuter trains from South Monmouthshire (ya know Wales)

These trains won't move for a very long time, they're too inherently political for WAG. The factory was too much a political win for them to cancel.

I have a feeling we'll see retractioning on these and would be surprised if work hasn't been done by CAF to look at this.

We won't see another DMU order for Wales, otherwise the FLIRTS for the unelectrified lines would be 197s. They're expecting further electrification in England, specifically the route to Gloucester

Well Wales is the only devolved government not to get a Barnett consequential from HS2. If control over rail infrastructure was devolved to Welsh Govt (as it is in Scotland & NI) and Wales was getting the estimated £5bn that we're owed from HS2 spending that Scotland & NI are getting, we could start a rolling electrification program tomorrow.
But this is now getting off topic.

 

[tomuk]

The current plan for the core Valleys is four per hour up each valley with 2 going to Central (as now) and 2 going to the redeveloped Bay. The core Pontypridd to Cardiff network will see 6 per hour to Central and 6 to the Bay.
Are the tram-trains perfect? No, in my opinion, but their use has real positives.
If they do get to run Aberdare/Merthyr/Treherbert to Queen Street is 45 minutes as promised, I think it'll be a real game-changer in terms of commuting. It'll also be hard to believe that in the not too distant past, these lines ran with an hourly service taking over an hour.

So the benefit of tram trains vs conventional emu is?

Well Wales is the only devolved government not to get a Barnett consequential from HS2. If control over rail infrastructure was devolved to Welsh Govt (as it is in Scotland & NI) and Wales was getting the estimated £5bn that we're owed from HS2 spending that Scotland & NI are getting, we could start a rolling electrification program tomorrow.
But this is now getting off topic.

The whole barnett consequentials from HS2 is a bit screwy. There is no question both Wales and Scotland will benefit from HS2 so should Scotland get any barnett consequentials at all?
As for devolution the Welsh network just isn't as self contained as Scotland. For example would the Welsh Government pay for resignalling Shrewsbury or conversely should Shropshire, Hereford and Cheshire councils demand payment of the 'profit' made by TfW on their patches.

 

[TravelDream]

@tomuk - They were bought to indulge the minister's fantasy of street running through Cardiff and then heading up the Valleys.
The other advantages are they are cheaper and have better acceleration/ handling characteristics allowing increased speed given many of the stops are close together.

Blaming Westminster for Wales' problems

Rail infrastructure (outside of the core Valleys) is not devolved so who else's fault is it?

I have to agree with the poster above who says electrification would be might more likely if it was devolved, but it isn't and isn't going to be under this government.

 

[Wolfie]

@tomuk - They were bought to indulge the minister's fantasy of street running through Cardiff and then heading up the Valleys.
The other advantages are they are cheaper and have better acceleration/ handling characteristics allowing increased speed given many of the stops are close together.



Rail infrastructure (outside of the core Valleys) is not devolved so who else's fault is it?

I have to agree with the poster above who says electrification would be might more likely if it was devolved, but it isn't and isn't going to be under this government.

Not about to get in a row but it's amazing how many proponents of devolution still expect Westminster (for which read English taxpayers in the South East) to pick up the tab.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Whilst I share your concerns about the immediate action that's needed to tackle climate change, I honestly fail to see what Keolis Amey could have done differently with their winning bid for the Wales & Borders franchise in 2018.

They could have done a growth-build (25-30 units) rather than a total fleet replacement (77 units) and this could have been DEMUs (like the 231s) or battery-hybrids (like the 16x demonstrator that's soon to appear in England) or even bi-mode* rather than unadulterated diesel-mechanical. They might even have been able to propose the ex-EMR 158s (although as we know now that would probably have not worked out, at the time EMR were expected to off-lease them) instead of any new units for the routes that they ordered the 197s for.

* It's not like there's zero electrification on the routes the 197s are intended to operate. Crewe-Manchester, Warrington-Manchester, Cardiff-Newport and Wolverhampton-Birmingham are hardly large sections, but if you only had a 26 new units instead of 77 you could concentrate them on whichever route has the highest proportion of electrified track.

TOCs cannot order new rolling stock with the vague possibility that at some point in future there might be a rolling programme of electrification in England & Wales.

No, but the Welsh Government has clear ambitions or aspirations for electrification of the South Wales and North Wales main lines. The Welsh Government could have written it into the Invitation To Tender that everything needed to be future-proof.

With no prospect of electrification anywhere outside of the CVL on the horizon in Wales, you can't expect TfW to have ordered bi-modes on the distant possibility Wales could get a rolling program of electrification.

It wouldn't need to be a rolling programme, even one standalone scheme authorisation (Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury, Cardiff-Swansea or something on the north Wales coast) would have completely changed the picture and made 77 class 197s a complete no-no. That's the problem with a total fleet replacement with DMUs ALL your routes become operated by nearly-new DMUs. This means the cost of new EMUs needs to be added to the costs of electrification (if you have life-expired DMUs that needed replacing anyway you can argue that is actually saving money since a new EMU is cheaper than a DMU). It also means that you need to find somewhere else to cascade the new DMUs to if you electrify any of those routes. If, on the other hand, you have 24 units becoming life-expired in 2030, 27 in 2040 and 30 in 2055 then you can do a bit of electrification in 2030, scrap the oldest DMUs and buy EMUs (or bi-modes in the case of Wolves-Shrewsbury wiring) for the route that you've electrified.

Cardiff-Holyhead is now supposed to be run with Mark 4s instead of 197s which will also be four to five-car. Still only planned to be three trains per day each way isn't it?
For the Cambrian line, the aim is to have the same capacity on each train (2+2 splitting at Mach), but to increase the frequency to hourly to Shrewsbury. I think most would rather an hourly 2 carriage train versus a 2 hourly 4 carriage train. It's only the same capacity if you count standing room. A 158 has more seats, tables and toilets than a 197. Pre-COVID, Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury was already hourly on Sundays and the rest of the week there were 2-car trains in some of the even hours (the odd hours being the ones that have the 4-car train splitting at Machynlleth).

On bi-modes, it would be a total waste of money. The chances of the Marches/ Cambrian lines being electrified in the next few decades is basically zero.

If you ask me, you only have to wire Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury to make bi-modes make sense for the Cambrian, and doing Cardiff-Swansea would probably be enough to make them the best option for Manchester-Swansea as well. The chances of wiring the Cambrian might be zero, but the whole point of a bi-mode is you don't need to wire the whole route.

 

[TravelDream]

Not about to get in a row but it's amazing how many proponents of devolution still expect Westminster (for which read English taxpayers in the South East) to pick up the tab.

How can anyone be clearer? Rail infrastructure in Wales in not devolved. It is the responsibility of the UK government.
Do you expect the Welsh Government to buy aircraft carriers and fighter jets too!? Obviously not.
However, the concept is the same. Neither are devolved. This isn't a matter of opinion, but of fact.

Many of us think we would be better off it was devolved, but it isn't. Wales and Borders, on the other hand, is devolved (though with some limitations in the parts of England served).

Cardiff-Holyhead is now supposed to be run with Mark 4s instead of 197s which will also be four to five-car. Still only planned to be three trains per day each way isn't it?
For the Cambrian line, the aim is to have the same capacity on each train (2+2 splitting at Mach), but to increase the frequency to hourly to Shrewsbury. I think most would rather an hourly 2 carriage train versus a 2 hourly 4 carriage train. It's only the same capacity if you count standing room. A 158 has more seats, tables and toilets than a 197. Pre-COVID, Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury was already hourly on Sundays and the rest of the week there were 2-car trains in some of the even hours (the odd hours being the ones that have the 4-car train splitting at Machynlleth).

I am not too sure given the Welsh Gov recently acquired extra Mark 4 carriages. My presumption was they would operate all of the trains on the route given they have enough for at least seven sets.
Yes, the 158 has a few more seats, and, yes, the toilet thing has been mentioned about a million times. However, the capacity is basically the same. My point still stands too. An hourly service between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury and potentially onto Birmingham would be heavily favoured by route users over a slightly larger capacity train on a two per hour service.

 

[43096]

I am not too sure given the Welsh Gov recently acquired extra Mark 4 carriages. My presumption was they would operate all of the trains on the route given they have enough for at least seven sets.

The Mark 4s are for use on Cardiff-Holyhead (2 diagrams) and Swansea-Manchester (4 diagrams). 6 sets in service, one on maintenance seems to be the plan.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I am not too sure given the Welsh Gov recently acquired extra Mark 4 carriages. My presumption was they would operate all of the trains on the route given they have enough for at least seven sets.

I'm pretty sure they announced that the additional mark 4s are for Swansea-Manchester, so they wouldn't be covering any more Cardiff-Holyheads.

An hourly service between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury and potentially onto Birmingham would be heavily favoured by route users over a slightly larger capacity train on a twice-hourly service.

I think you mean 2-hourly at the end there (ie. a train every two hours) not twice-hourly (ie. two trains an hour). It's not either or though, Cambrian passengers have already seen hourly 158s on Sundays which proves it would be possible to do the same on weekdays if a unit or two could be freed up elsewhere in Wales. Even on weekdays, the service provided with the 158s pre-COVID was better than 2-hourly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you mean 2-hourly at the end there (ie. a train every two hours) not twice-hourly (ie. two trains an hour). It's not either or though, Cambrian passengers have already seen hourly 158s on Sundays which proves it would be possible to do the same on weekdays if a unit or two could be freed up elsewhere in Wales. Even on weekdays, the service provided with the 158s pre-COVID was better than 2-hourly.

With the 197s there should be an hourly Aber, a considerable capacity uplift. Pwllheli by contrast sees a capacity cut.

 

[tomuk]

However, the capacity is basically the same. My point still stands too. An hourly service between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury and potentially onto Birmingham would be heavily favoured by route users over a slightly larger capacity train on a twice-hourly service.

Pre covid the service was nearly hourly. 1tph Shrewsbury to Birmingham Int with the service continuing to Aberystwth/Pwhelli or Holyhead in alternate hours. There was also an additional Aberystwyth - Shrewsbury only service in most of the alternate hours. Tfw had confirmed there would be no increase in capacity when the 197s come in.

 

[TravelDream]

Pre covid the service was nearly hourly. 1tph Shrewsbury to Birmingham Int with the service continuing to Aberystwth/Pwhelli or Holyhead in alternate hours. There was also an additional Aberystwyth - Shrewsbury only service in most of the alternate hours. Tfw had confirmed there would be no increase in capacity when the 197s come in.

Really? I spoke to the local MS not too long ago who assured me in her discussions with the minister, she was 'guaranteed' that Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury would run hourly (with an increase on the pre-Covid schedule when there wasn't actually a train every hour) when the new fleet was fully impletemented.