CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[seagull]

Thanks Bletchleyite. Takt's a new one for me - what does is mean / signify? Thanks

I think it's some kind of Railforums word game: every thread has to have the word "Takt" somewhere in it...

Looking forward to trying the 197s myself: I find the 158s horribly claustrophobic especially when busy, the 175s are much more pleasant, so will be interesting to compare. Sometimes what on paper looks awful can in practice work (and sometimes not!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks Bletchleyite. Takt's a new one for me - what does is mean / signify? Thanks

It means the rather wordy "regular interval clockface timetable with planned connections".

Back to 197s, I note that the units have considerably fewer seats than Northern's (all Standard 2-car TfW 116, Northern 124; all Standard 3-car TfW 188, Northern 204) yet the density seems so much higher. It doesn't seem congruous with the higher density layout and lack of standbacks, and the 2-cars don't have a second bog so it isn't that.

 

[wobman]

I think it's some kind of Railforums word game: every thread has to have the word "Takt" somewhere in it...

Looking forward to trying the 197s myself: I find the 158s horribly claustrophobic especially when busy, the 175s are much more pleasant, so will be interesting to compare. Sometimes what on paper looks awful can in practice work (and sometimes not!).

I'm not a 158 fan to be honest, I much more prefer a 175 over a 158. The 175 is far more superior and from my experience on the new 197s is that they are going to be an upgrade.

I spend a lot of time on 158s unfortunately and I don't understand why some posters that rave about them on here. The 197s are the future of the franchise & they are not perfect but most passengers will love them over sprinters. It's a shame the 175s couldn't be retained as they are a lovely long distance unit.

 

[craigybagel]

It means the rather wordy "regular interval clockface timetable with planned connections".

Back to 197s, I note that the units have considerably fewer seats than Northern's (all Standard 2-car TfW 116, Northern 124; all Standard 3-car TfW 188, Northern 204) yet the density seems so much higher. It doesn't seem congruous with the higher density layout and lack of standbacks, and the 2-cars don't have a second bog so it isn't that.

There's an area on the TfW units for storing catering supplies, which takes up a bit of space. Also the 3 car units have a second bike space in the middle coach which I don't believe the Northern units have.

 

[Roger B]

It means the rather wordy "regular interval clockface timetable with planned connections".

Back to 197s, I note that the units have considerably fewer seats than Northern's (all Standard 2-car TfW 116, Northern 124; all Standard 3-car TfW 188, Northern 204) yet the density seems so much higher. It doesn't seem congruous with the higher density layout and lack of standbacks, and the 2-cars don't have a second bog so it isn't that.

Many thanks - im Deutsch, I'm guessing!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Many thanks - im Deutsch, I'm guessing!

Ja

I don't know the Dutch word for it - that's the other place the concept is widely used.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Tfw should carry on with its ageing fleets of trains, just keep on patching them up. Ignoring the need for new more economical units that offer a far superior customer experience.

I know that tfw have gone down the Mk4s route as there's no alternative available for the longer distance routes, the HSTs were looked at but were not viable.

I've travelled on 195s as a passenger and have trained to drive 197s and they offer such a huge step forward compared to what tfw presently run now in so many ways.

TfW are ignoring the need for new more economical units that offer a far superior customer experience anyway (or, perhaps more acurately, KeolisAmey ignored that). They ordered 77 new units which offer a far inferior customer experience (depending on which of the old stock you compare with) and which are not massively more economical (assuming you mean fuel economy) than 158s (in fact the 197s may even be less economical).

We are being told by the UN etc. that we need to reach net zero carbon by 2050 at the latest and TfW/KeolisAmey ordered a diesel-only fleet capable of operation to 2055 or beyond.

I've travelled on a 195 as a passenger too; in some respects it was an improvement over a 150, significantly so in some cases (though Fainsa seats is a step backwards). However, from a passenger's point of view, they are a inferior product to 158s. I'm sure the new units will have much nicer cabs, since all the drivers who have commented on the 197s on here seem to like them, but the passengers don't get to travel in the cab.

 

[wobman]

TfW are ignoring the need for new more economical units that offer a far superior customer experience anyway (or, perhaps more acurately, KeolisAmey ignored that). They ordered 77 new units which offer a far inferior customer experience (depending on which of the old stock you compare with) and which are not massively more economical (assuming you mean fuel economy) than 158s (in fact the 197s may even be less economical).

We are being told by the UN etc. that we need to reach net zero carbon by 2050 at the latest and TfW/KeolisAmey ordered a diesel-only fleet capable of operation to 2055 or beyond.

I've travelled on a 195 as a passenger too; in some respects it was an improvement over a 150, significantly so in some cases (though Fainsa seats is a step backwards). However, from a passenger's point of view, they are a inferior product to 158s. I'm sure the new units will have much nicer cabs, since all the drivers who have commented on the 197s on here seem to like them, but the passengers don't get to travel in the cab.

If you ask the travelling public would they prefer to travel on a 150/153/158 or a 195, the vast majority will certainly choose the 195.
I've travelled on the 197s in the cabs & in the coach, both experiences are far superior that any sprinter journey.

We all know you hate 197s but why not fight fight for longer sets, instead of 2 cars campaign for more 3 cars or even 4 car sets. That solves seating numbers & more toilets onboard.
I found the seating quite comfortable to be honest, the PIS systems is a huge improvement. The trains are far more airear and quieter aswell.

The 197s are here to stay & let's embrace the first new rolling stock for Wales in over 20yrs.

 

[craigybagel]

I'm sure the new units will have much nicer cabs, since all the drivers who have commented on the 197s on here seem to like them, but the passengers don't get to travel in the cab.

But the drivers do get to travel in the passenger bit from time to time. Like Wobman says, it's a big improvement in there over the old fleet as well.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If you ask the travelling public would they prefer to travel on a 150/153/158 or a 195, the vast majority will certainly choose the 195.

150s and 153s yes (my post above admitted that a 195 is an improvement over a 150 in some respects), but 158s? Really? Particularly the nicely refurbished ATW/TfW ones.

I've travelled on the 197s in the cabs & in the coach, both experiences are far superior that any sprinter journey.

Sprinter as in 'Sprinter' (ie. 150s) or are you including 'Super Sprinters' (153s/155s/156s) and 'Express Sprinters' (158s) in that? A class 197 providing a far superior passenger experience to a 150 I can understand (although the 150s have better seats that is mittigated by the 150's dire legroom, put the 150's seats in the 197 in the same layout as the 197 and you would definately have a superior train to the 150). I cannot understand how anyone can claim a far superior passenger experience compared to all possible experiences of a 158 though.

We all know you hate 197s but why not fight fight for longer sets, instead of 2 cars campaign for more 3 cars or even 4 car sets. That solves seating numbers & more toilets onboard.

More coaches would mean yet more diesel vehicles with a life expiry date beyond 2050 - we should be minimising this not increasing it.

Your suggestion also doesn't solve any of the following:

• the seat-to-toilet ratio (since there would still be the DMS vehicle with no toilet)
• the views into toilets from your seat due to the lack of internal doors seperating the vestibles from the passenger saloons and the fact the toilets are not near the doors
• the draughts due to lack of internal doors seperating the vestibles from the passenger saloons
• the reduction in table bays and, in particular, bays aligned with windows, meaning that the best uninterupted views on scenic lines are severely limited compared to the current fleet
• the reduction in luggage space (excluding overhead racks which short/frail passengers might not be able to reach) and, above all
• the amount of deadspace / standing room created by wide doors

The 197s are here to stay & let's embrace the first new rolling stock for Wales in over 20yrs.

Happy to embrace the 231s and 756s, fit for purpose (since they are intended for the Metro) and, unless I'm very much mistaken, future proof. But there is no place for a large fleet of diesel-only suburban trains. The reason I hate the 197s (and 195s) so much is that combination of suburban door layout and diesel traction. A suburban EMU/bi-mode would be fine (I would simply be arguing for their redeployment onto the likes of the Metro) but a suburban DMU is just leaving us with a choice between two bad outcomes:

• deploying the suburban DMU on a route such as Pontarddulais-Bridgend or Ebbw Vale - Maesteg (where the suburban layout is appropriate) would interfere with electrification of busy routes which should be priority projects
• depolying the suburban DMU on a route such as Middlesbrough-Whitby (one of the few routes that are unlikely to be electrified even in part) would be providing an inferior travelling environment to something like a 175

But the drivers do get to travel in the passenger bit from time to time. Like Wobman says, it's a big improvement in there over the old fleet as well.

In what way is it an improvement? Yes, compared to a 150/1 a 195 is big improvement in terms of passenger experience (excluding the much harder seats on the 195) and the only reason I wrote 150/1 there specifically rather than 150s in general is the lack of end gangways on the 195, which is resolved by the 197. Some of those big improvements also apply when compared to 'Super Sprinters' as well but the TfW 158s are near-perfect trains for the Cambrian lines in my view. While the 197s do address some of the 158's few shortcomings, they also take away many of the features that make the 158s so great (the availablity of the best unobstructed views being one of them).

 

[craigybagel]

In what way is it an improvement? Yes, compared to a 150/1 a 195 is big improvement in terms of passenger experience (excluding the much harder seats on the 195) and the only reason I wrote 150/1 there specifically rather than 150s in general is the lack of end gangways on the 195, which is resolved by the 197. Some of those big improvements also apply when compared to 'Super Sprinters' as well but the TfW 158s are near-perfect trains for the Cambrian lines in my view. While the 197s do address some of the 158's few shortcomings, they also take away many of the features that make the 158s so great (the availablity of the best unobstructed views being one of them).

I have explained it to you numerous times on various threads all across these forums. I'm not going to waste my time am doing so again since I don't see you ever changing your mind - which of course is entirely your choice. I'll continue looking forward to traveling on these units, both sitting in the cab and in the saloon.

 

[wobman]

150s and 153s yes (my post above admitted that a 195 is an improvement over a 150 in some respects), but 158s? Really? Particularly the nicely refurbished ATW/TfW ones.


Sprinter as in 'Sprinter' (ie. 150s) or are you including 'Super Sprinters' (153s/155s/156s) and 'Express Sprinters' (158s) in that? A class 197 providing a far superior passenger experience to a 150 I can understand (although the 150s have better seats that is mittigated by the 150's dire legroom, put the 150's seats in the 197 in the same layout as the 197 and you would definately have a superior train to the 150). I cannot understand how anyone can claim a far superior passenger experience compared to all possible experiences of a 158 though.


More coaches would mean yet more diesel vehicles with a life expiry date beyond 2050 - we should be minimising this not increasing it.

Your suggestion also doesn't solve any of the following:

• the seat-to-toilet ratio (since there would still be the DMS vehicle with no toilet)
• the views into toilets from your seat due to the lack of internal doors seperating the vestibles from the passenger saloons and the fact the toilets are not near the doors
• the draughts due to lack of internal doors seperating the vestibles from the passenger saloons
• the reduction in table bays and, in particular, bays aligned with windows, meaning that the best uninterupted views on scenic lines are severely limited compared to the current fleet
• the reduction in luggage space (excluding overhead racks which short/frail passengers might not be able to reach) and, above all
• the amount of deadspace / standing room created by wide doors

Happy to embrace the 231s and 756s, fit for purpose (since they are intended for the Metro) and, unless I'm very much mistaken, future proof. But there is no place for a large fleet of diesel-only suburban trains. The reason I hate the 197s (and 195s) so much is that combination of suburban door layout and diesel traction. A suburban EMU/bi-mode would be fine (I would simply be arguing for their redeployment onto the likes of the Metro) but a suburban DMU is just leaving us with a choice between two bad outcomes:

• deploying the suburban DMU on a route such as Pontarddulais-Bridgend or Ebbw Vale - Maesteg (where the suburban layout is appropriate) would interfere with electrification of busy routes which should be priority projects
• depolying the suburban DMU on a route such as Middlesbrough-Whitby (one of the few routes that are unlikely to be electrified even in part) would be providing an inferior travelling environment to something like a 175

In what way is it an improvement? Yes, compared to a 150/1 a 195 is big improvement in terms of passenger experience (excluding the much harder seats on the 195) and the only reason I wrote 150/1 there specifically rather than 150s in general is the lack of end gangways on the 195, which is resolved by the 197. Some of those big improvements also apply when compared to 'Super Sprinters' as well but the TfW 158s are near-perfect trains for the Cambrian lines in my view. While the 197s do address some of the 158's few shortcomings, they also take away many of the features that make the 158s so great (the availablity of the best unobstructed views being one of them).

After I read all of this I do wonder how you come to all of these conclusions, as you have never travelled on a 197.

I've been on 158s as a passenger so many times I've lost count & I dont think they are that nice to travel in. The 175s are far far superior and from direct experience I think the 197s are better than the 158s.

Caf do offer a bimodel MTU power pack but electrification on the tfw routes will be decades away, so tfw have to plan for now & the forceable future.
How do you order fleets if trains for the the what if....

 

[Rhydgaled]

After I read all of this I do wonder how you come to all of these conclusions, as you have never travelled on a 197.

Which conclusions? The seat-to-toilet ratio, lack of internal doors seperating the vestibles from the passenger saloons, location of the toilets, number of tables, window alignment, provision of luggage racks and massively excessive width of external doors can all be determined from the scale interior layout diagrams supplied by TfW.

Also, I have travelled on a 195 and I can say that it was a nicer experience than a 150 would have been but I would have prefered a 175. The 197s would have to be significantly different to the 195s to change that.

I've been on 158s as a passenger so many times I've lost count & I dont think they are that nice to travel in. The 175s are far far superior

I've also been on 158s alot, and the experience varies quite a bit depending on the refurbishment spec (and occasionally the weather). Even so I would agree that the 175s are superior in most respects but there a few aspects where the 158s are superior:

• seats (the original BR seats are quite a bit softer than the 175's hard seats - I used to like the 2011 ATW refurb spec Grammer seats but returning to rail travel after lockdown these also feel really hard now) although legroom is an issue which is one of the reasons why the 175s are better
• window alignment - the clearest view comes when a table bay is aligned with the window (in airline-style seating the seat in front restricts the field of view a little) - the TfW 158s have almost as many tables as a 3-car 175 and I'm fairly sure that only one of them is misaligned, so there's a better chance of grabbing an optimum view than any other 2-car unit I can think of
• unit end gangways
• running costs - not a passenger experience one this, but the 158s are lighter so probably cause less damage to the track, the 158s are also more fuel-efficient

As such, I would use the 175s as the bar to aim for in most respects, but add unit end gangways as a requirement.

Caf do offer a bimodel MTU power pack but electrification on the tfw routes will be decades away, so tfw have to plan for now & the forceable future.
How do you order fleets if trains for the the what if....

I assume you mean a hybrid MTU power pack rather than bi-modal? A bi-mode unit requires more than just a power pack, it needs a pantograph (and/or 3rd rail shoes) and appropriate wiring to deliver the power to the motors (which, unless you only have traction motors on the vehicle with the pantograph, must include wiring between the vehicles).

As for electrification being decades away, TfW's/WG's target for Cardiff-Swansea is by 2030. That's only 8 years. There is also the TDNS; yes there is no timescales for any of it but it does show what we should be aiming for. On the Cambrian for example hydrogen is recomended but assuming trains continue to run through to Birmingham (which I understand is VERY important to SARPA) the units need pantographs in order to support the TDNS aim of electrification east of Shrewsbury. Given that hydrogen units have a problem with range/storage of hydrogen (either very limited range or loss of passenger accomodation to fit larger hydrogen tanks) hydrogen+electric bi-modes would also have the advantage that a good chunk of the day's diagram would be under the wires not consuming hydrogen, possibly allowing relatively small tanks while still getting through the whole day's diagram without having to 'refuel' with hydrogen.

As for planning for the future, we are told that if things don't change significantly by 2030 the climate is toast. That hopefully doesn't mean we need to actually implemented the whole TDNS by then because that seems impossible, but at the very least we should have a rolling electrification programme funded and getting started. Thus, my view is that we should make use of what we have; 158s and 175s aren't unreliable rubbish that are fallen to bits and we should be able to keep them going at least to 2030 by which time we should have plans for electrification in place. Any new units built for non-electrified routes should be electrification-ready and be limited to fleet expansion to accomodate modal shift from less-sustainable modes (including new lines). 51 of the 77 class 197s orders are for replacements and not as a growth build and thus should never have been ordered even before we get to the long list of objections I have to the design in general.

 

[Energy]

As for electrification being decades away, TfW's/WG's target for Cardiff-Swansea is by 2030. That's only 8 years

Cardiff to Swansea is a short distance, in South Wales (where the Stadlers will be) and between the largest & second largest cities in Wales. The 197s will be primarily operating in North Wales where most places are much quieter and have much longer journeys.

before we get to the long list of objections I have to the design in general.

Maybe you could've written to your local member of the Welsh Assembly asking them to make sure the 197s have at least the provision for bimode? They changed the seats so adding this to the spec wouldn't be impossible. Writing posts on RUK doesn't actually make anything change.

Have a look at what JCB are doing with hydrogen, they've managed to get it working in a slightly modified engine with no NOx being emitted. This would be well suited to a lot of the 197 routes.

Had this been about the 196s I'd completely agree, they are replacing already nice trains on routes which should be electrified.

 

[wobman]

Cardiff to Swansea is a short distance, in South Wales (where the Stadlers will be) and between the largest & second largest cities in Wales. The 197s will be primarily operating in North Wales where most places are much quieter and have much longer journeys.

Maybe you could've written to your local member of the Welsh Assembly asking them to make sure the 197s have at least the provision for bimode? They changed the seats so adding this to the spec wouldn't be impossible. Writing posts on RailUK Forums doesn't actually make anything change.

Have a look at what JCB are doing with hydrogen, they've managed to get it working in a slightly modified engine with no NOx being emitted. This would be well suited to a lot of the 197 routes.

Had this been about the 196s I'd completely agree, they are replacing already nice trains on routes which should be electrified.

The 197s will be serving such small places as Birmingham/ Manchester & Liverpool aswell as the very high tourist traffic parts of Wales such as North & Mid Wales.
People forget the Tfw franchise is the Wales & Borders franchise, so it serves far bigger cities than Cardiff.

 

[mmh]

The 197s will be serving such small places as Birmingham/ Manchester & Liverpool aswell as the very high tourist traffic parts of Wales such as North & Mid Wales.
People forget the Tfw franchise is the Wales & Borders franchise, so it serves far bigger cities than Cardiff.

Quite. I think some people who've never or rarely travel here think the railway in North Wales is some kind of rural idyll line from an episode of Midsomer Murders. As the forum's TFW staff frequently point out, places that some might think are backwaters certainly aren't. Chester is a TFW station, and very busy as a destination and interchange.

 

[tomuk]

It's all about the …

 

[wobman]

Quite. I think some people who've never or rarely travel here think the railway in North Wales is some kind of rural idyll line from an episode of Midsomer Murders. As the forum's TFW staff frequently point out, places that some might think are backwaters certainly aren't. Chester is a TFW station, and very busy as a destination and interchange.

Historically the franchise outside of S Wales is forgotten about, Chester pre covid had over 5 million people use it.
That made it tfws 2nd busiest station after Cardiff, this is so often forgotten by most people.
Chester is the gateway to N Wales the same as Shrewsbury is the gateway to mid Wales, both get very busy during the holiday seasons. Plus both get used as gatways to major events, this year Birmingham has the commonwealth games. People from N Wales that want to go by train will go via Shrewsbury & Chester.

 

[Energy]

The 197s will be serving such small places as Birmingham/ Manchester & Liverpool aswell as the very high tourist traffic parts of Wales such as North & Mid Wales.
People forget the Tfw franchise is the Wales & Borders franchise, so it serves far bigger cities than Cardiff.

Good point, while it might not be quieter it is definitely longer though

 

[CBlue]

It's all about the …

To be fair, it's been a little while since we've had door/droplight wibble on here

A lot of energy seems to be expanded into moaning about the 197s on here - does op think that tfw are going to change the design just for him, after his posts on here?

Maybe they would have been better off raising their concerns before the units had been built, and perhaps actually raising their concerns with the operator rather than moaning about it on here

 

[wobman]

To be fair, it's been a little while since we've had door/droplight wibble on here

A lot of energy seems to be expanded into moaning about the 197s on here - does op think that tfw are going to change the design just for him, after his posts on here?

Maybe they would have been better off raising their concerns before the units had been built, and perhaps actually raising their concerns with the operator rather than moaning about it on here

Your fighting a losing battle with the poster concerned, we that have experience on the 197s get ignored over the ongoing negativity towards the new 197 units unfortunately.

No new train is perfect but the traincrew that have been on them all say they are an upgrade compared to the present tfw sprinter fleet.
The passengers will love them as they are modern & airey u it's with working air con / heating a working modern pis system.

The downsides being the toilet provision and lack of luggage racks plus tiny bins, for some reason the catering area is very big !

I'm a advocate for fighting for things that are achievable, fighting to get 2 cars made to 3 cars this is a win win.
Its more work to keep the Newport factory open until new orders arrive, plus it can solve the toilet / luggage/ bins issues.
The units have ASDO which makes have 2 car units over 3 & 4 car units nonsensical, on short platforms the ASDO opens the appropriate amount of doors so unit length is irrelevant.

The dft make some stupid decisions on new unit procurement

 

[HSTEd]

Historically the franchise outside of S Wales is forgotten about, Chester pre covid had over 5 million people use it.
That made it tfws 2nd busiest station after Cardiff, this is so often forgotten by most people.

What fraction of those numbers were actually on TfW trains though?

How many of them were on Merseyrail?

 

[Dai Corner]

Your fighting a losing battle with the poster concerned, we that have experience on the 197s get ignored over the ongoing negativity towards the new 197 units unfortunately.

No new train is perfect but the traincrew that have been on them all say they are an upgrade compared to the present tfw sprinter fleet.
The passengers will love them as they are modern & airey u it's with working air con / heating a working modern pis system.

The downsides being the toilet provision and lack of luggage racks plus tiny bins, for some reason the catering area is very big !

I'm a advocate for fighting for things that are achievable, fighting to get 2 cars made to 3 cars this is a win win.
Its more work to keep the Newport factory open until new orders arrive, plus it can solve the toilet / luggage/ bins issues.
The units have ASDO which makes have 2 car units over 3 & 4 car units nonsensical, on short platforms the ASDO opens the appropriate amount of doors so unit length is irrelevant.

The dft make some stupid decisions on new unit procurement

Isn't it the (Welsh) Department for Climate Change that is in charge of TfW and therefore the procurement of the 197s?

 

[wobman]

Isn't it the (Welsh) Department for Climate Change that is in charge of TfW and therefore the procurement of the 197s?

No it's the Dft that set out the guidelines, I was told this by a member of the 197 integration team.

 

[wobman]

What fraction of those numbers were actually on TfW trains though?

How many of them were on Merseyrail?

There maybe a breakdown of the numbers on the Orr site, but how many passengers that travel through Cardiff travel on other Tocs ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The downsides being the toilet provision and lack of luggage racks plus tiny bins, for some reason the catering area is very big !

Bland colour scheme, bad seats, lack of window alignment, VERY poor legroom (no I've not sat on one, but I've compared the seating layout with the Northern one on the 195, I have used these extensively so know what the spacing is like, and it appears TfW's layout will be VERY tight - TfW basically cram an extra row in the centre section compared with Northern, resulting in a very tight layout similar to the 350/1 centre sections - there are 9 rows and really should only be 8).

They could be made to be pretty good by extending them all by a coach (so 6 car working on the Cambrian with 3 to Pwllheli, and any platform/SDO works done accordingly), adding large luggage racks and reducing the density of the interior to more resemble the Northern units (but aligning the centre section to the windows unlike Northern - the spacing is right for this, just not the actual layout), and ideally fitting the FISA LEAN seats from the FLIRTs, though I'm conscious not everyone hates Sophias and even I'd concede they aren't the worst seat on the raliway. Plus stick some fake wood on the vehicle ends inside to make it less bland. I must admit I find it odd that the FLIRTs being purchased for use on local stopping services will have vastly nicer interiors than the trains being used for 4 hour journeys on the Cambrian!

Also two bogs per unit. This is going to be a big problem given how unreliable they are.

 

[krus_aragon]

The units have ASDO which makes have 2 car units over 3 & 4 car units nonsensical, on short platforms the ASDO opens the appropriate amount of doors so unit length is irrelevant.

My one reservation on this issue is the quantity of splitting/joining services planned. (Originally this was to be Birmingham-Aberystwyth/Pwllheli, Liverpool-Llandudno/Shrewsbury and Manchester-Swansea/West Wales, but the last two have seen plans tweaked and arrival of MkIV stock to muddy the waters.)

If all 2-car units are upgraded to 3-car, and the original splitting plans are followed through, this'd mean the split portions always have to be 3-car, and the joined parts of the diagrams will always be 6-car. This might be overkill (and add to costs) on some routes at some parts of the day/year.

 

[wobman]

There will be many circumstances were it's a 2+2 configuration from Cardiff to Liverpool via Chester, with 2 cars going to Liverpool from Chester and 2 going to Llandudno.
I think this is not adequate for the passenger numbers on this route as things are now, the same for the Birmingham to Aberystwyth/ Pwllheli services.
For me a 3+3 is far better than the planned 2+2 or 2+3 configurations planned by tfw.
With ASDO the door issues aren't relevant.

 

[wobman]

Tfw and caf are in dispute about the coupling of the 197s, this is an important element of tfws future plans.
Let's hope there's a resolution and agreement as it's delaying the traincrew training at tfw.

 

[tomuk]

No it's the Dft that set out the guidelines, I was told this by a member of the 197 integration team.

What guidelines were these? Keolis Amey proposed the stock as part of the tender for the franchise which was run by WG/TfW not the DfT.