WMR Class 196 Build and Implementation

[Wyrleybart]

The fact doors can't be released unless a driver is keyed on is rediculous though and needs a proper fix rather than pay drivers 2 minutes longer. Been several occasions already as far as I'm aware where crew and passengers have been trapped on a train.

The point surely is that 196s were designed and built for DCO operation, so the DfT who authorised their acquisition and operation for WMR were not intending to have conductors on them from the start. Big and expensive mistake in my opinion, as someone opposed to driver only operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point surely is that 196s were designed and built for DCO operation, so the DfT who authorised their acquisition and operation for WMR were not intending to have conductors on them from the start. Big and expensive mistake in my opinion, as someone opposed to driver only operation.

I'm generally pro-DOO, however it is nonsensical to save 50p by not fitting guard panels, as it reduces future flexibility. All new stock should be fitted for both DOO and guard operation, potentially including variants like the Merseyrail OBS-style approach too in case that becomes popular. It's not like the extra cost is huge when spending £2m per vehicle. It's even caused Merseyrail trouble - the 777s would be in service by now if guard panels were present, they could then have taken as long as necessary to argue about changing it.

 

[anamyd]

Shockingly, just going through Wolverhampton now on the 28/11/22 I saw that a 196 is in service, on 2J10 the 1019 Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury (cancelled between Birmingham New Street and Wolverhampton due to the late arrival of an inbound service) - this is despite 196s having lots of faults and not working properly, and their bins and ramps having sharp bits that cause cuts.

 

[QSK19]

It is extremely frustrating just how much money is wasted - this example and the ex-LNER HST fiasco immediately spring to mind. There are other areas of the railway in need of money spending on their rolling stock (examples being the 360 interiors or 156917 running around with holes in its shell).

This 196 debacle really is a kick in the gob, not just for those other areas in need of investment, but also WMR’s passengers who deserve properly-functioning trains - those 170s won’t be around for long to bail out the 196 issues.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

TfW won't have the guard panel issue, but otherwise you'd expect the same sort of introduction issues there.
195s were troublesome at the start but have become quite reliable since (the related 331s being among the most reliable modern EMUs around).

 

[12LDA28C]

The gearboxes were an issue on first delivery which slowed down the completion of the FFM in the first place. The other stuff really should've been picked up during testing too but I guess testing is purely done from a driving point of view which is clearly the reason these types of incidents are happening.

The fact doors can't be released unless a driver is keyed on is rediculous though and needs a proper fix rather than pay drivers 2 minutes longer. Been several occasions already as far as I'm aware where crew and passengers have been trapped on a train.

Can the doors on any unit be released if a driving desk doesn't have a key in it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can the doors on any unit be released if a driving desk doesn't have a key in it?

Yes, of course they can. Cleaners may for instance want to do it, or some TOCs allow, either formally or informally, a guard to start boarding a train before the driver's there.

 

[LowLevel]

Can the doors on any unit be released if a driving desk doesn't have a key in it?

Sure. It's not a unique issue but plenty of trains set up for guard door operation, or those set up to be either guard or driver only operation will allow the doors to be released provided the door key is on regardless of the state of the driver's desk key.

It's usually an issue on units where either the driver releases the doors, or sets the selective door opening setting.

It takes some getting used to I would imagine if you're just used to the doors being independent of the driver as they are on 170s - for both crew members as drivers often key out immediately and head off. I've seen similar issues on the 230s on the Marston Vale with the guard scratching their head about not getting a door release and then having a brainwave when the driver keys in and it suddenly works.

On my trains which are a lot more rudimentary the guard can release the doors without the driver being present - but the guard has to check that the train has sufficient electrical power if it's been shut down as well as a charged main reservoir. If the main res is too low or it's been shut down all night you have to wait for a driver to start the engine and for the train to build air before you can open the doors successfully.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that the 230s require it. I wonder if this was deliberate, to stop the "informal arrangements" of guards boarding trains without a driver happening?

 

[SCDR_WMR]

The point surely is that 196s were designed and built for DCO operation, so the DfT who authorised their acquisition and operation for WMR were not intending to have conductors on them from the start. Big and expensive mistake in my opinion, as someone opposed to driver only operation.

Absolutely, but the fix that has been done to allow guard panels is one of the major issues currently. Whether they were ordered as DOO/DCO shouldn't matter at this point as if you ask the manufacturer to retrofit panels which they surely have available as an option originally, they should be able to add it without the issue we are seeing.

It's the logic of how it's been implemented or the logic in the software that is of concern to me, not that it needed changing from its original order. Why would they not remove, or add extra lines of code to ensure guard panels are operable without a driver being keyed in? You could potentially have a situation where a driver needs to leave the cab and keys out, maybe a door fault, trapping everyone onboard until they return to the cab rather than having the guard be able to just release all doors. Unlikely to happen, but I'd say on my stock almost every time I terminate at a station, the driver has keyed out before I've released doors.

Presumably a guard cannot ECS a unit without a driver too.

 

[12LDA28C]

Yes, of course they can. Cleaners may for instance want to do it, or some TOCs allow, either formally or informally, a guard to start boarding a train before the driver's there.

A driver does not need to be 'there' for there to be a driver's key in the desk.

Certainly older types of train such as Chiltern's 165s/168s need a key in to obtain door release. I would imagine it's a similar scenario for any DOO train as there are no guards to operate the doors?

 

[LowLevel]

Interesting that the 230s require it. I wonder if this was deliberate, to stop the "informal arrangements" of guards boarding trains without a driver happening?

I doubt it. Why would guards boarding a train without a driver be informal or something to stop happening? The 230s were designed to be DOO capable trains so I assume it's related to how the guard's controls are wired into the system on top.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Can the doors on any unit be released if a driving desk doesn't have a key in it?

Not on the 196s, no such issues on any other stock I've worked to this point

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt it. Why would guards boarding a train without a driver be informal or something to stop happening? The 230s were designed to be DOO capable trains so I assume it's related to how the guard's controls are wired into the system on top.

At one stage London Midland had a rule that both traincrew must be present if passengers are on a train. I have no idea if it's still the rule, but it definitely was - I got told about it when complaining about being left standing around at Euston for a lengthy period.

I do know drivers no longer let people on without a guard (they used to on the early morning Bletchley starters) but my recollection is that it was stricter than that.

 

[GalaxyDog]

Gearboxes have been a constant source of failure.
The access ramps a major issue - the original ramps not long enough to counter the fact that a 196 floor is raised higher than a 170/172 or 158. The solution was to create a separate bridging ramp that is stored separately from the ramp, causing more time lost when needing to assist a wheelchair bound passenger.

Civitys could easily have been built with doorpanels as part of the initial build, the TfW class 197s are proof of this. As for 170s, I understand that a strategic reserve of 170s is being kept for a period, but apparently that the moving of units once again being renegotiated due to the 196s falling flat on the face.

 

[ABB125]

Gearboxes have been a constant source of failure.
The access ramps a major issue - the original ramps not long enough to counter the fact that a 196 floor is raised higher than a 170/172 or 158. The solution was to create a separate bridging ramp that is stored separately from the ramp, causing more time lost when needing to assist a wheelchair bound passenger.

Civitys could easily have been built with doorpanels as part of the initial build, the TfW class 197s are proof of this. As for 170s, I understand that a strategic reserve of 170s is being kept for a period, but apparently that the moving of units once again being renegotiated due to the 196s falling flat on the face.

By original ramps, do you mean the ones that were at the stations before (ie: built for class 170s) or new ones built for class 196s? If the latter, then someone really should get fired...

 

[SCDR_WMR]

By original ramps, do you mean the ones that were at the stations before (ie: built for class 170s) or new ones built for class 196s? If the latter, then someone really should get fired...

The later. They are stored onboard not at stations, hence the need for the additional bridging part kept in a separate place as it doesn't fit where the ramp is designed to be kept.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The later. They are stored onboard not at stations, hence the need for the additional bridging part kept in a separate place as it doesn't fit where the ramp is designed to be kept.

That sounds like a bodge-job, rather than rebuilding the ramp cupboard so it does fit.

 

[GalaxyDog]

By original ramps, do you mean the ones that were at the stations before (ie: built for class 170s) or new ones built for class 196s? If the latter, then someone really should get fired...

New ones, designed both for onboard and stored in a little cupboard, and gradually (based from observations and friends input) being rolled out at stations. All same design, all too short for the 196s and some platforms, meaning the onboard bridge needs to be brought out which causes more time delays both in setting up and putting away before dispatch.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

That sounds like a bodge-job, rather than rebuilding the ramp cupboard so it does fit.

Absolutely! As mentioned previously, it's clear that no thought or even checking of how these units would fare in service took place other tha stopping positions etc.

Having a higher floor than current stock, you'd like to think they check things like usability of ramps in the first place. But to just issue an additional part to use where needed rather than a correct length ramp is so poor.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having a higher floor than current stock, you'd like to think they check things like usability of ramps in the first place. But to just issue an additional part to use where needed rather than a correct length ramp is so poor.

Quite.

I didn't notice they were higher until two things happened. One was watching older people struggling out of the 197 with bags etc. The other was stepping down onto Tal y Cafn's low platform while stuck there for a bit, which almost required a rope, let alone the (missing) wooden steps. (There's a Harrington hump, but for some reason the door near it wasn't used, I wonder if it perhaps needs moving for the 197s).

Such a missed opportunity to have level boarding (or at least less of a step up)...

 

[GalaxyDog]

I've travelled to Shrewsbury once and rode on one to Wolverhampton, and to be devil's advocate the interior for passengers are very nice indeed. Wide spacing, toilets seem alright, decent seats and information screens which were accurate so these had a lot of good potential. It is a crying shame about all the technical behind the scenes issues because, had these been built and tested well, would have certainly been an improvement over the tired 170s.

 

[jonnyfan]

New ones, designed both for onboard and stored in a little cupboard, and gradually (based from observations and friends input) being rolled out at stations. All same design, all too short for the 196s and some platforms, meaning the onboard bridge needs to be brought out which causes more time delays both in setting up and putting away before dispatch.

It's similar with the Northern Class 195s, the floor is higher so on certain platforms when you fit the ramp down, the ramp may end up pivoting on the external step - so the bridge would be required. But in the last 3 years I've not had to actually deploy the 2nd part of the ramp, the main ramp has fitted fine. If they are of the same design, perhaps it will be quite rare to use the 2nd part for the WMT 196s too? It's certainly a design oversight with the civity trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's similar with the Northern Class 195s, the floor is higher so on certain platforms when you fit the ramp down, the ramp may end up pivoting on the external step - so the bridge would be required. But in the last 3 years I've not had to actually deploy the 2nd part of the ramp, the main ramp has fitted fine. If they are of the same design, perhaps it will be quite rare to use the 2nd part for the WMT 196s too? It's certainly a design oversight with the civity trains.

I have noticed the wide stepboards - almost the same as Merseyrail units. You can at least fit your foot on, but I can see it being an issue for standard ramps.

 

[chris_in_salop]

I've travelled to Shrewsbury once and rode on one to Wolverhampton, and to be devil's advocate the interior for passengers are very nice indeed. Wide spacing, toilets seem alright, decent seats and information screens which were accurate so these had a lot of good potential. It is a crying shame about all the technical behind the scenes issues because, had these been built and tested well, would have certainly been an improvement over the tired 170s.

Today's been the first day where I've had a 196 on both legs of my commute. It's a notably bouncy ride, especially leaving Shrewsbury eastbound towards Abbey Foregate. Not quite Pacer levels of queasiness, at least not yet.

 

[anamyd]

Today's been the first day where I've had a 196 on both legs of my commute. It's a notably bouncy ride, especially leaving Shrewsbury eastbound towards Abbey Foregate. Not quite Pacer levels of queasiness, at least not yet.

No 196s should be in service until they're made properly reliable, and safe so they don't have sharp edges on bins or ramps that can cause cuts. I'm surprised they haven't been taken out of service for being very faulty and dangerous.

 

[Undiscovered]

Presumably a guard cannot ECS a unit without a driver too.

You can ECS a unit and there is a set protocol for it. However, once you close the doors at the end of this process, you cannot release them again without a driver keyed in.

There are ways to override the system, but they're a big no no.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

You can ECS a unit and there is a set protocol for it. However, once you close the doors at the end of this process, you cannot release them again without a driver keyed in.

There are ways to override the system, but they're a big no no.

Well I would expect so, but you shouldn't need to be overriding the system for a guard to release doors on a guard operated train.

But you can close doors without a driver keyed in correct? Even less logic involved in that given the panel shouldn't be active. These trains are really poorly implemented aren't they

 

[Undiscovered]

But you can close doors without a driver keyed in correct? These trains are really poorly implemented aren't they

To clarify, yes, you can close the doors without a driver keyed in.
You cannot open the doors without a driver being keyed in.
Cab doors can be opened and closed regardless.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

To clarify, yes, you can close the doors without a driver keyed in.
You cannot open the doors without a driver being keyed in.
Cab doors can be opened and closed regardless.

Thanks for clarifying.

196102 has just failed fouling the points at New Street. Blocking a number of north end platforms whilst attempting to release brakes after systems deployed emergency brakes for a supposed pass comm. Train crew searched entire train, no pass Comms activated.