CAF Civity UK

pemma · 20 Dec 2015

It looks like CAF are hoping to be able to be able to sell in a UK version of their Civity to TOCs over here, as they've added some details and mockups for a UK version to their website. As noted in other threads they are short of work currently and may offer reduced prices to prevent factories being shut and putting people out of work.

CAF said:
The flexibility of the Civity family, each train can be tailored to meet the requirements of each infrastructure and country, based on he same basic train.

Whilst the standard version has an international gauge, optionally Civity can be supplied with a Russian gauge, making it the ideal solution for the Baltic countries. Furthermore, the research into climatic conditions has led to the design of a version of the Civity specifically for the Nordic countries.

CIVITY UK

CAF seeks to meet the specific needs of each and every market. With this aim in mind, it has standardised the Civity solution for the English market. With the same features and XX, Civity UK complies with the requirements of the British rail transport authorities, whilst always offering users the ultimate in comfort.

TECHNICAL DETAILS (NOT UK SPECIFIC)

PERFORMANCE

Maximum speed: 160km/h (Adaptable to 200 km/h)
No. of motors: Adaptable with a minimum of 4.
Total traction power (steady state): Up to 2,880kW
Maximum power at wheel-rim: Up to 4,000kW
Auxiliary power (steady state): Up to 600 kVA
Mean acceleration (0-40 km/h): Up to 1.3 m/s²
Maximum deceleration service brake: Adjustable to 1.1 m/s²
Maximum deceleration emergency brake: Adjustable to 1.1 m/s²

PASSENGER CAPACITY

Up to 1044: (for an 8 car train with 4 persons per m/²)

DIMENSIONS

Cab Car: 21,500 mm
Intermediate car: 16,200 mm
Carbody width: 2,880 mm
Minimum floor height: 600 mm
Train height: 4,300 mm
New wheel diameter: 850 mm

http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/familia/civity/descripcion/solucion-integral.php

RailUK Forums

Stats · 20 Dec 2015

It's been on the CAF website for months, and was discussed in the Northern/TPE ITT thread.

asylumxl · 20 Dec 2015

The rendering strongly resembles the KTM class 92s in Malaysia, which were made by CSR ZhouZhou. At least they do to me anyway.

Rick1984 · 20 Dec 2015

4 persons per m/²

that sounds very cosy! Smart looking train. Am I right in saying it is articulated?

Bletchleyite · 20 Dec 2015

asylumxl said:
The rendering strongly resembles the KTM class 92s in Malaysia, which were made by CSR ZhouZhou. At least they do to me anyway.

What goes around comes around...those are I believe replacing some Hunslet/Jenbacher "end doored Class 323-a-likes":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTM_Class_81
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rick1984 said:
that sounds very cosy! Smart looking train. Am I right in saying it is articulated?

I think the UK version is not.

Philip Phlopp · 20 Dec 2015

Rick1984 said:
that sounds very cosy! Smart looking train. Am I right in saying it is articulated?

It can be articulated but Network Rail are 'unconvinced' by articulated units and would prefer regular bogied units.

HSTEd · 20 Dec 2015

Yay! Another design for the train family zoo!

pemma · 20 Dec 2015

Stats said:
It's been on the CAF website for months, and was discussed in the Northern/TPE ITT thread.

While both the CAF Civity and the Stadler FLIRT were rumoured options. I don't recall any official information or mockups from the manufacturers for UK versions being posted.

Stats · 21 Dec 2015

jcollins said:
While both the CAF Civity and the Stadler FLIRT were rumoured options. I don't recall any official information or mockups from the manufacturers for UK versions being posted.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2239538&highlight=Civity#post2239538

RobShipway · 21 Dec 2015

jcollins said:
While both the CAF Civity and the Stadler FLIRT were rumoured options. I don't recall any official information or mockups from the manufacturers for UK versions being posted.

Also discussed in this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2392681#post2392681.

BestWestern · 21 Dec 2015

HSTEd said:
Yay! Another design for the train family zoo!

Indeed. What we really need right now, clearly, is another train completely incompatible with everything else. Excellent news...

As an aside, I think it looks nasty. Cut and paste the front end of a 180 to the bodyshell of a Desiro and add some light clusters from a dodgem car; job done. Was it CAF who jointly produced the 332/333 sets with Siemens? They are some of the most smartest trains I've ever seen, presumably the stylist now works for neither of them.

pemma · 21 Dec 2015

BestWestern said:
Indeed. What we really need right now, clearly, is another train completely incompatible with everything else. Excellent news...

That's a problem with the privatised industry. Manufacturers offer things like compatibility and SDO for additional costs but if there's no immediate plans to need those features they aren't ordered.

Was it CAF who jointly produced the 332/333 sets with Siemens? They are some of the most smartest trains I've ever seen, presumably the stylist now works for neither of them.

Yes they were built at CAF's factory in Zaragoza and are maintained by Siemens. Apparently it was decided the front end design was bad from an insurance point of view as the front end would be very expensive to rebuild.

A0wen · 21 Dec 2015

jcollins said:
That's a problem with the privatised industry. Manufacturers offer things like compatibility and SDO for additional costs but if there's no immediate plans to need those features they aren't ordered.

It has always been that way - to pretend it's an outcome of a privatised railway is disingenuous.

How many different coupling types did BR run? Including some crazy situations where there were one or maybe two classes with a specific code.

How many BR units could actually be run in multiple with each other in revenue service (i.e. not in an emergency rescue scenario).

There's never been 'true' standardisation' in the UK's rail operations. Arguably things are more standardised now than they ever have been because there are fewer different types of train in use and the newer classes which have been introduced are from much more standard specs to begin with.

pemma · 21 Dec 2015

A0wen said:
It has always been that way

Has it?

The 170s are compatible with Sprinters and the 323s are compatible with 321s, 322s and 31xs. However, the 175s weren't made to be compatible with Sprinters despite being ordered for FNW who had Sprinters and the 333s weren't made to be compatible with 321s despite being ordered for Northern Spirit/ATN who had 321s.

talltim · 21 Dec 2015

Is is just me that sees CAF Civity and reads Cavity?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A0wen said:
It has always been that way - to pretend it's an outcome of a privatised railway is disingenuous.

How many different coupling types did BR run? Including some crazy situations where there were one or maybe two classes with a specific code.

How many BR units could actually be run in multiple with each other in revenue service (i.e. not in an emergency rescue scenario).

There's never been 'true' standardisation' in the UK's rail operations. Arguably things are more standardised now than they ever have been because there are fewer different types of train in use and the newer classes which have been introduced are from much more standard specs to begin with.

There was a period when there was standardisation of couplings.

Brakes was a different matter...

LNW-GW Joint · 21 Dec 2015

A0wen said:
It has always been that way - to pretend it's an outcome of a privatised railway is disingenuous.
How many different coupling types did BR run? Including some crazy situations where there were one or maybe two classes with a specific code.
How many BR units could actually be run in multiple with each other in revenue service (i.e. not in an emergency rescue scenario).
There's never been 'true' standardisation' in the UK's rail operations. Arguably things are more standardised now than they ever have been because there are fewer different types of train in use and the newer classes which have been introduced are from much more standard specs to begin with.

Faced with the opportunity to buy a large number of identical EMUs (the Networkers), BR then went and bought the fleet from two manufacturers ("in case one of them went out of business"), ie dual-sourcing.
We are now paying the penalty of two lots of upgrades for the Networker fleet.

Today, it seems we have put all our inter-city eggs in the Hitachi basket.
The EU TSI standards are enforcing more standardisation of rolling stock (but the UK will always have its quirks and exceptions).
The end of the "yellow front end" is the latest victory for standardisation.

Philip Phlopp · 21 Dec 2015

BR were just as **** at standardisation as the private railway has been.

Locomotives with a wide variety of incompatible multiple working systems, HST v LHCS Mark 3 vehicles, different brake controllers, different couplers for electric and diesel units, different coupling configurations for DC v AC electric units, different traction motors and traction equipment across the Mark 3 EMU family, different engines under some units, modifications to stop one sector stealing another sector's stock.

Oh yes. BR was wonderful. Anybody seen my rose tinted spectacles or do I need to buy a new set from that bloke who is republishing the British Rail branding manual ?

HSTEd · 16 Jan 2016

Philip Phlopp said:
BR were just as **** at standardisation as the private railway has been.

Locomotives with a wide variety of incompatible multiple working systems, HST v LHCS Mark 3 vehicles, different brake controllers, different couplers for electric and diesel units, different coupling configurations for DC v AC electric units, different traction motors and traction equipment across the Mark 3 EMU family, different engines under some units, modifications to stop one sector stealing another sector's stock.

Oh yes. BR was wonderful. Anybody seen my rose tinted spectacles or do I need to buy a new set from that bloke who is republishing the British Rail branding manual ?

A lot of the problems with standardisation in first gen diesels can kind of be explained as it being a result of trying to design a diesel multiple unit or locomotive in a world where such a thing had never really been done before.

So it was a "throw it at a wall and see what sticks" approach.
They had largely learned their lesson by the 70s - and adopted the Southern approach of standardising everything feasible.

And you have to have different traction motors and such across the mark 3 EMU family when your spec keeps increasing the available power at every iteration to allow for higher and higher speeds.

And swapping two wires on the NSE 158s is not really much of a modification - it was undone in no time at all when it was required to be.

And with HST vs LHCS Mark 3s.... the HSTs were going to operate in uniform formations and 3 phase 415V electrics was a good way of reducing costs - they were freed from the requirement to be backwards compatible with earlier stock.
Later LHCS rolling stock was built to be backwards compatible and thus required the motor generator sets. Would you rather that Mark 3 rakes had broken compatibility (thus preventing the current sleeper formations) or that the HSTs had carried a tonne of heavy, inefficient and maintenance hungry equipment for no real reason?

The privatised railway inherited viable DMU and EMU multiple working standards/couplings and chose to ignore them for no real reason.
It, for no real reason beyond it doesn't care about economy, has failed to adopt any advances in working practices for freight trains since privatisation - trusting that it will always be able to draw more subsidy to get by.

Philip Phlopp · 16 Jan 2016

HSTEd said:
The privatised railway inherited viable DMU and EMU multiple working standards/couplings and chose to ignore them for no real reason.

BSI and Tightlock couplers, with high level jumper and brake pipes were not really viable for modern units. Dellner type couplers were the way to go, but it's not strictly the coupler that's the issue, it's wiring.

What the privatised railway should have done, when using Dellner/Scharfenberg couplers, was use a UIC type multiple working standard, or develop their own common standard, so even if a Turbostar doesn't have the same coupler, it would, from the coupler backwards, still be compatible and subject to swapping couplers, compatibility could be engineered in a small modification.

HST v LHCS - I know why BR did it, but it grates a bit that Mk.3 coaching stock can't be used behind a modern diesel locomotive today.

AnonymousUser1 · 16 Jan 2016

Philip Phlopp said:
HST v LHCS - I know why BR did it, but it grates a bit that Mk.3 coaching stock can't be used behind a modern diesel locomotive today.

designed as Hauled mk 3 stock can and does operate behind anything with standard ETS

HST trailer mk 3s require 415 v three phase as previously discussed ...

Philip Phlopp · 16 Jan 2016

mph1977 said:
designed as Hauled mk 3 stock can and does operate behind anything with standard ETS

HST trailer mk 3s require 415 v three phase as previously discussed ...

Yes, should have said HST trailers.

Actually, didn't Western region have a 415V generator van for a while after HST introduction, so they could haul HST stock with a conventional loco ?

ChrisHogan · 16 Jan 2016

Yes, a converted BG. Old Oak Common named it the Doodlebug due to its propensity to suddenly cut out.

po8crg · 22 Jan 2016

Well, they've got a contract for these now: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=125900

pemma · 22 Jan 2016

po8crg said:
Well, they've got a contract for these now: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=125900

And all the interest in them seems to have bought their website down!

CAF Civity UK

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member