• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Could TFWs fleet replacement be a disaster?

Status
Not open for further replies.

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
What is exactly 'urgent' about the 769s? TfW have admitted in the latest issue of RAIL magazine that they have given up confirming a date for when their 769s will start driver training and enter passenger service. No date either for when TfW will get the other 7 x 769s delivered to them.

The Mk 4 introduction is also delayed due to gauging issues and so TfW are looking to extend the use of the Mk 3 sets into 2020 with derogations.

The need for 769s was, and still is, urgent. The fact that they're running late is unfortunate.

Do any trams have Toilets on? For thats what a Tram-Train is, a tram. You don't see the Class 399s on the Sheffield Supertram services to Rotherham having Toilets.

Indeed, and I'm not sure it's even possible to find the space for a CET tank on a tram train.

Arriva ran limited loco-hauled services between the North and South.
TFW are acquiring Mk4's to do the same and replacing the current 175's with CAF DMU's

It's a valid point - when replacing the 175's that are the mainstay of this route, why are they being downgraded to Civity commuter trains, rather than being upgraded to loco hauled (or an intercity DMU) for what could be considered an Intercity service (Swansea/Cardiff to Manchester/Liverpool/Holyhead).

After all, TPE are upgrading from 185 DMU's to IET's and loco-hauled Mk5's. TFW state they are adding a 1st class service between Swansea and Manchester.

That is entirely in keeping with the titled of the thread "Could TFWs fleet replacement be a disaster?"

Just because the units have ⅓ ⅔ doors, that does not make them commuter trains. Although that said, most people who use them will be commuters! The door layout will help with the many busy services these units will work. It's not a big crowd getting on at Cardiff and getting off at Manchester/Holyhead, it's a large amount of people getting on and off at every stop along the way.

As my colleague pointed out, LHCS really isn't all that suitable for Holyhead Cardiff runs anyway. 3 a day will provide a premium service for those who are really fussed about such things, and the Civitys will work well on everything else.

I'm sure we'd all love a HS4 linking Holyhead with Cardiff, but I think a bit of realism is required here.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
I see the old excuses coming out for building trains without toilets. It'a step backwards.

Indeed. Exactly the same as when the 376s were introduced on Southeastern. "We'll improve toilets at stations." Yeah right. And a toilet at a station is of no use to someone on a train.
 

anamyd

On Moderation
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
3,011
the units have already been ordered!
Arriva ran limited loco-hauled services between the North and South.
TFW are acquiring Mk4's to do the same and replacing the current 175's with CAF DMU's

It's a valid point - when replacing the 175's that are the mainstay of this route, why are they being downgraded to Civity commuter trains, rather than being upgraded to loco hauled (or an intercity DMU) for what could be considered an Intercity service (Swansea/Cardiff to Manchester/Liverpool/Holyhead).

After all, TPE are upgrading from 185 DMU's to IET's and loco-hauled Mk5's. TFW state they are adding a 1st class service between Swansea and Manchester.

That is entirely in keeping with the titled of the thread "Could TFWs fleet replacement be a disaster?"
 

S-Bahn

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2018
Messages
260
Just because the units have ⅓ ⅔ doors, that does not make them commuter trains. Although that said, most people who use them will be commuters! The door layout will help with the many busy services these units will work. It's not a big crowd getting on at Cardiff and getting off at Manchester/Holyhead, it's a large amount of people getting on and off at every stop along the way.

As my colleague pointed out, LHCS really isn't all that suitable for Holyhead Cardiff runs anyway. 3 a day will provide a premium service for those who are really fussed about such things, and the Civitys will work well on everything else.

I'm sure we'd all love a HS4 linking Holyhead with Cardiff, but I think a bit of realism is required here.

It's not so much the location of the doors. It's the switch from a Class 175, that could be considered a comfy and legit Intercity (albeit too small for current levels of demand) with (from what I've seen of the Northern CAF's) is better suited to local services and has ironing board seats.

I don't think proposing a solution in-line with TPE's thinking is a bad idea for services connecting South Wales and North Wales/NE England.
 

S-Bahn

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2018
Messages
260
And it's not that I dislike the CAF Civity.

To me it's just a 21st century (and quicker) Class 150, which is fine for the kinds of routes that 150's do.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
It's not so much the location of the doors. It's the switch from a Class 175, that could be considered a comfy and legit Intercity (albeit too small for current levels of demand) with (from what I've seen of the Northern CAF's) is better suited to local services and has ironing board seats.

I don't think proposing a solution in-line with TPE's thinking is a bad idea for services connecting South Wales and North Wales/NE England.

And it's not that I dislike the CAF Civity.

To me it's just a 21st century (and quicker) Class 150, which is fine for the kinds of routes that 150's do.

With the interior Northern have specified, that would be a fair statement. But I've seen nothing to suggest that that's what TfW have in mind - and unlike many austere trains designed in the last few years, they don't have the DfT standing over them to the same extent.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
The class 175 is near enough ideal for routes like Cardiff to Holyhead. Dwell time issues are caused by overcrowding, not the location of the vestibules. As an example, the 20:32 from Chester to Holyhead yesterday, a two carriage 175, was ten minutes late departing, purely due to overcrowding.

The train had come from Cardiff and was already full. A two car train will always be insufficient, regardless of where the doors are. This train is at peak hour for a combination of return day trips from all of Chester, Manchester and Liverpool, as well as the connection from the last train of the day from London. It needs to be at least 3, if not 4, carriages. I'm afraid I don't trust the "they've ordered 2 carriage trains but they'll only run them in pairs" take. Why would you do that?

(And yes, I prefer trains with proper vestibules and toilets away from seats.)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Secondly, the long distance fleet. A fleet of mainly two carriage trains with some three carriage ones? That’s like - no capacity growth whatsoever, when it’s badly needed on Manchester to Milford and Holyhead to Cardiff services. And even worse - the renders I’ve seen show ironing board seats and NO END DOORS.

I don't give much truck to door prejudice - after all, the Class 170 is a perfectly competent regional express unit, and the only real problems with the Class 185 are a slightly silly layout and that there aren't enough of them (and they're a bit overpowered). However, I do agree on the numbers ordered - there is a real need for 6-car trains between Birmingham and the Cambrian line particularly in summer[1], and they have not ordered enough sets to do that.

[1] Ideally 3+3 - though that would require SDO or platform lengthenings on the Coast - not only the Aber part is getting busy.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Indeed. Exactly the same as when the 376s were introduced on Southeastern. "We'll improve toilets at stations." Yeah right. And a toilet at a station is of no use to someone on a train.
Presumably unlike introducing new trains on Southeastern of 15 years ago the Cardiff Metro is a total system upgrade - electrification, stations, and all the rest, meaning new land-side facilities are in order.

The railway network is not there to provide a mobile restroom service. Onboard toilets, like wi-fi, catering and power sockets, is a must on trips over a certain threshold which the Metro system does not cross.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Do any trams have Toilets on? For thats what a Tram-Train is, a tram. You don't see the Class 399s on the Sheffield Supertram services to Rotherham having Toilets.

There is, presumably, no technical bar to toilets on trams. After all, they can be found on road motor coaches.
 

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
851
I understand that the longest tram trip will be about 50 mins. Presumably, anyone who might need a toilet will go before they catch the tram, just as they would if they caught a bus (often for over 50 mins).

I think you're missing the point. Without going in to detail, there are people that can't wait that long or plan that far ahead that intentionally catch a train over bus for that reason, whether it be medical, or self inflicted (booze), that scenario will arise.
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
640
There is, presumably, no technical bar to toilets on trams. After all, they can be found on road motor coaches.

Toilets on motor coaches in the UK aren't legally obliged meet PRM standards. Toilets on trains are. Installing coach style toilets on a train, unless accompanied by one PRM compliant facility, would be in breach of the law.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Toilets on motor coaches in the UK aren't legally obliged meet PRM standards. Toilets on trains are. Installing coach style toilets on a train, unless accompanied by one PRM compliant facility, would be in breach of the law.

PRM compliance involves the size and layout of the toilet, though, not how the toilet works. Therefore (while it'd be rather a waste of space in a smallish vehicle) I can see no reason why a PRM compliant toilet could not be installed on a tram.
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
640
PRM compliance involves the size and layout of the toilet, though, not how the toilet works. Therefore (while it'd be rather a waste of space in a smallish vehicle) I can see no reason why a PRM compliant toilet could not be installed on a tram.

You may well be right, I'm no expert on these things! According to TfW the new vehicles are narrower than existing stock. I'm just speculating that they may be too narrow to house a PRM compliant toilet. If that's the case I wish TfW would make it clear.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I think you're missing the point. Without going in to detail, there are people that can't wait that long or plan that far ahead that intentionally catch a train over bus for that reason, whether it be medical, or self inflicted (booze), that scenario will arise.

I doubt that I am missing the point at all. What is it that you consider unique to Wales that requires trams to have toilets when I can't think of any tram system in Europe that has toilets on-board ?. Why do the Welsh need a toilet more than other nationalities ?
 

S-Bahn

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2018
Messages
260
I doubt that I am missing the point at all. What is it that you consider unique to Wales that requires trams to have toilets when I can't think of any tram system in Europe that has toilets on-board ?. Why do the Welsh need a toilet more than other nationalities ?

Because our current trains have toilets and the new ones won't.

So we are losing a facility that we already have.
 

MarkWiles

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2019
Messages
66
Toilets on coaches are largely chemical toilets with small retention tanks and are often accompanied by a "No no.2" rule. Given most coaches seat around 50-60 people and a tram train can accommodate (including standees) roughly four times that number, you'd have to factor up the retention tank by quite a bit, or face having to take the vehicle out of service every couple of journeys ti empty the tank. There are cases on modern trains of the lavatories locking out of use automatically when the retention tank is full, so you could end up with an on board lavvie that can't be used because the tank is full, so anyone rocking up expecting a loo would be deprived of one. Or the service would be cancelled.
 

Y Ddraig Coch

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2013
Messages
1,288
Toilets on coaches are largely chemical toilets with small retention tanks and are often accompanied by a "No no.2" rule. Given most coaches seat around 50-60 people and a tram train can accommodate (including standees) roughly four times that number, you'd have to factor up the retention tank by quite a bit, or face having to take the vehicle out of service every couple of journeys ti empty the tank. There are cases on modern trains of the lavatories locking out of use automatically when the retention tank is full, so you could end up with an on board lavvie that can't be used because the tank is full, so anyone rocking up expecting a loo would be deprived of one. Or the service would be cancelled.

Would you though? Trams tend to be pretty short (ish) journeys, I cant imagine many people actually using the toilets on a tram, certainly not the sort of numbers that would need to make the tanks much bigger.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Would you though? Trams tend to be pretty short (ish) journeys, I cant imagine many people actually using the toilets on a tram, certainly not the sort of numbers that would need to make the tanks much bigger.

Relatively few people use them on short train journeys either. It's never really been a big complaint I've heard about Merseyrail (journeys up to about 45 minutes without a change). Indeed, the only reason I tended to use the toilets on short distance train journeys was because they wanted 30p to use the station ones - while this hasn't been given as a reason, I do wonder if one reason for making them free is that it will most probably significantly reduce the frequency of emptying required (and the frequency of them being out of order for that reason) on local train services.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Yes, the fleet replacement could be a disaster.

The loss of toilets on the Aberdare/Merthyr Tydfil/Treherbert routes, I agree, is a step backwards. Something was needed for street running to Cardiff Bay though and would a micro-fleet for Coryton-Cardiff Bay have been viable? Hopefully any future extension beyond Cardiff Bay will see tram-trains moved down off the longer routes and heavy-rail stock with toilets reintroduced on services going north of Taffs Well.

Do any trams have Toilets on? For thats what a Tram-Train is, a tram. You don't see the Class 399s on the Sheffield Supertram services to Rotherham having Toilets.
Indeed, trams don't have toilets. I wouldn't expect them to; the problem is using trams (tram-trains) on long journeys. The Sheffield tram-train journey time is half that of proposed Cardiff Metro services.

I understand that the longest tram trip will be about 50 mins. Presumably, anyone who might need a toilet will go before they catch the tram, just as they would if they caught a bus (often for over 50 mins).
Not having toilets on the long-distance buses is not ideal either, particularly given the closure of public toilets and paywalls going up at some of the remaining ones. However, I don't think providing toilets on buses is remotely feasible, whereas it clearly is feasible to provide toilets on trains to Aberdare etc.

Secondly, the long distance fleet. A fleet of mainly two carriage trains with some three carriage ones? That’s like - no capacity growth whatsoever, when it’s badly needed on Manchester to Milford and Holyhead to Cardiff services. And even worse - the renders I’ve seen show ironing board seats and NO END DOORS.

So not only do we get no upgrade in capacity but a downgrade in seating and now a commuter style door layout that will bring in drafts and noise at every station call.
There is a capacity upgrade, because there will be more multiple operation than now. Regarding the quality of stock, I have sent many e-mails to TfW etc. regarding this over the past year. From their replies, the ironing board seats are not confirmed, but not explictly ruled out either. The suburban door layout however is CONFIRMED as TfW's plan. Perhaps not quite a 'disaster' but that would be a serious retrograde step if it goes ahead and, unlike the tram-trains, I can't see much hope for moving them somewhere they would be more-appropriate after a few years.

The major disaster though is that the Civity units appear to be planned as diesel-mechanical units. See also this topic This means they will be bad for the environment. The class 230s at least are intended to be diesel-electric battery hybrids; regenerative braking charging the batteries should improve the fuel economy quite a bit compared to a DMU I would have thought. Diesel-mechanical is just not future-proof. Even if the Civity units are just diesel-electric to start with, that would make it easier to add pantographs and/or batteries at a later date. Better yet, passive provision for pantographs etc. should be built in from the outset; there's probably not enough electrification yet to justify them being bi-mode from day one, but if the wires reach Shrewsbury (from Wolverhampton) making the Cambrian units (at least) bi-mode would surely make sense.

Where the big future-proof thinking? Surely either taking more Mk4's from LNER or buying the new MK5 coaches with a bi/mode loco would allow for adding additional carriage if demand increases over the course of the franchise?

Instead they are buying Civity's for North-South services. Why?
Running loco + 3 + DVT doesn't make much sense to me, and I doubt the Holyhead-Cardiff's are that busy to need more than three coaches (otherwise, wouldn't the new Gerald sets be 5 rather than 4 coaches?) If you were to have mark 5s (or more mark 4s) the most sensible route to use them on I would have though would be Manchester-Swansea (as loco + 5 + DVT). However, given that TfW haven't promised an alternative service between Cardiff and Pembrokeshire, that would mean running five coaches through to Milford Haven. Using more than three coaches west of Swansea also doesn't make much sense most of the time. Because there's no other through service between Cardiff and Pembrokeshire planned by TfW, the Manchesters need to be able to split at Swansea, which rules out LHCS.

It looks like a big leap forward in capacity to me, but I guess some people are never going to be happy...
A big leap in capacity... for some. Not the Cambrian though which as it stands is set to lose a fair few seats due to no extra carriages and the new carriages having less seats. Milford Haven is probably the biggest loser, it could lose all its current 3-car workings when the 5-car Manchesters split at Swansea with only the 2-car unit going through to Carmarthen/Milford.

Just because the units have ⅓ ⅔ doors, that does not make them commuter trains.
Sorry, but it does. Or, at least, the double-width doors do. This quote from the 333 vs 331 topic backs me up:
The 331 is a compromise design for both commuter and semi fast services and it hasn’t quite succeeded in that respect. A low capacity seating layout with commuter style standing capacity and no large luggage capacity was never going to work.
Note 'commuter style standing capacity'. Standing capacity is what you get when you double the door width and standing should only ever be required (if at all) in the commuting peaks and even then only for short-distance passengers (<15 minutes) in my opinion. Therefore, any train with double-width doors (unless you have fewer doors) is a commuter design. As soon as you add standing capacity, you have compromised the suitablity of the train for any other purpose. You can still make the train fairly reasonable, but if you make that compromise you are always going to fall short of a class 158 or 175.

It's a valid point - when replacing the 175's that are the mainstay of this route, why are they being downgraded to Civity commuter trains, rather than being upgraded to loco hauled (or an intercity DMU) for what could be considered an Intercity service (Swansea/Cardiff to Manchester/Liverpool/Holyhead).

After all, TPE are upgrading from 185 DMU's to IET's and loco-hauled Mk5's. TFW state they are adding a 1st class service between Swansea and Manchester.

That is entirely in keeping with the titled of the thread "Could TFWs fleet replacement be a disaster?"
Exactly, 175s/158s to 196s (that's what they look like, class number is not confirmed) would be a DOWNGRADE. 185s to the Nova units is an UPGRADE (except perhaps for the seats if TPE have chosen ironing boards). Personally, I think the class 175s are just about ideal; the upgrades we need are more carriages to a similar spec and unit-end gangways to allow the guard, trolley and passengers to move freely throughout the train. And the Nova 2s are part of the Civity family, apparently, so surely CAF could do a 3-car 100mph diesel version of that (with the class 196 cabs) for Wales & Borders services.

⅓ ⅔ doors are a requirement as these units will work many bust commuter services.
Actually, while they will undoubtedly carry large numbers of commuters into the big cities, most of the Civity routes are Regional Express services. They don't make (m)any intermediate stops within 15 minutes of the big cities. Even Manchester-Llandudno has a fairly long gap between Newton-Le-Willows and Manchester; too far to ask pepole to stand. The potential problem stations they do stop at (eg. Stockport) are also served by Intercity services; in this respect they are no different from the VT Euston-Manchester (via Crewe) services.

The class 175 is near enough ideal for routes like Cardiff to Holyhead. Dwell time issues are caused by overcrowding, not the location of the vestibules. As an example, the 20:32 from Chester to Holyhead yesterday, a two carriage 175, was ten minutes late departing, purely due to overcrowding.
Thank you. On a train that is not overcrowded, the location of the vestibles probably makes only a few seconds difference to the dwell time. Slam-doors probably make a bigger impact and I believe the Paddington-Swansea services are still timed for slam-door stock yet are allowed only 30secs more dwell time than the Carmarthen-Manchester services at Port Talbot, Neath and Bridgend. VT's dwell times at Stockport, Wilmslow and Crewe aren't far off the TfW services either.

I'm afraid I don't trust the "they've ordered 2 carriage trains but they'll only run them in pairs" take. Why would you do that?
I agree, if you put it like that it doesn't make any sense. However, there are sections of route where the train is relatively quiet (eg. Cambrian coast in winter) so running a 4/5-car train and splitting it en-route makes sense. Having shorter units (with end gangways) also allows more through services to multiple destinations (eg. Liverpool-Chester is planned to split for Cardiff/Llandudno), although I do think more of these portions could do with being 3-car rather than 2.

I do agree on the numbers ordered - there is a real need for 6-car trains between Birmingham and the Cambrian line particularly in summer[1], and they have not ordered enough sets to do that.

[1] Ideally 3+3 - though that would require SDO or platform lengthenings on the Coast - not only the Aber part is getting busy.
I do hope they will have SDO (I've not read anything either way). One of the many problems with the Cambrian is that 3-cars would be overkill on the Cambrian coast most of the year, but as you say 3-car would be useful at times. Also, that's the portion that would interwork with the north Wales coast if the Aberystwyth services were made hourly through to Birmingham. I think the number of new CAF units should be reduced, but not the number of vehicles allowing more 3-car sets (making up the unit count by retaining 158s and/or 175s).

There are cases on modern trains of the lavatories locking out of use automatically when the retention tank is full, so you could end up with an on board lavvie that can't be used because the tank is full, so anyone rocking up expecting a loo would be deprived of one.
That's another problem with the proposed Civity units. They are planning fewer toilets, so the tank(s) on the remaining toilet(s) would fill up quicker. Assuming that the maximum number of CET tanks that can be fitted on a unit with diesel engines under the floors is one per vehicle, that is the number we should have on a long-distance train.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
All these questions about why is it ok for Manchester or London etc - the main difference is those are built up urban areas that have mostly easy access to toilets at or near stations if required, and generally have a frequency higher than 4 trains an hour. Sure TfW say that they will provide on platform toilets and toilet stops for last services etc - but many of us who actually are used to living in the area won't believe that until we see if due to the massive reduction in station facilities that has happened in the area. Are they really going to have toilets at unmanned stations in the upper Rhondda valley for example?

So to bring it back around to the thread title, I don't think the rolling stock themselves will be the problem. I anticipate it will be the station facilities!
 
Last edited:

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
There is a capacity upgrade, because there will be more multiple operation than now. Regarding the quality of stock, I have sent many e-mails to TfW etc. regarding this over the past year. From their replies, the ironing board seats are not confirmed, but not explictly ruled out either. The suburban door layout however is CONFIRMED as TfW's plan. Perhaps not quite a 'disaster' but that would be a serious retrograde step if it goes ahead and, unlike the tram-trains, I can't see much hope for moving them somewhere they would be more-appropriate after a few years.



Therefore, any train with double-width doors (unless you have fewer doors) is a commuter design. As soon as you add standing capacity, you have compromised the suitablity of the train for any other purpose. You can still make the train fairly reasonable, but if you make that compromise you are always going to fall short of a class 158 or 175.

Actually, while they will undoubtedly carry large numbers of commuters into the big cities, most of the Civity routes are Regional Express services. They don't make (m)any intermediate stops within 15 minutes of the big cities. Even Manchester-Llandudno has a fairly long gap between Newton-Le-Willows and Manchester; too far to ask pepole to stand. The potential problem stations they do stop at (eg. Stockport) are also served by Intercity services; in this respect they are no different from the VT Euston-Manchester (via Crewe) services.

Thank you. On a train that is not overcrowded, the location of the vestibles probably makes only a few seconds difference to the dwell time. Slam-doors probably make a bigger impact and I believe the Paddington-Swansea services are still timed for slam-door stock yet are allowed only 30secs more dwell time than the Carmarthen-Manchester services at Port Talbot, Neath and Bridgend. VT's dwell times at Stockport, Wilmslow and Crewe aren't far off the TfW services either.

I do hope they will have SDO (I've not read anything either way). One of the many problems with the Cambrian is that 3-cars would be overkill on the Cambrian coast most of the year, but as you say 3-car would be useful at times. Also, that's the portion that would interwork with the north Wales coast if the Aberystwyth services were made hourly through to Birmingham. I think the number of new CAF units should be reduced, but not the number of vehicles allowing more 3-car sets (making up the unit count by retaining 158s and/or 175s).

The large doors aren't about increasing the space for standing passengers - indeed, one of things that will hopefully be avoided with all the extra capacity is standing passengers. What they do is reduce the amount of time it takes to unload and load passengers. This is a good thing.

You can call the routes whatever you want. I've been working them for years, I know what the passenger numbers are like and what kind of journeys they make - and I know how long dwell time can be on a 175. I love working those units, from a train crew point they're fantastic, but if you'd offered me the chance to replace them with 185s, I'd have snapped your hand off.
 

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
Yes, the fleet replacement could be a disaster.
That's another problem with the proposed Civity units. They are planning fewer toilets, so the tank(s) on the remaining toilet(s) would fill up quicker. Assuming that the maximum number of CET tanks that can be fitted on a unit with diesel engines under the floors is one per vehicle, that is the number we should have on a long-distance train.
Trains with bioreactor toilets over here need emptying every 2-3 months. I really don't think this will be an issue, assuming they do fit them with up-to-date toilet systems. (Normal tank systems need emptying every couple of days meanwhile, at least on 26m carriages with 1 toilet per carriage.)
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
The large doors aren't about increasing the space for standing passengers
That may be so, but that is a side effect of the large doors and means that space isn't available for legroom and toilets, both things that TfW have told me they intend to reduce (at least compared to 175s) along with bays of 4 around tables.

indeed, one of things that will hopefully be avoided with all the extra capacity is standing passengers. What they do is reduce the amount of time it takes to unload and load passengers. This is a good thing.
Indeed, the extra capacity will hopefully avoid the need for passengers to stand. You are also correct to say that the suburban door layout reduces the dwell time; if you replaced the class 175s tommorow with Turbostars on a vehicle-for-vehicle basis (ie. no capacity increase) you would indeed reduce the dwell times. However, if you could magic up an extra 62 class 175 intermediate vehicles to lengthen the fleet (providing a similar capacity boost to the Civity fleet) and this eliminated the crowding so everyone gets a seat that would also reduce dwell times. If you then replaced that expanded 175 fleet with equally long Turbostars I'm the dwell time saving wouldn't be nearly as big as moving from overcrowded 175s to overcrowded Turbostars.

Put another way, if the doorways aren't congested by overcrowding I doubt the door layout makes much difference to dwell times. Sure, it'll save a few seconds but unless the train is stopping at busy stations every 5 minutes its not worth the significant reduction in quality.

You can call the routes whatever you want.
It's not just me, in the franchise annoucement TfW themselves refered to the Civity fleet as "Long distance and rural DMU" and they are listed with the mark 3s, mark 4s and 175s on the "Long Distance Express" table in the franchise documents.

Trains with bioreactor toilets over here need emptying every 2-3 months. I really don't think this will be an issue, assuming they do fit them with up-to-date toilet systems. (Normal tank systems need emptying every couple of days meanwhile, at least on 26m carriages with 1 toilet per carriage.)
You'd think the TOCs would ensure the tanks get emptied, yet there have been several reports on the forums of toilets being locked out of use due to full tanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top