CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

Bletchleyite · 1 Aug 2020

Nick Ashwell said:
How do those three cars stop at some of the stations to Pwllheli? IIRC Three cars would foul several level crossings on the route, it's essentially a no go without a massive infrastructure program, which for obvious reasons, would be ridiculous

Er, the cars wait a couple of minutes while the train calls using SDO or local door, as appropriate? We aren't talking an hour's layover here (we're talking about 2 minutes in every 2 hour period), and I'm pretty sure none of the loops are only 2-car as longer railtours have operated down there in the past.

There are stations in the UK where the barriers come down before the train arrives at a platform which is just before the crossing, then remain down while the train calls and departs. This is practically no different.

RailUK Forums

Nick Ashwell · 1 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Er, the cars wait a couple of minutes while the train calls using SDO or local door, as appropriate? We aren't talking an hour's layover here (we're talking about 2 minutes in every 2 hour period), and I'm pretty sure none of the loops are only 2-car as longer railtours have operated down there in the past.

There are stations in the UK where the barriers come down before the train arrives at a platform which is just before the crossing, then remain down while the train calls and departs. This is practically no different.

Erm that requires barriers, something many of the crossings don't have.

anthony263 · 1 Aug 2020

When central trains ran class 170s on the cambrian did they have any 3 carriage units ?

Envoy · 1 Aug 2020

In the days of steam, you certainly did not have just a locomotive with one coach on the Cambrian Coast Line. That being so, then surely 3 coach 197’s would be a possibility? I also have my doubts about the split at Swansea leaving the trains from Manchester to head off to Pembrokeshire as only 2 coaches. Surely, it would make sense to have the whole fleet of 197’s as 3 coaches and that would also help address the toilet capacity issue whilst also providing 1st class on all units. Perhaps they will proceed with the initial order and see how things go? It would be helpful if an advance unit was manufactured for TfW - not only to start staff training but also for passenger evaluation - even if just for invited guests such as the people on this forum. Then any modifications perhaps could be made in advance of the main batch starting to be manufactured.

Bletchleyite · 1 Aug 2020

Nick Ashwell said:
Erm that requires barriers, something many of the crossings don't have.

I know some drivers are grossly incompetent, but if there's a train sat there across the crossing you don't need barriers to see that you can't cross.

anthony263 said:
When central trains ran class 170s on the cambrian did they have any 3 carriage units ?

I have certainly been on a 156+153 combo to Pwllheli (another 156 was attached, making a 5 car set, but went to Aber).

61653 HTAFC · 1 Aug 2020

anthony263 said:
When central trains ran class 170s on the cambrian did they have any 3 carriage units ?

As a kid in the 80s, 150001 took my family and I down the coast. Definitely saw all sorts of 153/156/158/170 combinations in Central Trains days.

craigybagel · 1 Aug 2020

The last I heard, anything longer then 2 cars was banned in the last few years from working the Cambrian coast.

Bletchleyite said:
One for another thread, but I wouldn't have trialled it at all, interoperability stuff is in practice totally irrelevant to our railway which is in actual practical fact self contained from that on the mainland. Lack of interoperability of stock has proven a big issue over the years on the Cambrian. Though they could mitigate that by fitting ETCS to all the 197s, but they're going cheap and installing it on only some 2-car units, so the Cambrian remains stuck in a capacity bubble. If RETB was needing retirement, I would go for a cheaper, simpler UK-only replacement - indeed, hasn't that actually happened in Scotland?

But ERTMS is the future not just because of interavailabilty (indeed, I seem to recall it's been installed in New Zealand where they don't really need to worry about any other countries railway signalling very much!) but also because of it's features. You can't have HS2 without some form of cab signalling, so you might as well go for the up to date word standard.

Now to bring this thread back from the edge of going off topic, the powers that be decided they wanted to run a trial of ERTMS somewhere in the UK - and it's hard to think of a better solution then the Cambrian. That's why I resented your suggestion that it was an "idiotic" scheme.

Incidentally, given all of the waing and gnashing of teeth being witnessed over the future stock provision for the Cambrian, I hate to think how people would react to 150s and 153s going up there now, which is where we'd probably be if ERTMS didn't prevent it.

RealTrains07 · 1 Aug 2020

anthony263 said:
This taken from wnxx looks like the 143s might stay into 2021

How likely is it for the first 197s to be built and ready in time to start testing in February 2021?

Bletchleyite · 2 Aug 2020

craigybagel said:
Incidentally, given all of the waing and gnashing of teeth being witnessed over the future stock provision for the Cambrian, I hate to think how people would react to 150s and 153s going up there now, which is where we'd probably be if ERTMS didn't prevent it.

150s were certainly ending up on the diagrams last year, they were having to delay things to do ad-hoc unit swaps at Shrewsbury. It was a right nuisance.

craigybagel · 3 Aug 2020

wobman said:
I must agree with you regarding the use of ERTMS, for all it's problems the Cambrian is an ideal testbed for the technology. Hopefully lessons were learnt & on HS2 it will not be a retro fit on old stock as the Cambrian is. Running it on level 0 is a pain as it's slow setting up, I'm hoping it's much faster booting up on 197's if all units have it fitted.

I'd settle for it not rebooting and making the emergency brakes kick in if you pass too close to a certain military communications facility at the wrong time, but that's another story!

Bletchleyite said:
150s were certainly ending up on the diagrams last year, they were having to delay things to do ad-hoc unit swaps at Shrewsbury. It was a right nuisance.

Indeed, it's a regular occurrence for 150s to end up on any 158 diagram - which obviously has consequences if the diagram involves the Cambrian (which most of them do). But I reckon there would still be a lot of people complaining if the 150s were able to go down there, in the same way people complain when they end up on Holyhead/Manchester - South Wales services.

hexagon789 · 3 Aug 2020

RealTrains07 said:
(fleet replacements are a bad idea in my books if iam being honest)

They have to happen at somepoint; you can only do a "Trigger's broom" for so long.

RealTrains07 said:
Well TfW replacing the entirety of their fleet was alsways going to be controversial as the 197s arguably are not needed yet?

197s Having 2 and 3 car formations is great for diagram flexibility for sure but the internal layout may prove a problem for customers especially on the long distant routes

Maybe not yet, but soon enough. I do agree the proportion of 2 and 3-car is not right though, more of the latter.

Neptune · 3 Aug 2020

With regards passengers not wanting these units to replace the older fleet (no doubt summed because of external door position) I’ve found that where 195’s have replaced 158’s on Northern the ordinary punters are more than happy with them. I didn’t think they’d be suitable for many services and find the lack of proper luggage space is a problem but the 197’s will have better luggage provision.

I don’t think anyone can make a judgment until they are actually in service.

Bletchleyite · 3 Aug 2020

Neptune said:
With regards passengers not wanting these units to replace the older fleet (no doubt summed because of external door position) I’ve found that where 195’s have replaced 158’s on Northern the ordinary punters are more than happy with them. I didn’t think they’d be suitable for many services and find the lack of proper luggage space is a problem but the 197’s will have better luggage provision.

The 195s have lots of luggage provision - the overheads are massive. And there are the standbacks if you really can't get your bag up.

RealTrains07 · 3 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
The 195s have lots of luggage provision - the overheads are massive. And there are the standbacks if you really can't get your bag up.

Yes but overheads are not suitable for heavy bags. You need floor luggage racks if 197s are serving airport stations regularly

Tomos y Tanc · 3 Aug 2020

Neptune said:
I don’t think anyone can make a judgment until they are actually in service.

That won't stop us trying!

I think it is entirely reasonable to discuss whether the balance between two car and three car units is correct as that will be unaffected what ever the quality of the units. Other than that and the door placement, it's pretty much all speculation - but that's what internet forums are for!

Neptune · 3 Aug 2020

Tomos y Tanc said:
That won't stop us trying!

I think it is entirely reasonable to discuss whether the balance between two car and three car units is correct as that will be unaffected what ever the quality of the units. Other than that and the door placement, it's pretty much all speculation - but that's what internet forums are for!

I agree that 2 cars are a poor idea unless to be used coupled to other units or run on lightly used routes.

Neptune · 3 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
The 195s have lots of luggage provision - the overheads are massive. And there are the standbacks if you really can't get your bag up.

You should have seen it today with the Leeds - Preston services. Loads going on their hols to the coast with their reasonable amounts of family luggage for and the aisles and doorways were blocked due to the lack of proper luggage racks. I’ve said it before that they are inappropriate for these sort of services. I work these sorts of services regularly and they just aren’t suitable. Try telling a pensioner to put their case on the overhead rack.

At least TfW have seen the light with this issue.

Tom Quinne · 3 Aug 2020

Energy said:
The 2 car trains can always be lengthened later on to be 3 car trains. There may be more demand to allow for this from the new trains being more attractive than being stuck on a 150 for ages.

We all know that never, or very very rarely happens. Manufacturers often destroy the jig frames when a build line finishes.
Make no mistake once the headline £750m is spent that’s it, nothing more than a few cheap (by railway standar) improvements for a generation.

superkev · 3 Aug 2020

Tom Quinne said:
We all know that never, or very very rarely happens. Manufacturers often destroy the jig frames when a build line finishes.
Make no mistake once the headline £750m is spent that’s it, nothing more than a few cheap (by railway standar) improvements for a generation.

For interest I remember someone telling me that when they were looking at a much needed extension to the TPe 185s Siemens had destroyed the jigs.
K

Bletchleyite · 3 Aug 2020

Tom Quinne said:
We all know that never, or very very rarely happens. Manufacturers often destroy the jig frames when a build line finishes.
Make no mistake once the headline £750m is spent that’s it, nothing more than a few cheap (by railway standar) improvements for a generation.

As these units are gangwayed, doubling the 2s up permanently and buying more of whatever is available at the time is probably the way to go. But the funding is unlikely to be available.

Best bet is probably to retain some 175s, probably for North Wales Coast services, ideally for use in 5-car formations.

new thread for that: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-tfw-retain-some-175s-where-should-they-be-used.207329/

py_megapixel · 3 Aug 2020

Tom Quinne said:
We all know that never, or very very rarely happens. Manufacturers often destroy the jig frames when a build line finishes.
Make no mistake once the headline £750m is spent that’s it, nothing more than a few cheap (by railway standar) improvements for a generation.

Well I do think it would be quite nice to have rolling programs of improvements, with new stock slowly rolling off production lines all the time to replace whatever's oldest or least suitable at the time, which is similar to how many bus companies renew their fleets. Unfortunately that doesn't lend itself well to short-term franchise agreements with flashy marketing.

Tomos y Tanc · 3 Aug 2020

py_megapixel said:
Well I do think it would be quite nice to have rolling programs of improvements, with new stock slowly rolling off production lines all the time to replace whatever's oldest or least suitable at the time, which is similar to how many bus companies renew their fleets. Unfortunately that doesn't lend itself well to short-term franchise agreements with flashy marketing.

Doing it that way can leave you with a hodge-podge of units and mini-fleets. Total fleet replacement gives you a felxible fleet of uniform vehicles which aids reliability, driver training, ease of maintenance etc.

Bletchleyite · 3 Aug 2020

Tomos y Tanc said:
Doing it that way can leave you with a hodge-podge of units and mini-fleets. Total fleet replacement gives you a felxible fleet of uniform vehicles which aids reliability, driver training, ease of maintenance etc.

But one that's invariably too small. Nobody ever seems to spend enough money to get a proper growth build as part of a fleet replacement. GA haven't, TfW haven't, LM didn't....

Tom Quinne · 3 Aug 2020

superkev said:
For interest I remember someone telling me that when they were looking at a much needed extension to the TPe 185s Siemens had destroyed the jigs.
K

I suspect some builders deliberately destory jigs ASAP so the cost of building more vehicles is prohibitively high.
Bombardier 22X vehicles spring to mind with Operation Thore Panto vehicle concept.

Tom Quinne · 3 Aug 2020

I was told by control that the TfW 170s can’t couple to other BSI coupler units as anything else aside from the 175s in the fleet. I definitely remember Central Trains / London Midland coupling their 170s to 153s.

py_megapixel · 3 Aug 2020

Bletchleyite said:
But one that's invariably too small. Nobody ever seems to spend enough money to get a proper growth build as part of a fleet replacement. GA haven't, TfW haven't, LM didn't....

And don't even get started on Northern...

Bletchleyite · 3 Aug 2020

I can think of only two TOCs that have done:
- TPE this time around (having been burnt last time)
- Virgin Trains, but only on West Coast, and only after the event, not in the initial order

Though I suppose the FNW 175 order was too, because it was a growth build, very little was removed from the fleet, just the LHCS and the 101s (plus the Birmingham EMUs, but they also stopped running the service). It wasn't, however, a fleet replacement.

anthony263 · 3 Aug 2020

Tom Quinne said:
I was told by control that the TfW 170s can’t couple to other BSI coupler units as anything else aside from the 175s in the fleet. I definitely remember Central Trains / London Midland coupling their 170s to 153s.

Thought the oy units tey could couple too were the pacers and hasn't ga used the 170s attached to a 153 or class 156 ?

Tom Quinne · 3 Aug 2020

At least now in TfW if a set fails at Queen Street the very next train can rescue it, how long until a tram train sits down blocking the job with the next train being unsuitable coupler or software wise.

A real chance to have a standard fleet with all the economic saving scales that’s brings lost.

Tom Quinne · 3 Aug 2020

anthony263 said:
Thought the oy units tey could couple too were the pacers and hasn't ga used the 170s attached to a 153 or class 156 ?

My understanding is any BSI fitted unit (like a 170) could couple and operate fully with another like the 14X and 15X sets.
Class 16X can couple to Class 15X units as Network South East deliberately removed pins to stop it, this was to stop Regional Railways “stealing“ their units! Non standard couplers is a old BR trick lol

CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation