CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[LOL The Irony]

As a passenger from Chester (mostly), what differences will I note with TfW's 197s compared to the Northern 195's already operating out of the eastern end of the station?

The bays at least line up with each other, slightly different seats and the inclusion of first class on some units (is it all the 4 car trains?).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Wrong.

I am not kidding, there are people who don't like it. Maybe not many (or maybe there are loads of them, I have no idea) but they do exist.

But those 'amusing' comments did not originate from me - being unpleasant for passengers sitting nearby came from Envoy and being seen going into/out-of the loo isn't something I thought up myself. In fact I'm often told on here that the concerns I raise are things only enthusiasts care about, some of this toilet stuff (particularly the preferring not to be seen going into them) comes from 'normals'.

Another comment that doesn't come from me:
While Wales may not be as windy as Scotland (although spend some time on Whitland station...), note the description of a class 170 as "dreadful suburban" and that is a proper Turbostar, not the "poor man's Turbostar" label that others have coined to describe the Civities. You see, it's not just me.

I actually agree that end-doors are far better for Intercity journeys, what I’m saying I don’t agree with is going over the same ground repeatedly. Your opposal to doors at thirds and TfW’s decision to order the 197s has been made very clear, and that’s absolutely fine, but is it necessary to reiterate it so often?

 

[Rhydgaled]

The bays at least line up with each other, slightly different seats and the inclusion of first class on some units (is it all the 4 car trains?).

No 4-car 197s have been ordered, the order was for 51x 2-car and 26x 3-car (total 77 units). First class is reported to have been specified for 14x of the 26x 3-car units.

If it really takes 9 minutes once in service then that will be yet another stick to beat the 197s with!

Indeed it would, if true, and there are plenty enough sticks to beat them with already.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If nothing else, it might ease some of the worries of those convinced the Cambrian is condemned to suffer for the rest of all time because they don't think TfW have specified enough sets with ERTMS from day one.

The Cambrian is condemned to suffer for many years (maybe not the rest of time, but might as well be as far as I'm concerned) if TfW ever think they have enough 197s fitted with ETCS to run the service. Doesn't matter how many 197s are fitted with ETCS; compared to 158s they are a retrograde step for the Cambrian full stop due to the over provision of doorway, under provision of toilets and complete absense of provision for electric operation east of Wolverhampton/Shrewsbury. On the latter point, yes the 158s don't have provision for electric either but there is likely to be another opportunity to replace them around 2030 - the 197s not likely before 2055 by which time some SARPA members fear decarbonisation efforts and/or air quality in central Birmingham could result in the Cambrian losing through services to Birmingham if the Cambrian rolling stock isn't capable of electric operation.

 

[craigybagel]

The Cambrian is condemned to suffer for many years (maybe not the rest of time, but might as well be as far as I'm concerned) if TfW ever think they have enough 197s fitted with ETCS to run the service. Doesn't matter how many 197s are fitted with ETCS; compared to 158s they are a retrograde step for the Cambrian full stop due to the over provision of doorway, under provision of toilets and complete absense of provision for electric operation east of Wolverhampton/Shrewsbury. On the latter point, yes the 158s don't have provision for electric either but there is likely to be another opportunity to replace them around 2030 - the 197s not likely before 2055 by which time some SARPA members fear decarbonisation efforts and/or air quality in central Birmingham could result in the Cambrian losing through services to Birmingham if the Cambrian rolling stock isn't capable of electric operation.

Thank you to the mods for moving the latest 197 rant over here where it belongs.

As for the post itself, it's just old ground we've been over time and time again so I'll save my fingers.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Thank you to the mods for moving the latest 197 rant over here where it belongs.

As for the post itself, it's just old ground we've been over time and time again so I'll save my fingers.

No intervention was necessary this time - since this 'speculative' topic had not been locked (and the other topic had been renamed to remind me) I posted the 'rant' directly here.

Going back to the issue of how many sets would be ETCS fitted, if 003 is currently fitted with ETCS but has that equipment removed in future then (as I implied in the other topic) that reduces the expected total from 21 (effectively replacing 158s on a one-for-one basis, given that three 158s are diagrammed away from the Cambrian) to just 20. That can't be increased back to 21 units unless one already approved by ORR, as a non-ETCS unit, is fitted with ETCS.

 

[craigybagel]

No intervention was necessary this time - since this 'speculative' topic had not been locked (and the other topic had been renamed to remind me) I posted the 'rant' directly here.

Going back to the issue of how many sets would be ETCS fitted, if 003 is currently fitted with ETCS but has that equipment removed in future then (as I implied in the other topic) that reduces the expected total from 21 (effectively replacing 158s on a one-for-one basis, given that three 158s are diagrammed away from the Cambrian) to just 20. That can't be increased back to 21 units unless one already approved by ORR, as a non-ETCS unit, is fitted with ETCS.

My apologies, I misread the notification I got regarding your reply.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2022 ==

With regards to the exact number of units being fitted with ERTMS, I'll go back over what I've said before - until we see the timetable, we don't know how many units are actually needed to be fitted, and it may well turn out that if TfW have got their sums wrong, it's relatively easy to fit more units with the equipment. Either way, nothing to worry about.

 

[Eccles1983]

I see the door botherer is back at it....

SARPA will get no say in any of this, and should have been told this a long time ago.

To allay the fears - all 197's have the ability to be quicky converted into ETCS compatible units. It is a day or so at the depot as ETCS is getting rolled out in other areas with the west coast mainline and chat moss looking likely.

The 158's have been worthy trains but they are old and becoming increasingly difficult to keep on the road.

You can howl at the moon for all it is worth but the problems are now with regards to units. Waiting for wires to be put up is futile. It's unlikely to happen in my career so Bimode make little sense for the amount of distance they will cover under the wires.

The company is predominately a diesel set up. You can either come to terms with that fact or continue to rant at things you have no control over.

The new units are a massive step to the modern times, which the public in wales and borders have been missing for decades. The public will love them.

 

[wobman]

I see the door botherer is back at it....

SARPA will get no say in any of this, and should have been told this a long time ago.

To allay the fears - all 197's have the ability to be quicky converted into ETCS compatible units. It is a day or so at the depot as ETCS is getting rolled out in other areas with the west coast mainline and chat moss looking likely.

The 158's have been worthy trains but they are old and becoming increasingly difficult to keep on the road.

You can howl at the moon for all it is worth but the problems are now with regards to units. Waiting for wires to be put up is futile. It's unlikely to happen in my career so Bimode make little sense for the amount of distance they will cover under the wires.

The company is predominately a diesel set up. You can either come to terms with that fact or continue to rant at things you have no control over.

The new units are a massive step to the modern times, which the public in wales and borders have been missing for decades. The public will love them.

An honest and factual post like usual say, the general public are desperate for new trains on the cambrian. The 158s are old and tired with heating that works in the summer but not in the winter and the air con that just doesn't work at all in the summer.

The 197s will be a huge step up compared to the 158s, the customer experience will be improved and timings reduced.

I've heard Northern are looking at a sub fleet of hybrid 195s, maybe this is an avenue that's worth looking at for the 197s. It could offer a solution in the short-term until the wires eventually go up from Salop to wolves. I think most of us will be retired before that happens, railway infrastructure projects always double in cost and timescale.....

 

[Rhydgaled]

SARPA will get no say in any of this

It has been obvious for ages that the passenger groups (eg. SARPA) are not being heeded, and that fact is a very bad thing.

Waiting for wires to be put up is futile. It's unlikely to happen in my career so Bimode make little sense for the amount of distance they will cover under the wires.

The company is predominately a diesel set up. You can either come to terms with that fact or continue to rant at things you have no control over.

The new units are a massive step to the modern times, which the public in wales and borders have been missing for decades.

Not in every respect. In terms of digital technology they probably are a massive step to the modern times, but in terms of traction they lock us into the days of diesel. If passengers are expecting a step up in quality similar to the step in modernity they are going to be sorely disapointed.

An honest and factual post like usual say, the general public are desperate for new trains on the cambrian. The 158s are old and tired with heating that works in the summer but not in the winter and the air con that just doesn't work at all in the summer.

The 197s will be a huge step up compared to the 158s, the customer experience will be improved

I'll give you the air con problem with the 158s, but other than that how is the 197 customer experience an improvement over both 158s and 175s? Number of tables, window alignment and toilet provision are all areas where the existing fleet wins out.

I've heard Northern are looking at a sub fleet of hybrid 195s, maybe this is an avenue that's worth looking at for the 197s. It could offer a solution in the short-term until the wires eventually go up from Salop to wolves. I think most of us will be retired before that happens, railway infrastructure projects always double in cost and timescale.....

It's not a short-term solution, it is a nearly-new bodyshell with tonnes of embedded carbon (and financial capital) with a potential lifespan stretching beyond the net-zero target. It is increases the inertia of the railway towards the status quo. In hindsight, introduction of brand-new units without at least passive provision for a pantograph should have been outlawed in 2015 at the latest.

I hear you regarding the unlikelyhood of electrification, but I could say the same about the net-zero target itself. Saving the climate looks virtually impossible, but it is so crucial that we must fight on anyway. Building more new trains that cannot benefit from electrification simply makes electrification even less likely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To allay the fears - all 197's have the ability to be quicky converted into ETCS compatible units. It is a day or so at the depot as ETCS is getting rolled out in other areas with the west coast mainline and chat moss looking likely.

I hope this happens quickly. Three car working is very much needed towards Pwllheli in summer, with no frequency increase planned on that bit. Central Trains used to do it with an added 153.

Apart from "I don't really like Fainsa Sophias" (well, I don't) that is my primary concern.

 

[Eccles1983]

It has been obvious for ages that the passenger groups (eg. SARPA) are not being heeded, and that fact is a very bad thing.

Not in every respect. In terms of digital technology they probably are a massive step to the modern times, but in terms of traction they lock us into the days of diesel. If passengers are expecting a step up in quality similar to the step in modernity they are going to be sorely disapointed.

I'll give you the air con problem with the 158s, but other than that how is the 197 customer experience an improvement over both 158s and 175s? Number of tables, window alignment and toilet provision are all areas where the existing fleet wins out.

It's not a short-term solution, it is a nearly-new bodyshell with tonnes of embedded carbon (and financial capital) with a potential lifespan stretching beyond the net-zero target. It is increases the inertia of the railway towards the status quo. In hindsight, introduction of brand-new units without at least passive provision for a pantograph should have been outlawed in 2015 at the latest.

I hear you regarding the unlikelyhood of electrification, but I could say the same about the net-zero target itself. Saving the climate looks virtually impossible, but it is so crucial that we must fight on anyway. Building more new trains that cannot benefit from electrification simply makes electrification even less likely.

Remind me how many 197's you have been on?

Because they more advanced for the passenger in every way techinically for passengers from seat reservations, wifi stability, asdo and a cold storage area for catering staff. All major wins against what they will replace.

The public will also enjoy the timetable changes, as they are much quicker than anything before it, and stop on a dime. They are brilliant traction units and mechanically sound.

It is only so called "enthusiasts" who sill find fault. 99% of the passengers will notice the marked improvement.

 

[DanNCL]

There is absolutely nothing to say that the 197s couldn’t be converted to bi-mode units in 10-15 years time, indeed the Civity UK design specifically allows for the bodywork to be used both for diesel and electric. The big mistake is the mechanical transmission, as it means the transmission would need to be replaced for a bi-mode conversion, whereas units with electric transmission would only need the simple addition of a pantograph and transformer. Conversion to bi-mode wouldn’t be cheap, but would be considerably cheaper than buying more new stock in 10-15 years, and because of the design of the Civity units would be cheaper than converting most other classes of Diesel-Mechanical units to bi-modes.

 

[Anonymous10]

It has been obvious for ages that the passenger groups (eg. SARPA) are not being heeded, and that fact is a very bad thing.

Not in every respect. In terms of digital technology they probably are a massive step to the modern times, but in terms of traction they lock us into the days of diesel. If passengers are expecting a step up in quality similar to the step in modernity they are going to be sorely disapointed.

I'll give you the air con problem with the 158s, but other than that how is the 197 customer experience an improvement over both 158s and 175s? Number of tables, window alignment and toilet provision are all areas where the existing fleet wins out.

It's not a short-term solution, it is a nearly-new bodyshell with tonnes of embedded carbon (and financial capital) with a potential lifespan stretching beyond the net-zero target. It is increases the inertia of the railway towards the status quo. In hindsight, introduction of brand-new units without at least passive provision for a pantograph should have been outlawed in 2015 at the latest.

I hear you regarding the unlikelyhood of electrification, but I could say the same about the net-zero target itself. Saving the climate looks virtually impossible, but it is so crucial that we must fight on anyway. Building more new trains that cannot benefit from electrification simply makes electrification even less likely.

you asked for a train capable of under wire operations. lets be real tfw aren't likely to procure a completely new class just for one line in mu opinion but if they did get something like a hybrid 195/197 it would possibly be a good compromise

 

[wobman]

you asked for a train capable of under wire operations. lets be real tfw aren't likely to procure a completely new class just for one line in mu opinion but if they did get something like a hybrid 195/197 it would possibly be a good compromise

That's what I think a hybrid 197 would be a good compromise, the 197s are here and that's the future.
Maybe tfw would be open to a hybrid micro Fleet as Northern are looking at, then roll the changes out in the future.

The talk of keeping the 158s is not going to happen, the tfw plan is one fleet for most North services/ depots which males sence in so many ways.
One traction means less cost / less training.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Remind me how many 197's you have been on?

None, but that's true of most outside the rail industry. I have been on Fainsa Sophias and I have been on a 195, which together is probably the nearest available experience to the general public, and I have a highly-detailed scale floor plan of the class 197 interiors.

Because they more advanced for the passenger in every way techinically for passengers from seat reservations, wifi stability, asdo and a cold storage area for catering staff. All major wins against what they will replace.

It is only so called "enthusiasts" who sill find fault. 99% of the passengers will notice the marked improvement.

It isn't only enthusiasts, I can assure you. I have spoken to several non-enthusiasts who agree with me. A large percentage of existing passengers probably won't care, but I find it hard to believe that passengers will notice:

• electronic (I assume from your post) seat reservations more than a window pillar blocking their view
• improved wi-fi more than double-width doors
• a cold storage area for catering staff* more than draughts from the doors due to loss of vestibules
• ASDO* more than a reduction in toilet provision

* I'm not sure what you mean by this, there is a space marked 'Catering' on the seat plan which I had assumed was a bay to park the trolley in. SARPA officials (or one of them at least) reported from a stakeholder meeting with TfW (Colin Lea was there) that TfW are considering removing the trolley bay for extra seats in future.

** I would be surprised if most passengers notice this at all, although it is probably the biggest improvement on your list and could presumably be retro-fitted to the 158s (and 175s if necessary, do they have an SDO system currently?), as SDO is being fitted to the mark 4s, so isn't a particularly strong reason to replace the fleet

The public will also enjoy the timetable changes, as they are much quicker than anything before it, and stop on a dime. They are brilliant traction units and mechanically sound.

Is the timetable away from the Cambrian still based on 75mph Sprinters having to cover at times? If not, I'll admit the public will like any major accelerations that can be introduced because of the 197s but it doesn't change the facts that the passenger experience is of a suburban train, not a long-distance one, and that TfW have added another impediment to electrification.

There is absolutely nothing to say that the 197s couldn’t be converted to bi-mode units in 10-15 years time

Actually there is. SARPA were finally invited to see the mock-up a little while ago and their report, mentioned that TfW rolling stock engineer, James Worrel, had indicated that it would be very difficult to convert the 197s to bi-mode. While the 331s do have a similar bodyshell, they have pantograph wells and there is a traction power cable fitted down the length of the unit.

I seem to recall reading that welding aluminium bodyshells requires all electrical equipment to be stripped off a unit to prevent stray currents damaging it and that this process requires the unit to be out of service for quite some time. This would appear to make adding a pantograph well to 128 class 197 vehicles (I'm assuming two pans for each 2-car unit and a single pan for each 3-car unit) a very time consuming process unless you have something else to run the service with and can take a large number of 197s out of service at the same time to work on them all in paralell.

The lack of a traction power cable down the length of the unit has apparently "frustrated potential schemes for creation of a bi‑mode Class 22x unit on the grounds of prohibitive cost, to be recovered over a limited remaining life".

The big mistake is the mechanical transmission, as it means the transmission would need to be replaced for a bi-mode conversion, whereas units with electric transmission would only need the simple addition of a pantograph and transformer.

Indeed, which is one of the reasons I have not kicked up a fuss about the class 231s although if they turn out not to have space for a pantograph that would be a cause for concern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

None, but that's true of most outside the rail industry. I have been on Fainsa Sophias and I have been on a 195, which together is probably the nearest available experience to the general public, and I have a highly-detailed scale floor plan of the class 197 interiors.

It isn't only enthusiasts, I can assure you. I have spoken to several non-enthusiasts who agree with me. A large percentage of existing passengers probably won't care, but I find it hard to believe that passengers will notice:

• electronic (I assume from your post) seat reservations more than a window pillar blocking their view

Surprisingly many people don't care. I do care, but if you look how many people are fiddling with their phones it's not that much of an issue. Also, CAF units have quite narrow pillars similar to Mk3 coaches.

In my view it is lazy (as is the 195), as the layout could have been fiddled with to get much better alignment (though not 100% because of the window widths), but it's not that bad.

• improved wi-fi more than double-width doors

Both improved wi-fi and double-width doors are a good thing on regional express trains. Boarding say a Class 350 with luggage is much less faff than a 390 because you don't have to go as far with it through a narrow coach. I'd go as far as to say that I favour non-end doors for all trains, even if you do it like the FLIRTs by having a wide doorway at only one third and not at both thirds.

• a cold storage area for catering staff* more than draughts from the doors due to loss of vestibules

Automatic closing mitigates this to a fair extent, but the acces benefit does as well.

• ASDO* more than a reduction in toilet provision

I agree with you on the toilets. In my strongly-held view, no train which will ever be used as a single unit should have fewer than two toilets (unless they have none). They are simply not reliable enough.

Is the timetable away from the Cambrian still based on 75mph Sprinters having to cover at times? If not, I'll admit the public will like any major accelerations that can be introduced because of the 197s but it doesn't change the facts that the passenger experience is of a suburban train, not a long-distance one, and that TfW have added another impediment to electrification.

It's a regional express train with the ambiance of a regional express train. If anything it's the 158s that are out of place. To me a 3-car Class 170 is very close to being the perfect regional express train, and the CAFs are really just those on the cheap (though with some improved features e.g. the massive overhead racks and a vague hint of acceleration).

I seem to recall reading that welding aluminium bodyshells requires all electrical equipment to be stripped off a unit to prevent stray currents damaging it and that this process requires the unit to be out of service for quite some time. This would appear to make adding a pantograph well to 128 class 197 vehicles (I'm assuming two pans for each 2-car unit and a single pan for each 3-car unit) a very time consuming process unless you have something else to run the service with and can take a large number of 197s out of service at the same time to work on them all in paralell.

As they aren't going to run on electrified routes (other than very short sections) I'm not sure why you'd need to fit a pantograph well. If the North Wales Coast is electrified (most likely one), then some of them will go elsewhere to be replaced by new EMUs. There are a lot of old DMUs requiring replacement.

I was strongly of the view that Northern erred by ordering straight DMUs. I'm not of that view for TfW because they have so little under-wires running.

Indeed, which is one of the reasons I have not kicked up a fuss about the class 231s although if they turn out not to have space for a pantograph that would be a cause for concern.

I would agree it was stupid for these not to be bi-modes to start with, for reasons of flexibility.

Overall my main issues with them are toilets, Fainsa Sophias (but that is a personal view) and the need to fit ETCS to some 3 cars for summer Pwllheli use.

 

[HSTEd]

The best way to make up for "loss of vestibules" - which I find questionable as a problem given as during boarding both doors are highly likely to be open at the same time anyway - is simply to fit a larger capacity HVAC plant to the train.

Doors at thirds dramatically accelerate boarding and get people where they are going faster and with less hastle - which is ultimately the objective.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Both improved wi-fi and double-width doors are a good thing on regional express trains. Boarding say a Class 350 with luggage is much less faff than a 390 because you don't have to go as far with it through a narrow coach. I'd go as far as to say that I favour non-end doors for all trains, even if you do it like the FLIRTs by having a wide doorway at only one third and not at both thirds.

Is improved wi-fi a good thing on regional express trains? Yes, probably*, but not double-width doors UNLESS you do it like the Anglia FLIRTs and reduce the number of doors to compensate for the loss of floor space. Door position is a seperate thing to door width, and my suggestion would be for single-width doors with two per side BUT with one at one third (with internal doors to create vestibules) and the other near the vehicle end (with the toilet and bike space beyond, like it is on a 158). That way, you don't have to carry your luggage as far but, by keeping narrow doors, you don't lose space to standing room.

* if it's decent already further improvement has little benefit but I don't use train wi-fi much so don't know

It's a regional express train with the ambiance of a regional express train. If anything it's the 158s that are out of place.

So, in your mind, what is a 158? And in your mind a regional express train is the same as the ambiance of a suburban train and only InterCity passengers should have anything else?

As they aren't going to run on electrified routes (other than very short sections) I'm not sure why you'd need to fit a pantograph well.

There are two main reasons why I think they should be electrification-ready with a pantograph well. The first is inertia. Making passive provsion for electrification to happen in future makes electrification more likely. Failing to make passive provision makes electrification less likely in the lifetime of the train (which now extends beyond the point where we are supposed to be net-zero). This applies to ALL new stock, I think all new stock should be required to have a pantograph well (just as all new 3rd rail EMUs have had one for many years now).

If the North Wales Coast is electrified (most likely one), then some of them will go elsewhere to be replaced by new EMUs. There are a lot of old DMUs requiring replacement.

I was strongly of the view that Northern erred by ordering straight DMUs. I'm not of that view for TfW because they have so little under-wires running.

My second reason for agruing that the 197s should have a pantograph well is linked to the rest of the bodyshell design which, in my view, is appropriate for services such as Llandelio-Swansea (Swansea metro) and Birmingham-Shrewsbury stoppers (where the 196s are probably going to be suitable in the short term) and not for regional express (inter-urban) services. I therefore feel that 197s (and anything similar, such as Turbostars) should be deployed on the suburban/metro type routes and not routes like the Cambrian. If so deployed, this would completely change the likelyhood of electrification; the Cambrian isn't going to be electrified by 2050 but Birmingham-Shrewsbury might, as would the Swansea metro if it got off the ground.

There are alot of old DMUs requiring replacement yes, but alot of them are working regional express routes for which the same problems apply. Also, the only plan the rail industry has to meet net-zero by 2050 (NR's TDNS) involves reducing the number of DMUs to zero in that timeframe. Personally, I don't think having a few HVO/battery-hybrids (similar to the TfW 230s and Chiltern 165/168 trial units) instead of battery units on the Cornish branches would be much of a problem, since there is no OHLE proposed to charge the batteries on those lines but that just about covers the 196s. There is not sufficient work for the 195s and all 77 proposed 197s without significantly reducing the scope of electrification which I'm doubt many outside the government want.

Overall my main issues with them are toilets, Fainsa Sophias (but that is a personal view) and the need to fit ETCS to some 3 cars for summer Pwllheli use.

Narrower (or fewer) doors would free up space for more toilets, I agree that the Sophias are a big issue (they should have salvaged the Grammers off outgoing First Great Western mark 3s) and would agree with going to 3-cars except that I'm not sure what to do with the extra capacity in the winter.

TfW seem to have realised the door problem on the Metro fleet, since this month's (Jan 2022) Modern Railways carries this from Stadler's Project Manager:
"The '231s' have six passenger doorways per side, compared with eight on the '756s'" "the former are designer for routes with longer intervals between stations, and omitting the second doorway from each centre vehicle enabled more seats to be installed." The intervals between stations on Manchester to Swansea, Aberystwyth to Birmingham and most other class 197 routes are surely much longer than the Maesteg to Cheltenham route where the 231s will end up. So, logically, there should be even less doorway and more seats/toilets/tables on a class 197; but there isn't. The 197 doors are just as wide as the metro units and as for the ratio of train length to number of doors...

Unit Type​	Train Length (Metres)​	Doors Per Side​	Metres Per Door​
Class 197/0	48.052​	4​	12.01​
Class 197/1	71.402​	6​	11.90​
Class 231	80.7​	6​	13.45​

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is improved wi-fi a good thing on regional express trains? Yes, probably*, but not double-width doors UNLESS you do it like the Anglia FLIRTs and reduce the number of doors to compensate for the loss of floor space

The loss of floor space is in practice about half a row of seats. We are not talking about Mk1-style foot-wide doors here; trains with single-leaf doors have their single leaf less than half the width of a typical double-leaf doorway.

I do like the FLIRT layout with a door at only one third, but remember that is in the context of a 16-18m intermediate vehicle, i.e. Pacer-sized. (Pacers of course had three doors per two vehicles per side).

So, in your mind, what is a 158? And in your mind a regional express train is the same as the ambiance of a suburban train and only InterCity passengers should have anything else?

A 158 is a regional express train. It's just not a very good one, because it doesn't deal well with the high short distance loads you tend to get on regional express services. 158s are horrid to use when the Pwllhelis are busy in summer, you have to push past standees to get anywhere, as there is no proper facility for them. And on Liverpool-Norwich they are an utter nightmare.

158s with end doors work fairly well for "long, thin" services with low loadings and infrequent stops like the Scottish rural branches, the S&C and the likes. They are probably OKish on the same basis for Aberystwyth (except Sundays when they also provide the local service normally provided by WMT's 170s), but not so much Pwllheli, and are definitely not great on the North Wales Coast.

My personal approach to the Cambrian would have been to go with an hourly InterCity standard service to Aberystwyth formed of something like 5 section FLIRTs with First Class and maybe even a minibuffet (essentially a UK version of the Polish ones), with Pwllheli as a connection using more local oriented units (possibly also FLIRTs, but then I'm a Stadler fan) and Mach rebuilt/slightly relocated to allow that connection to be cross platform. But that wasn't chosen, and so we need a jack of all trades of a unit.

There are two main reasons why I think they should be electrification-ready with a pantograph well. The first is inertia. Making passive provsion for electrification to happen in future makes electrification more likely. Failing to make passive provision makes electrification less likely in the lifetime of the train (which now extends beyond the point where we are supposed to be net-zero). This applies to ALL new stock, I think all new stock should be required to have a pantograph well (just as all new 3rd rail EMUs have had one for many years now).

I don't think that's true with classes 195-197. They'll just be cascaded to replace 1980s DMUs on any electrification, with either new or used EMUs brought in, as there are so many of them.

I do think Northern's new order should be bi-modes, but that's for other reasons explained above, namely that they would benefit from bi-modes now.

There are alot of old DMUs requiring replacement yes, but alot of them are working regional express routes for which the same problems apply. Also, the only plan the rail industry has to meet net-zero by 2050 (NR's TDNS) involves reducing the number of DMUs to zero in that timeframe.

That plan is flawed. There won't be no DMUs by 2050, but it could well be that there are only Classes 172 and 195-197 running on biofuel with additional exhaust scrubbing installed.

Or let's put it this way - there'll be DMUs or buses.

Personally, I don't think having a few HVO/battery-hybrids (similar to the TfW 230s and Chiltern 165/168 trial units) instead of battery units on the Cornish branches would be much of a problem, since there is no OHLE proposed to charge the batteries on those lines but that just about covers the 196s. There is not sufficient work for the 195s and all 77 proposed 197s without significantly reducing the scope of electrification which I'm doubt many outside the government want.

There are branch lines with no prospect of electrification outside Cornwall, you know!

Narrower (or fewer) doors would free up space for more toilets, I agree that the Sophias are a big issue (they should have salvaged the Grammers off outgoing First Great Western mark 3s) and would agree with going to 3-cars except that I'm not sure what to do with the extra capacity in the winter.

Because in the summer school holidays commuting and business travel is reduced and leisure travel on certain routes is increased, it would make sense to fit a few of the 3-car units with ETCS to allow them to be used to Pwllheli in summer, with the 2-cars going over to replace them on whatever they were working. It seems this will be an easyish job so hopefully it will happen quickly. First Class is the only real sticking point there, though given that it's a small area you'd find enough Pwllheli passengers willing to pay £5 or so to upgrade on spec, I reckon, so it'd just be a case of ensuring it's not sold by mistake on Manchester-South Wales services that didn't have it.

TfW seem to have realised the door problem on the Metro fleet, since this month's (Jan 2022) Modern Railways carries this from Stadler's Project Manager:
"The '231s' have six passenger doorways per side, compared with eight on the '756s'" "the former are designer for routes with longer intervals between stations, and omitting the second doorway from each centre vehicle enabled more seats to be installed." The intervals between stations on Manchester to Swansea, Aberystwyth to Birmingham and most other class 197 routes are surely much longer than the Maesteg to Cheltenham route where the 231s will end up. So, logically, there should be even less doorway and more seats/toilets/tables on a class 197; but there isn't. The 197 doors are just as wide as the metro units and as for the ratio of train length to number of doors...

Unit Type​	Train Length (Metres)​	Doors Per Side​	Metres Per Door​
Class 197/0	48.052​	4​	12.01​
Class 197/1	71.402​	6​	11.90​
Class 231	80.7​	6​	13.45​

Those figures are so similar that it's utterly de-minimis. Remember FLIRTs have short vehicles.

 

[stuu]

Is improved wi-fi a good thing on regional express trains? Yes, probably*, but not double-width doors UNLESS you do it like the Anglia FLIRTs and reduce the number of doors to compensate for the loss of floor space. Door position is a seperate thing to door width, and my suggestion would be for single-width doors with two per side BUT with one at one third (with internal doors to create vestibules) and the other near the vehicle end (with the toilet and bike space beyond, like it is on a 158). That way, you don't have to carry your luggage as far but, by keeping narrow doors, you don't lose space to standing room.

* if it's decent already further improvement has little benefit but I don't use train wi-fi much so don't know


So, in your mind, what is a 158? And in your mind a regional express train is the same as the ambiance of a suburban train and only InterCity passengers should have anything else?


There are two main reasons why I think they should be electrification-ready with a pantograph well. The first is inertia. Making passive provsion for electrification to happen in future makes electrification more likely. Failing to make passive provision makes electrification less likely in the lifetime of the train (which now extends beyond the point where we are supposed to be net-zero). This applies to ALL new stock, I think all new stock should be required to have a pantograph well (just as all new 3rd rail EMUs have had one for many years now).


My second reason for agruing that the 197s should have a pantograph well is linked to the rest of the bodyshell design which, in my view, is appropriate for services such as Llandelio-Swansea (Swansea metro) and Birmingham-Shrewsbury stoppers (where the 196s are probably going to be suitable in the short term) and not for regional express (inter-urban) services. I therefore feel that 197s (and anything similar, such as Turbostars) should be deployed on the suburban/metro type routes and not routes like the Cambrian. If so deployed, this would completely change the likelyhood of electrification; the Cambrian isn't going to be electrified by 2050 but Birmingham-Shrewsbury might, as would the Swansea metro if it got off the ground.

There are alot of old DMUs requiring replacement yes, but alot of them are working regional express routes for which the same problems apply. Also, the only plan the rail industry has to meet net-zero by 2050 (NR's TDNS) involves reducing the number of DMUs to zero in that timeframe. Personally, I don't think having a few HVO/battery-hybrids (similar to the TfW 230s and Chiltern 165/168 trial units) instead of battery units on the Cornish branches would be much of a problem, since there is no OHLE proposed to charge the batteries on those lines but that just about covers the 196s. There is not sufficient work for the 195s and all 77 proposed 197s without significantly reducing the scope of electrification which I'm doubt many outside the government want.


Narrower (or fewer) doors would free up space for more toilets, I agree that the Sophias are a big issue (they should have salvaged the Grammers off outgoing First Great Western mark 3s) and would agree with going to 3-cars except that I'm not sure what to do with the extra capacity in the winter.

TfW seem to have realised the door problem on the Metro fleet, since this month's (Jan 2022) Modern Railways carries this from Stadler's Project Manager:
"The '231s' have six passenger doorways per side, compared with eight on the '756s'" "the former are designer for routes with longer intervals between stations, and omitting the second doorway from each centre vehicle enabled more seats to be installed." The intervals between stations on Manchester to Swansea, Aberystwyth to Birmingham and most other class 197 routes are surely much longer than the Maesteg to Cheltenham route where the 231s will end up. So, logically, there should be even less doorway and more seats/toilets/tables on a class 197; but there isn't. The 197 doors are just as wide as the metro units and as for the ratio of train length to number of doors...

Unit Type​	Train Length (Metres)​	Doors Per Side​	Metres Per Door​
Class 197/0	48.052​	4​	12.01​
Class 197/1	71.402​	6​	11.90​
Class 231	80.7​	6​	13.45​

Narrow end doors are not universally liked. They are much harder to navigate for people with substantial luggage, pushchairs, small children, movement difficulties including disabilities. Added to which they add considerably to dwell times slowing everyone down. I would prefer all trains to have doors at thirds

 

[HSTEd]

Narrow end doors are not universally liked. They are much harder to navigate for people with substantial luggage, pushchairs, small children, movement difficulties including disabilities. Added to which they add considerably to dwell times slowing everyone down. I would prefer all trains to have doors at thirds

I would prefer a single double width door at one third position to narrow end doors myself.

Kind of like a TGV Duplex

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would prefer a single double width door at one third position to narrow end doors myself.

Kind of like a TGV Duplex

Or a Greater Anglia FLIRT? I agree. But remember FLIRT intermediates are 16-18m vehicles (and TGV ones are similar) so you have more vehicles and thus more doors.

It very much seems that a 24m vehicle with the doors roughly at 1/4 and 3/4 (2-5-1 bays then the cab) is the optimum for regional expresses, this is basically the Class 170 layout. It's more like actual thirds in the Civities (so 3-4-1 if I recall) but that's much of a muchness.

It is a shame that an articulated design with better access is being rejected for HS2.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The loss of floor space is in practice about half a row of seats.

Half a generous row of seats PER DOOR, so a whole extra row per carriage (or, in the case of a 175, more bays and an extra 2cm of legroom for the airline seating when compared to a 197 - I'll be generous and attribute the extra toilet on the 175 to the trolley space on a 197 rather than the door width).

A 158 is a regional express train. It's just not a very good one, because it doesn't deal well with the high short distance loads you tend to get on regional express services. 158s are horrid to use when the Pwllhelis are busy in summer, you have to push past standees to get anywhere, as there is no proper facility for them.

158s with end doors work fairly well for "long, thin" services with low loadings and infrequent stops like the Scottish rural branches, the S&C and the likes.

I'd argue that Machynlleth to Pwllheli is only Regional Express because it runs through to Shrewsbury/Birmingham, the coast line itself would be just plain regional on its own because of the proximity of stops (it's also 'long and thin' in winter so nothing to worry about except in summer). The 'Express' part of 'Regional Express' should see to it that 'short distance loads' aren't really all that short. Not that it matters because regional services/stock should emphasise comfort not standing anyway, which is why the one change the Cambrian actually needed was 3-car units (and aircon that works) - the extra seating capacity from a third car would address the problem with using 158s. It's fine that there is no proper facility for standees, it's a 2.25hr journey so the service should be designed to ensure there are very few, if any, standees.

There won't be no DMUs by 2050, but it could well be that there are only Classes 172 and 195-197 running on biofuel with additional exhaust scrubbing installed.

Agreed, but consider these two scenarios:

• 100 DMUs (195s, 196s and a reduced order of 197s) in 2051, with the later 197s never existing and the last 172s being retired in 2050
• 200 DMUs (all 161x 195-197 plus 172s)

There is significantly more potential for electrified mileage in 2050 with the first option than the second.

There are branch lines with no prospect of electrification outside Cornwall, you know!

Yes, but other than Cornwall they tend to be run as through services to places that do have long-term prospects of electrification, not as self-contained shuttles. Even where you might have one self-contained shuttle, everything else in the area would be under the wires for all or part of the journey.

in the summer school holidays commuting and business travel is reduced

Enough to reduce trains into Cardiff and Manchester by a whole carriage? The increase in leisure traffic isn't restricted to routes like the Cambrian Coast either.

Unit Type​	Train Length (Metres)​	Doors Per Side​	Metres Per Door​
Class 197/0	48.052​	4​	12.01​
Class 197/1	71.402​	6​	11.90​
Class 231	80.7​	6​	13.45​

Those figures are so similar

That's my point, the figures are similar (or, if anything, the 'Metro' train has less space lost to doorways than the 'Long Distance' train) when there should be a clear difference between local and long-distance stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Enough to reduce trains into Cardiff and Manchester by a whole carriage?

Yes. Demand pre-COVID on Fridays and during school holidays on the south WCML (for example) was typically down at least a third. Summer Friday mornings looked like 6am on a Sunday. And this would be reducing from 5 to 4 coaches on only some of the trains (obviously the Mk4 sets would remain at full capacity), so a capacity reduction of maybe a sixth to an eighth across the day.

If you look at the school summer hols, they are 6 weeks long and most people take a two week family holiday of some sort during that time. It's fairly usual for that to be first two, middle two or last two, so we'll consider that for simplicity. Thus the reduction you're looking at is going to be around a quarter to a third just from that.

 

[Anonymous10]

if you want to see what happens to summer loadings just try Pembrokeshire in winter then summer usually in winter in previous years the line to pembroke Dock which also serves tenby saw 1 car class 153s in winter and 3 car 150+153 in summer so I wouldn't be surprised if we saw 3 car 197s used on that route in summer well i hope we do anyway

 

[wobman]

Well the N Wales coast was the busiest I've ever seen it over the last 2 summers, tfw had buses at stations and they still couldn't cope with the demand.
The amount of people having stay cations was the reason and the demand for public transport will increase.
Once the covid madness has subsided more commuters will be returning, the doom and gloom mentality of cut services will backfire once the demand increases especially as most cities will be getting congestion charges and there's the push towards decarbonisation of the cities.w

The plan is for tfw to offer more route frequency to meet the demand, also offer more strengthening of services at intermediate stations. The 197s offer this flexibility which is something tfw needs especially during the summer holiday peaks on certain routes.

Also some posters go on about the future and what happens in 2050, the wales and borders franchise needs new units now.

 

[43096]

a cold storage area for catering staff

What have the catering staff done to deserve to be kept in cold storage, and won't the RMT object to keeping staff cold?

 

[wobman]

What have the catering staff done to deserve to be kept in cold storage, and won't the RMT object to keeping staff cold?

It saves wearing the carpets out walking up and down, who knows maybe microwaves may reappear on trains if there's a power socket there.

 

[XAM2175]

What have the catering staff done to deserve to be kept in cold storage, and won't the RMT object to keeping staff cold?

Just tell them that they're getting more coldness than any driver is