CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[craigybagel]

The UK has limited electrification resources, its much better to focus them on electrifying other lines (like the Chiltern mainline/Snow Hill lines, MML, ECML branches, some of GWML) would be a better use of resources than a lot of Wales.

Exactly this. Which is why holding back ordering new stock in the hope of a mass electrification of the Welsh network in 10 years is madness - especially when that network has been in need of extra capacity for the LAST 10 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly this. Which is why holding back ordering new stock in the hope of a mass electrification of the Welsh network in 10 years is madness - especially when that network has been in need of extra capacity for the LAST 10 years.

I'd not hold back on it, I'd just have ordered Stadler bimodes for the lot, the 231s too. Bonus level boarding, too, how good would that look if Wales was to announce it was looking towards level boarding for all?

 

[Anonymous10]

I'd not hold back on it, I'd just have ordered Stadler bimodes for the lot, the 231s too. Bonus level boarding, too, how good would that look if Wales was to announce it was looking towards level boarding for all?

however money is a consideration perhaps 175 diagrams ie north wales to Manchester/ Birmingham/ cardiff and Manchester to Cardiff/ Carmarthen/ Milford haven should have been 231 with 197 for branches but that complicates stuff so what ifs are great till you consider the reality

 

[craigybagel]

I'd not hold back on it, I'd just have ordered Stadler bimodes for the lot, the 231s too. Bonus level boarding, too, how good would that look if Wales was to announce it was looking towards level boarding for all?

Oh absolutely. As genuinely impressed as I have been by the 197s, I'd have loved to have seen an all Stadler bi-mode fleet on order (so long as Stadler could adopt the design to include end gangways).

Similarly I'd love to have a Mercedes sitting on the driveway of my mansion, and to be flying business class to Australia for my holidays this year. Sadly magic money trees only exist in the gardens of members of the Cabinet.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The FLIRTS are so very overrated, but I really don’t see why Rhymney and Vale of Glamorgan needed a separate fleet to the long distance once if they’re not even going to have differing interiors to cater for the different style of journeys (they’re both 2+2 with tables). A fleet of all 197s (except a bi mode version) would have been fine. Or similarly a fleet of all FLIRTS if you like.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Thanks for the gross misrepresentation there. I don't recall saying there was "no point" in trying to hit those targets - just that there's no point holding the Wales and Borders network back waiting for an electrification that isn't going to happen. If we waited 10 years as you've suggested we'd be in the exact same mess we're in now, only without the benefits the big uniform fleet of 197s is going to bring. And the network has been waiting long enough as it is.

My appologies for the misrepresentation. However, I can't see how you saying that electrification "isn't going to happen" is any different to saying that Network Rail is going to miss its decarbonisation targets (says here they are targeting 2050 in line with the UK commitment). Completing the TDNS recommendations by 2050 means getting rid of virtually all the CAF DMUs by 2050, that won't even give the 197s a 30 year life, let alone 35-40. Building a large number of new DMUs, as the UK has done with the CAF Civity classes 195-197, is something that one would only do if one had decided/accepted we are going to miss those targets. Unless of course there was a large amount of work for units which spend little or no time under-the-wires (so would not use the OHLE for charging batteries etc.) in the decarbonisation plan, which there is not.

Waiting, and hanging onto 158s, until they can electrify some bits of their network and procure hydrogen/battery stock for the rest is exactly what ScotRail are doing...

I'm not some kind of caveman politician who doesn't care about the environment - far from it. I'm just a realist about the speed with which the British network is likely to be electrified, and I want to see the best possible improvements made within those constraints.

Unfortunately, when I look at the current suituation and say to myself 'how quickly are we likely to decarbonise' I come to the conclusion that we are going to miss the 2050 target. Being completely realistic about the likely rate of electrification (given the Government/Treasury's apparent attitude and the existance of the 'class 195 blight') then I would agree that we are unlikely (on a GB-level) to get anywhere near the necessary electrification to eliminate the Civity DMUs by 2055.

Indeed, I suspect that was my view back in 2018 and my focus was probably more on the interior spec back then. Certainly there was a point when I wouldn't have been particularly worried about Wales introducing new straight-DMUs on some routes, provided the 158s and/or 175s were kept and cascaded to the likes of HOWL and Conwy valley. This would have given somewhere the new fleet could be moved to in favour of new bi-modes once something high-priority like Cardiff-Swansea was wired.

However, the TDNS has now shown that, leaving aside the Government/Treasury issue, the electrification of much of the GB network (including the Welsh network minus stuff like the Cambrian and some shorter bits) by 2050 is a realistic goal. Note the difference between likely and realistic, the former leads to dismay and large orders for new straight-DMUs. The latter is perfectly acheivable if we put our minds to it (or would have been without the CAF DMU fleets).

In this case, a brand new fleet of modern low emission diesels running an improved timetable that will transform the network and help get people out of their cars is likely to help a lot more than by dragging our heals for another 10 years patching things up where we can with a knackered fleet - only to be left in the same place we're in now. It should also be a lot cheaper in the long run, leaving more money to spend on other projects that should also help the environment.

At no point in the last 5 years (and quite possibly longer) have I thought that the Wales & Borders franchise should have simply carried on with the fleet inheritted from Arriva Trains Wales. Yes, I believed (and still do) that the class 158s and* 175s should be retained but they needed to be suplemented by new diesel or bi-mode units** and the Pacers and Class 150s clearly had to go and be replaced by an electric fleet for the SE Wales Metro.

The fact is, by waiting 10 years (as, again, ScotRail is doing) before replacing the fleet we would get to benefit from the development of hydrogen and battery technology. You get another 10 years of burning diesel*** followed by a 'decarbonised solution', instead of another 30-40 years of burning diesel in a Civity before you can do anything significant.

* at times this has been and/or
** at times, this has been new units and/or more 158s
*** and 158s are lightweight units which perform very well in terms of fuel economy

holding back ordering new stock in the hope of a mass electrification of the Welsh network in 10 years is madness

Where did I suggest mass electrification of the Welsh network in 10 years? Right now, the most-optimistic scenario I can dream of for TfW would see only Cardiff-Swansea, Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury and perhaps some Metro extensions actually completed within 10 years. One point is that if the entire fleet is incompatible with OHLE than you cannot even do a little bit of electrification. By the time the class 197s actually enter service it will be less than 10 years before we could have had 40% of the route between Swansea and Manchester wired. Another point is that it also rules out electrification in the 10-35 year timeframe as well.

also worth noting that even a diesel train is far more environmentally friendly than all those cars the passengers could be driving but thats off topic

That's true at the moment (provided those passengers would otherwise be driving and are not just abstracted from buses). However, Graham Parkhurst, Professor of sustainable mobility and director of the centre for transport and society at University Of The West Of England had this to say on the subject:

“my biggest concern is the rise of the electric car. Possibly energy coming from somebody’s home PV panel system. So, in effect they’re using a vehicle which they regard as completely clean, completely green; and public transport really must then decarbonise if it is going to be able to compete in that psychological battle. That, if I have an electric car, I might feel I’ve done my part, I’ve done my decarbonisation why on earth should I ever use a bus or train again if they’re still supplied by diesel?”

(Quote is from: http://www.senedd.tv/Meeting/Clip/4...9ec8f46ba2?inPoint=00:00:00&outPoint=04:04:31 - fast forward to 00:15:30)

Returning to the question of whether passengers would actually be won out of their cars, the complete replacement of 158s and 175s at TfW with 77x class 197 would:

• increase some overcrowded services from 2 or 3 coaches to 4 or 5 (a very big PLUS to the 197s)
• reduce the provision of toilets, to less than that recommended by the Rail Delivery Group's best practice document (MINUS point to the 197s)
• reduce the provision of bay seating in each unit (MINUS point)
• result in an inferior product for scenic lines, due to poor window alignment (MINUS)
• reduce the legroom in airline-style seating compared to a 175 (and the number of seats in a 2-car unit compared to a 158), while increasing standing capacity (MINUS)
• remove enclosed vestibules (a MINUS in terms of the passenger experence, for at least two reasons)
• reduce the space for large luggage that cannot fit in the overhead racks (MINUS)
• increase the capacity of the overhead racks, allowing larger items of luggage to fit (unconfirmed, but beleived to be true; a PLUS to the 197s if it is)
• downgrade to Fainsa seats (a very big MINUS)
• eliminate the problem of the 175s not having unit end gangways (a PLUS to the 197s)

Feel free to add to this list, I'm sure I've missed some (on both sides of the argument, but particularly on the plus side).

Similarly I'd love to have a Mercedes sitting on the driveway of my mansion, and to be flying business class to Australia for my holidays this year. Sadly magic money trees only exist in the gardens of members of the Cabinet.

And for the people who can afford the Mercedes (or any halfway modern car for that matter) (let's ignore the bit about the mansion), are they really going to give that up for the above?

Perhaps the underlying reason I've been on this crusade against the 197s since the first renders appeared was that they crushed my dreams of a really attractive service that would take on the car on the M4 head-on by trying to provide a fast and pleasant experience.

Nowt wrong with doors at thirds for regional expresses. Nobody would be saying 170s were wrong for it.

You could say that, and you would be wrong. There absolutely are people who say that 170s are wrong for trying to be regional express units. I'm one of them, but since the opinion of obsessive enthusiasts such as myself seems to hold little weight in these arguments I offer my brother as another example. We once (many years ago) sent him on a Cardiff-Nottingham train and afterwards he told me ‘the doors were in the wrong place’ (he wouldn’t have been able to identify what type of train it was and I wasn’t there to see it, so I cannot swear 100% that it was definitely a 170 but has anything else worked that route in years?).

The UK has limited electrification resources, its much better to focus them on electrifying other lines (like the Chiltern mainline/Snow Hill lines, MML, ECML branches, some of GWML) would be a better use of resources than a lot of Wales.

In the short-term yes; but a new train fleet is a long-term decision. Once the big-ticket stuff is done (perhaps late 2030s, early 2040s, if we get a Government who is serious about decarbonisation) electrification needs to roll on to routes like the Welsh Marches, but it cannot now we are plauged by all those CAF DMUs. Based on how things are going with the Sprinters, in 2045 the class 196s and 197s will have another 12-17 years life left in them. If we hadn't built all those DMUs, we could be wiring up more routes then.

 

[craigybagel]

My appologies for the misrepresentation. However, I can't see how you saying that electrification "isn't going to happen" is any different to saying that Network Rail is going to miss its decarbonisation targets (says here they are targeting 2050 in line with the UK commitment). Completing the TDNS recommendations by 2050 means getting rid of virtually all the CAF DMUs by 2050, that won't even give the 197s a 30 year life, let alone 35-40. Building a large number of new DMUs, as the UK has done with the CAF Civity classes 195-197, is something that one would only do if one had decided/accepted we are going to miss those targets. Unless of course there was a large amount of work for units which spend little or no time under-the-wires (so would not use the OHLE for charging batteries etc.) in the decarbonisation plan, which there is not.

It isn't any different, I agree. Those targets are more than likely going to be missed

I'm not suggesting we don't try, I'm saying we've already lost. We probably lost it about 30 years ago when the lines I've talked about that are a higher priority for electrification should have been done but weren't.

We need to be realistic and make the best of a bad situation, which is where the 197s come in.

Waiting, and hanging onto 158s, until they can electrify some bits of their network and procure hydrogen/battery stock for the rest is exactly what ScotRail are doing...

It is, but Wales sadly isn't Scotland. If we wait until Wales electrifies the 158s won't be fit for public use.

Unfortunately, when I look at the current suituation and say to myself 'how quickly are we likely to decarbonise' I come to the conclusion that we are going to miss the 2050 target. Being completely realistic about the likely rate of electrification (given the Government/Treasury's apparent attitude and the existance of the 'class 195 blight') then I would agree that we are unlikely (on a GB-level) to get anywhere near the necessary electrification to eliminate the Civity DMUs by 2055.

Indeed, I suspect that was my view back in 2018 and my focus was probably more on the interior spec back then. Certainly there was a point when I wouldn't have been particularly worried about Wales introducing new straight-DMUs on some routes, provided the 158s and/or 175s were kept and cascaded to the likes of HOWL and Conwy valley. This would have given somewhere the new fleet could be moved to in favour of new bi-modes once something high-priority like Cardiff-Swansea was wired.

However, the TDNS has now shown that, leaving aside the Government/Treasury issue, the electrification of much of the GB network (including the Welsh network minus stuff like the Cambrian and some shorter bits) by 2050 is a realistic goal. Note the difference between likely and realistic, the former leads to dismay and large orders for new straight-DMUs. The latter is perfectly acheivable if we put our minds to it (or would have been without the CAF DMU fleets).

2050 is pretty realistic alright. I don't see why the CAFs are a barrier to this - it's 28 years away! And you're assuming that by that stage it will be impossible to modify the CAFs to run on some form of electricity. Given there are also projects in hand to modify other DMUs to run as hybrids even now I find this hard to believe.

At no point in the last 5 years (and quite possibly longer) have I thought that the Wales & Borders franchise should have simply carried on with the fleet inheritted from Arriva Trains Wales. Yes, I believed (and still do) that the class 158s and* 175s should be retained but they needed to be suplemented by new diesel or bi-mode units** and the Pacers and Class 150s clearly had to go and be replaced by an electric fleet for the SE Wales Metro.

The fact is, by waiting 10 years (as, again, ScotRail is doing) before replacing the fleet we would get to benefit from the development of hydrogen and battery technology. You get another 10 years of burning diesel*** followed by a 'decarbonised solution', instead of another 30-40 years of burning diesel in a Civity before you can do anything significant.

* at times this has been and/or
** at times, this has been new units and/or more 158s
*** and 158s are lightweight units which perform very well in terms of fuel economy

Yes but for reasons I've pointed out several times you don't get anywhere near the benefits of a large compatible fleet - both in terms of timetable improvements and costs.

Where did I suggest mass electrification of the Welsh network in 10 years? Right now, the most-optimistic scenario I can dream of for TfW would see only Cardiff-Swansea, Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury and perhaps some Metro extensions actually completed within 10 years. One point is that if the entire fleet is incompatible with OHLE than you cannot even do a little bit of electrification. By the time the class 197s actually enter service it will be less than 10 years before we could have had 40% of the route between Swansea and Manchester wired. Another point is that it also rules out electrification in the 10-35 year timeframe as well.

As you say, even at the most optimistic it still means the vast majority of the network the 197s work will not be electrified. See above as to why the 197s don't necessarily rule out electrification, and why they're needed now.

That's true at the moment (provided those passengers would otherwise be driving and are not just abstracted from buses). However, Graham Parkhurst, Professor of sustainable mobility and director of the centre for transport and society at University Of The West Of England had this to say on the subject:

“my biggest concern is the rise of the electric car. Possibly energy coming from somebody’s home PV panel system. So, in effect they’re using a vehicle which they regard as completely clean, completely green; and public transport really must then decarbonise if it is going to be able to compete in that psychological battle. That, if I have an electric car, I might feel I’ve done my part, I’ve done my decarbonisation why on earth should I ever use a bus or train again if they’re still supplied by diesel?”

(Quote is from: http://www.senedd.tv/Meeting/Clip/4...9ec8f46ba2?inPoint=00:00:00&outPoint=04:04:31 - fast forward to 00:15:30)

Returning to the question of whether passengers would actually be won out of their cars, the complete replacement of 158s and 175s at TfW with 77x class 197 would:

• increase some overcrowded services from 2 or 3 coaches to 4 or 5 (a very big PLUS to the 197s)
• reduce the provision of toilets, to less than that recommended by the Rail Delivery Group's best practice document (MINUS point to the 197s)
• reduce the provision of bay seating in each unit (MINUS point)
• result in an inferior product for scenic lines, due to poor window alignment (MINUS)
• reduce the legroom in airline-style seating compared to a 175 (and the number of seats in a 2-car unit compared to a 158), while increasing standing capacity (MINUS)
• remove enclosed vestibules (a MINUS in terms of the passenger experence, for at least two reasons)
• reduce the space for large luggage that cannot fit in the overhead racks (MINUS)
• increase the capacity of the overhead racks, allowing larger items of luggage to fit (unconfirmed, but beleived to be true; a PLUS to the 197s if it is)
• downgrade to Fainsa seats (a very big MINUS)
• eliminate the problem of the 175s not having unit end gangways (a PLUS to the 197s)

Feel free to add to this list, I'm sure I've missed some (on both sides of the argument, but particularly on the plus side).

And for the people who can afford the Mercedes (or any halfway modern car for that matter) (let's ignore the bit about the mansion), are they really going to give that up for the above?

Perhaps the underlying reason I've been on this crusade against the 197s since the first renders appeared was that they crushed my dreams of a really attractive service that would take on the car on the M4 head-on by trying to provide a fast and pleasant experience.

You could say that, and you would be wrong. There absolutely are people who say that 170s are wrong for trying to be regional express units. I'm one of them, but since the opinion of obsessive enthusiasts such as myself seems to hold little weight in these arguments I offer my brother as another example. We once (many years ago) sent him on a Cardiff-Nottingham train and afterwards he told me ‘the doors were in the wrong place’ (he wouldn’t have been able to identify what type of train it was and I wasn’t there to see it, so I cannot swear 100% that it was definitely a 170 but has anything else worked that route in years?).

We're getting into the realms of subjectivity here, but the vast majority of passengers really don't care about the parts of the 197s you and your brother don't like. Even within the community of this forum, which has plenty of "obsessive enthusiasts" (including, and I'm proud to admit to this, myself), you've still had plenty of people disagreeing with your viewpoint about the 197s from day one.

What gets people out of their cars? Frequency, speed, reliability, ease of use, decent fares.

Frequency - the compatible fleet is required for the new timetable. If you used incompatible fleets, parts of it would need to be completely rewritten so you wouldn't get the same connectivity, and it would also cost a lot more to implement.

Speed - the 197s can both out accelerate every member of the existing fleet, and can offer shorter dwell times through their better door placement.

Reliability - the existing fleet is aging and really starting to struggle. Once the teething problems that come with every new fleet are worked out, the 197s should offer a big improvement. Plus, given its one large compatible fleet, maintenance staff will find them a lot easier to work on, and maintenance costs will be lower. Also we'll finally have a reliable HVAC system which has never been a strong point for any part of the current fleet.

Ease of use - all the modern features the 197s come with such as the improved information screens and ASDO will make the passenger experience better. Admittedly those features could be added to the existing fleet but only at a high cost.

Decent fares - all that extra capacity should make help to reduce fares. Lots of seats to fill with cheap advance tickets. Plus there's all the other schemes the Welsh government are undertaking to encourage the use of public transport which isn't directly connected to the 197s, but is probably worth mentioning all the same to show how they're part of a bigger plan.

You're never going to achieve all of the above through just patching up and expanding in a piecemeal fashion the existing fleet as you will with the 197s - at least not at anywhere near the same costs anyway.

 

[XAM2175]

2050 is pretty realistic alright. I don't see why the CAFs are a barrier to this - it's 28 years away! And you're assuming that by that stage it will be impossible to modify the CAFs to run on some form of electricity. Given there are also projects in hand to modify other DMUs to run as hybrids even now I find this hard to believe.

Yes. I can accept the argument that not specifying the 197s to be bi-mode-ready (ie electric transmission, pantograph well, transformer mountings, etc etc) is a barrier to pursuing a discontinuous electrification strategy in the nearer future(as the 756s will allow from new, and the 231s will without much work) - but in the longer term it's not at all outside the bounds of possibility that the 197s could be converted to have hybrid drivetrains at the very least.

 

[Rhydgaled]

We need to be realistic and make the best of a bad situation, which is where the 197s come in.

It's a bad situation to be sure, but I don't agree that the class 197s are making the best of it.

It is, but Wales sadly isn't Scotland. If we wait until Wales electrifies the 158s won't be fit for public use.

I'm not suggesting keeping the 158s until the Welsh network is electrified in full, just until sometime around 2030 (which is not much different to ScotRail, where the first 158s are reported to be withdrawn 2028/29 but the last few not until 2035). Meanwhile a new fleet should have been designed and built that:

1. can make use of electrification infrustructure where available (no consuming battery charge or hydrogen reserves while under the wires) (thus contributing positively to the cost:benefit ratio of extensions of electrification)
2. raises the bar for passenger experience, or at least maintains it at the level of a class 175 (excluding the impact of current overcrowding)
3. is powered by battery and/or hydrogen while away from the wires, not diesel
4. could be easily converted to a straight EMU in the late 2040s (not all of them would be, some would retain the hydrogen/battery gear)

If the 197s could meet all the above (with the exception of item 3, given the earlier introduction date of 2022 vice 2030) I wouldn't be nearly so concerned.

Where did I suggest mass electrification of the Welsh network in 10 years? Right now, the most-optimistic scenario I can dream of for TfW would see only Cardiff-Swansea, Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury and perhaps some Metro extensions actually completed within 10 years. One point is that if the entire fleet is incompatible with OHLE than you cannot even do a little bit of electrification. By the time the class 197s actually enter service it will be less than 10 years before we could have had 40% of the route between Swansea and Manchester wired. Another point is that it also rules out electrification in the 10-35 year timeframe as well.

As you say, even at the most optimistic it still means the vast majority of the network the 197s work will not be electrified.

Yes, the vast majority of the relevant parts of the network will not be electrified within 10 years. A new train is for 35-40 years, not 10. Within 28 years (to 2050) the suituation with bi-modes instead of 197s could have been very different.

Excluding routes which were not initally planned to see 197s (eg. Pembroke Dock and Bidston), the units would operate over around 735 route miles of railway. In 2030, with electrification extended to Swansea (but nowhere else) around 150 of those would be electrified (only about 20%). But by 2050, TDNS recommends that be increased to over 500 electrified (over 70%).

2050 is pretty realistic alright. I don't see why the CAFs are a barrier to this - it's 28 years away! And you're assuming that by that stage it will be impossible to modify the CAFs to run on some form of electricity. Given there are also projects in hand to modify other DMUs to run as hybrids even now I find this hard to believe.

It's a barrier because the 197s will still have another 7 years life left in them in 2050 (2022+35 = 2057), and because the 350+ route miles to be wired between 2030 and 2050 are not all going to be wired overnight in 2049. Any electrification programme will therefore start running up against routes operated by 197s significantly before 2050 (the first being Cardiff-Swansea as early as 2029), when the units in question will have alot more than 7 years life left in them. How exactly do you make a business case for wiring Cardiff-Swansea by 2029 when the only passenger trains able to make use of it west of Bridgend, as things currently stand, would be GWR's Paddington services?

As for modification of class 197s, Network Rail have this to say "There will be an opportunity for mid-life refurbishment of these vehicles to provide bi-mode battery – diesel capability. The design of these vehicles make it challenging to upgrade the trains to provide OLE capability". I have considered the possibility of the class 197s being converted to battery hybrids like the Chiltern prototypes - this would reduce fuel consumption but does nothing to reduce the 'barrier to electrification' impact. I believe the 197s are aluminium-bodied and apparent welding work on aluminium-bodied units requires all electrical equipment to be stripped off to avoid it being damaged by stray currents from the welding (I presume cutting a pantograph well would have a similar impact). There is also the fact that won't be a traction power cable between the coaches (which apparently is one of the issues that killed e-Voyager) so current collected by the pantograph would only be able to reach motors on the car with the pantograph - any other vehicles would have to be trailers unless you rewired the unit.

Sure, it presumably is technically acheivable, but all the difficulties that applied to e-Voyager (and then some) would apply here. The costs of doing it also damage the business case for electrification until the trains are due for replacement anyway so you can avoid challanging modifications by just building a new fleet.

What gets people out of their cars? Frequency, speed, reliability, ease of use, decent fares.

Actually, I think we need to break this down into:

1. What gets people out of their cars?
   • Frequency,
   • Speed,
   • Decent fares
2. What sends passengers back into their cars?
   • Poor reliability,
   • Poor useability,
   • Bad experiences, eg:
     • overcrowding,
     • uncomfortable journey,
     • restricted/no view (particularly if the journey was advertised as scenic)

I'll comment on the rest in red below:

Frequency - the compatible fleet is required for the new timetable. If you used incompatible fleets, parts of it would need to be completely rewritten so you wouldn't get the same connectivity, and it would also cost a lot more to implement. This is hard to judge without seeing the new timetable and having TfW explain how things like the Cambrian/Holyhead/Birmingham interaction are going to work - and even so it would require meerly a compatible fleet, not specifically the 197s

Speed - the 197s can both out accelerate every member of the existing fleet, and can offer shorter dwell times through their better door placement. Presumably an alternative new fleet with electric traction (DEMUs with passive provision for pantograph) would also out-accelerate the existing units, and the door placement is different not better - if it was simply better why would BR have built the 155s-159s, 442s etc.? There are pros and cons to both arangements and, assuming TfW are going to solve the overcrowding issues, my view is that the benefits don't outweigh the drawbacks in this case.

Reliability - the existing fleet is aging and really starting to struggle. Once the teething problems that come with every new fleet are worked out, the 197s should offer a big improvement. I doubt that very much; look at the difference in reliability between GWR and SWR class 158s - the only explanation I've ever seen for why the latter performs so much better is that SWR/SWT have much more slack in their fleet and can have 'hot-spares' to swap out with a struggling unit when they pass Salisbury - the plan for the 197s seems to be high utilisation similar to the current TfW fleet with little or no scope for 'hot-spares', certainly not on the Cambrian Plus, given its one large compatible fleet, maintenance staff will find them a lot easier to work on, and maintenance costs will be lower. Also we'll finally have a reliable HVAC system which has never been a strong point for any part of the current fleet. I know the air-con has been an issue with the 158s, but the heating always seems pretty good to me and has HVAC really been a weak point with the rest of the fleet?

Ease of use - all the modern features the 197s come with such as the improved information screens and ASDO will make the passenger experience better. Admittedly those features could be added to the existing fleet but only at a high cost.

Decent fares - all that extra capacity should make help to reduce fares. Lots of seats to fill with cheap advance tickets. Plus there's all the other schemes the Welsh government are undertaking to encourage the use of public transport which isn't directly connected to the 197s, but is probably worth mentioning all the same to show how they're part of a bigger plan.

You're never going to achieve all of the above through just patching up and expanding in a piecemeal fashion the existing fleet as you will with the 197s - at least not at anywhere near the same costs anyway.

Yes. I can accept the argument that not specifying the 197s to be bi-mode-ready (ie electric transmission, pantograph well, transformer mountings, etc etc) is a barrier to pursuing a discontinuous electrification strategy in the nearer future(as the 756s will allow from new, and the 231s will without much work) - but in the longer term it's not at all outside the bounds of possibility that the 197s could be converted to have hybrid drivetrains at the very least.

Hybrids, like the Chiltern prototypes, are just as much a barrier to electrification as a straight-DMU. There is no point electrifying a line unless it is going to be worked by a fleet which is OLE-compatible. Without cutting a lot of through services back to branch shuttles (eg. cutting the Cambrian back from Birmingham to Shrewsbury), the TDNS offers about 30 diagrams of work on services that have no significant electrified mileage (and 15 of those diagrams are already covered by GA's Stadler bi-modes anyway). Between the 195s, 196s and 197s we're looking at having at least 161 units that aren't OLE compatible in the late 2040s.

 

[Caaardiff]

It's a bad situation to be sure, but I don't agree that the class 197s are making the best of it.

The TfW 158s are in my opinion the most comfortable from a passenger perspective, but they are ageing and becoming more and more unreliable. That isn't helping passenger perception and you haven't included that in any of your analysis about why passengers would be deterred from the railway.

Also, I may be wrong because there's just so much overload of information in your posts, but are you basing all of your 197 analysis (opinion) on the 197s remaining with TfW for their whole life? Could they not be cascaded to other TOCs as I would doubt the entire UK network would be electrificed by 2057. So although many would still be required for TfW (West Wales, HOWL, North Wales branches, cambrian) some of the fleet could end up elsewhere?

The timetable may be very different in 10-15 years to what it is now, especially with the planned Swansea metro if it happens. I'd like to see improved frequencies to Pembroke and Fishguard (the former mainly for tourism purposes) subject to line improvements.
All that being said I'd rather see more 231/756s in the fleet to allow 197s to move elsewhere in the TfW network. I think 231s would be ideal for Swanline services Cardiff - Swansea.
I would say the current fleet position only covers the next 10 years and things could change after that.

 

[craigybagel]

It's a bad situation to be sure, but I don't agree that the class 197s are making the best of it.

Of course you don't agree. If you did we wouldn't have spent the last 3 years with this argument.

However - the 197s are weeks away from their introduction to service. I recommend for your own sake coming to terms with it.

 

[XAM2175]

Hybrids, like the Chiltern prototypes, are just as much a barrier to electrification as a straight-DMU.

But they are less-bad than straight DMUs. That's the best you're going to get now, sorry.

 

[Dai Corner]

But they are less-bad than straight DMUs. That's the best you're going to get now, sorry.

Indeed.

The best way to decarbonise rural railways using current technology (excuse the pun) would probably be to close them and replace them with rechargeable buses.

 

[Rhydgaled]

But they are less-bad than straight DMUs. That's the best you're going to get now, sorry.

Indeed.

The best way to decarbonise rural railways using current technology (excuse the pun) would probably be to close them and replace them with rechargeable buses.

The impact on mode share of the various options and the resultant GHG outcomes is unknown to me (or any of us, I suspect), but replace the 158s and 175s on-mass with class 197s, as now seems virtually inevitable, and I fear Dai Corner may well be correct that mass rail closures could then indeed be the lowest GHG option. As a lifelong rail enthusiast, I have been unable to come to terms with that idea.

 

[Dai Corner]

The impact on mode share of the various options and the resultant GHG outcomes is unknown to me (or any of us, I suspect), but replace the 158s and 175s on-mass with class 197s, as now seems virtually inevitable, and I fear Dai Corner may well be correct that mass rail closures could then indeed be the lowest GHG option. As a lifelong rail enthusiast, I have been unable to come to terms with that idea.

The economics of maintaining both a rail and a road infrastructure have been increasingly dubious since the 1960s. Technology advances and the Covid epidemic have demonstrated that even commuting and business travel are largely unnecessary.

I suspect that the best way of decarbonising the railways will be to electrify those worth keeping and closing the rest.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Technology advances and the Covid epidemic have demonstrated that even commuting and business travel are largely unnecessary.

Yes and no. What I have seen since COVID appeared on the scene is that commuting, business and leisure travel can all be managed without - for a limited time. However, after a while the firm I worked for at the time started seeing a fall in the quantity and/or quality of work (I forget which) and decided they had to order people back into the office every so often.

After 7 journeys on the class 196. I've noticed that the space saver toilet has always been out of order, aside from the first day of operation. Is anyone aware of any issues with them that mean they can't be used, or have I just been unlucky? There seems to always be a queue for the PRM toilet as a result.

This is cross-quoted from the class 196 topic - what I'm trying to highlight is not reliability of toilets (it's probably still too early to pass judgement on that) but the consequences of toilet failure. If I understand correctly, the 4-car 196s have two toilets (one PRM and one space-saver). Two toilets (both PRM in that case) for four carriages is the same ratio as seen on 2-car 197s running in pairs. The 196s run Birmingham-Shrewsbury taking about an hour and a quarter or less. If the failure of a single toilet can result in queues on a relatively local service like that, it obviously could do the same (or worse) on a long-distance service.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I beg that you don’t trigger a baseless rant that we’ve heard a hundred times, especially outside of the Speculative Discussion.

It might be a rant, but it isn't a baseless one - far from it. And don't worry, I've put this reply in the speculative section.

Once again, I say to you, it’s only inferior in your personal opinion, and “unacceptably” is ridiculous hyperbole. There’s nothing wrong with the trains themselves, they just need to be running longer ones.

The class 197s are objectively inferior to class 175s on a number of measures. There are also objectively inferior to class 158s on a number of measures (not necessarily the same ones, although some of them are). For example, a single class 197 has fewer toilets than a single class 158 or class 175 of the same number of carriages. That is neither an opinion or speculative, it is a verifiable fact.

Admittedly, the post you were replying to in the above quote did contain an element of personal opinion. Specifically, the word unacceptably in the phrase "unacceptably inferior rolling stock". Clearly, there are plenty of people who consider the new trains to be acceptable, despite the fact that they are demonstrability inferior to the current fleet. I do not consider them to be acceptable for long journeys.

the trick is not to play your hand too early and spout about what you don’t like before they’re even in service because it might just come back to bite you on the bum when you do actually try them out. Apart from annoying all the people keeping open minds until you’ve actually tried one you may find you actually don’t mind them after all.

As noted above, the class 197s are objectively inferior to class 158s and class 175s - keeping an open mind wouldn't change that - the only hope was to lobby hard and either get the order cancelled or massive changes to the design. It now looks like we are going to be stuck with them and, once they're all in service, there will be nothing anyone can do about it. If the class 197s had been built as electro-diesels with passive provision for conversion to EMUs then keeping an open mind might have been a viable strategy, since they could have been redeployed to shorter routes such as the Cardiff Metro once somebody in power realised that treating long-distance passengers like short-distance commuters does not win people out of their cars. However, they have been built as straight-diesels which makes them unsuitable for such redeployment.

Your options then are either losing face and admitting you jumped the gun but at least then people know your genuine opinion of them. Alternatively if you don’t want to lose face you have to keep a false thought going for a long long time meaning nobody knows what you actually think from here on in because you shouted too loudly, too soon. The crux of that is though that if you genuinely don’t like them people might think you’re on the cover up because you actually do like them.

I haven't been on a 197 yet - I have been on a 195 (twice now) and I know I don't like them for long trips. I have also been on an Azuma once and a GWR 800/802 two or 3 times and know I don't like those seats for long trips either (although, unlike the 195, (and aside from the seats) I think my opinion of the 9-car class 80x units has improved). If I had somehow miraculously changed my opinion of the class 197s, I doubt I would pretend to still hate them - I would probably just go quite about it (for example, I would probably have simply left the "along with the introduction of unacceptably inferior rolling stock" bit out of the post that triggered this latest 'rant').

 

[Bletchleyite]

The class 197s are objectively inferior to class 175s on a number of measures. There are also objectively inferior to class 158s on a number of measures (not necessarily the same ones, although some of them are). For example, a single class 197 has fewer toilets than a single class 158 or class 175 of the same number of carriages. That is neither an opinion or speculative, it is a verifiable fact.

I totally agree with you on two factors:

1. There needs to be a second (small) toilet.
2. The galley is an utter waste of space, and should have contained 6 seats instead, which could have been countered by removing 6 at the other end of that vehicle to install (1).

With regard to the rest of it, I was pleasantly surprised. It was, as a whole, definitely better than a 195, and has some features that beat a 175 e.g. large overhead racks. Plus unlike end-doored 175s it'll cope well with summer crowds on the Coast.

I do think the colour scheme is drab, but that can be addressed. I have already suggested to TfW that instead of the boring grey end walls they could commission some vinyls of Welsh landmarks, art etc and spruce it up a bit as T&W Metro are doing. I hope they do. Even better would be to name each unit and theme it all on that.

I do agree they should have been bi-modes, I'll give you that one.

I haven't been on a 197 yet - I have been on a 195 (twice now) and I know I don't like them for long trips. I have also been on an Azuma once and a GWR 800/802 two or 3 times and know I don't like those seats for long trips either (although, unlike the 195, (and aside from the seats) I think my opinion of the 9-car class 80x units has improved). If I had somehow miraculously changed my opinion of the class 197s, I doubt I would pretend to still hate them - I would probably just go quite about it (for example, I would probably have simply left the "along with the introduction of unacceptably inferior rolling stock" bit out of the post that triggered this latest 'rant').

I don't like Fainsa Sophias, but it is a different base cushion that has not been used elsewhere yet that I know of, so I'm giving it benefit of the doubt. Remember how much difference the base cushion makes to ironing boards? Because the unit I tried conked out, I spent the best part of 3-4 hours sat in one and didn't feel the seat frame as you usually do. I hope this stays the case.

One big benefit by the way - legroom. Far better than the 158 which is quite poor, and about the same as the 175.

They are not perfect, but I was more impressed than I thought I would be.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I totally agree with you on two factors:

1. There needs to be a second (small) toilet.
2. The galley is an utter waste of space, and should have contained 6 seats instead, which could have been countered by removing 6 at the other end of that vehicle to install (1).

With regard to the rest of it, I was pleasantly surprised. It was, as a whole, definitely better than a 195, and has some features that beat a 175 e.g. large overhead racks. Plus unlike end-doored 175s it'll cope well with summer crowds on the Coast.

I do think the colour scheme is drab, but that can be addressed. I have already suggested to TfW that instead of the boring grey end walls they could commission some vinyls of Welsh landmarks, art etc and spruce it up a bit as T&W Metro are doing. I hope they do. Even better would be to name each unit and theme it all on that.

I do agree they should have been bi-modes, I'll give you that one.



I don't like Fainsa Sophias, but it is a different base cushion that has not been used elsewhere yet that I know of, so I'm giving it benefit of the doubt. Remember how much difference the base cushion makes to ironing boards? Because the unit I tried conked out, I spent the best part of 3-4 hours sat in one and didn't feel the seat frame as you usually do. I hope this stays the case.

One big benefit by the way - legroom. Far better than the 158 which is quite poor, and about the same as the 175.

They are not perfect, but I was more impressed than I thought I would be.

Just a shame about the announcements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just a shame about the announcements.

About the easiest thing to fix!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

About the easiest thing to fix!

Other than the Welsh first issue, which can’t be fixed legally (I won’t open that can of worms again though don’t worry!!!) but yes, although I can’t say TfW reducing the announcements and sacking Elin any time soon, sadly.

 

[Caaardiff]

I haven't been on a 197 yet

For the love of God. Just get on one and spare us your continual drivvle.

Even @Bletchleyite is pleasantly surprised!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I do agree they should have been bi-modes, I'll give you that one.

I'm not sure how much use being bi-mode would be on a journey between Birmingham and Pwllheli. The wires run out at Wolverhampton. Even on Manchester to Swansea, there's only wires from Manchester to Crewe and from Newport to Cardiff. The electrical equipment (transformer etc.) required also takes up space so something else has to be sacrificed- most likely the size of the fuel tanks, which means you limit your range between refuelling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure how much use being bi-mode would be on a journey between Birmingham and Pwllheli. The wires run out at Wolverhampton. Even on Manchester to Swansea, there's only wires from Manchester to Crewe and from Newport to Cardiff. The electrical equipment (transformer etc.) required also takes up space so something else has to be sacrificed- most likely the size of the fuel tanks, which means you limit your range between refuelling.

More because these units will be about for 30-50 years, though helping enable a total DMU ban at New St would have been no bad thing!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

More because these units will be about for 30-50 years, though helping enable a total DMU ban at New St would have been no bad thing!

There is that, I suppose. I'm slightly wary of the "everything should be bi-modes" idea though, because I've even seen it suggested elsewhere that bi-modes be used on Huddersfield to Leeds once the wires are up, because of the once-in-blue-moon diversions via Healey Mills.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is that, I suppose. I'm slightly wary of the "everything should be bi-modes" idea though, because I've even seen it suggested elsewhere that bi-modes be used on Huddersfield to Leeds once the wires are up, because of the once-in-blue-moon diversions via Healey Mills.

Bi-modes are used on Huddersfield to Leeds now. Albeit only on the longer distance services, not the stoppers.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Bi-modes are used on Huddersfield to Leeds now. Albeit only on the longer distance services, not the stoppers.

Sure, but the wires aren't up yet. Once they are, services that don't leave the electrified network should be operated with pure EMUs (at least until someone invents an ultra-lightweight battery for back-up/recovery purposes).

 

[Rhydgaled]

The first unit only entered service on 14th Nov 2022 didn't it? Since then, the nearest I've been to the routes they've been working is probably Shrewsbury (ie. I haven't had the opportunity to get on one).

I totally agree with you on two factors:

1. There needs to be a second (small) toilet.

2. The galley is an utter waste of space, and should have contained 6 seats instead, which could have been countered by removing 6 at the other end of that vehicle to install

Not just a second toilet but, on the 3-car sets, they also need a third toilet. In other words, 1 toilet per carriage or whatever the Key Train Requirements says (think it was one toilet for every 85 seats). As for the wasted space, the small toilet is slightly bigger than the galley, so even if those two corrections were made there would still be fewer bays than 158s and 175s, tighter seat pitch than 175s and fewer seats than a 158. In other words, it isn't just the galley that is wasting space.

It was, as a whole, definitely better than a 195, and has some features that beat a 175 e.g. large overhead racks. Plus unlike end-doored 175s it'll cope well with summer crowds on the Coast.

Even without having been on a 197, I agree that they are better than the 195s - unlike 195s the 197s have end-gangways and the 3-car units have a second toilet. 'Better' in this case though is really 'less bad'.

Regarding your other point, if by 'Coast' you mean the north Wales coast, then the all-stops service between Llandudno and Chester (and in future Liverpool) is somewhere units with the suburban door layout might feel appropriate, provided something more like the 175s and/or mark 4s was provided on the faster services along there.

I don't like Fainsa Sophias, but it is a different base cushion that has not been used elsewhere yet that I know of, so I'm giving it benefit of the doubt. Remember how much difference the base cushion makes to ironing boards?

The only Fainsa 'ironing board' I can recall sitting on recently was on a 195 from York to Leeds (although I forget whether the Crossrail units have ironing boards - all I know is that I wasn't on it for long) - and it was awful. Which version of the ironing board was that?

Because the unit I tried conked out, I spent the best part of 3-4 hours sat in one and didn't feel the seat frame as you usually do. I hope this stays the case.

One big benefit by the way - legroom. Far better than the 158 which is quite poor, and about the same as the 175.

3-4 hours on a Fainsa seat? Sounds like torture.

Addmittedly legroom (and sometimes aircon) did rather let the 158s down, particularly when they had the (otherwise really comfy) original BR seats. The Grammer ones improved legroom a bit by being thiner, but the class 197s do actually have the 'airline-style' seats spaced further apart than the 158s. So you are correct - that is a benefit of the 197s over the 158s. However, in actual fact the 'airline-style' spacing on the class 175s is better still - I think it is about 80cm on a 158 and 84cm on a 175. Since the spacing is 82cm on a 197, if the same seats were used on all three types*, the 197s would in fact slap-bang in the middle in terms of legroom between the 175s and 158s. If the 197s really do have the same legroom as the 175s, that means the new Sophia seats would have to be at least 2cm thiner (and therefore even firmer) than the 175's seats.

* they are all different of course

I'm not sure how much use being bi-mode would be on a journey between Birmingham and Pwllheli. The wires run out at Wolverhampton. Even on Manchester to Swansea, there's only wires from Manchester to Crewe and from Newport to Cardiff. The electrical equipment (transformer etc.) required also takes up space so something else has to be sacrificed- most likely the size of the fuel tanks, which means you limit your range between refuelling.

Right at this moment, then a straight DMU (the 158s) probably makes the most sense on the Cambrian. As you say, there is only a small bit wired at one end. One problem is that straight-diesel units harm the business case for extending electrification from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury. Think of the cost:benefit ratio (CBR) - a simplistic view:

• costs (most of these would be the same if TfW had procured new bi-modes instead of 197s)
  • electrification infrustructure (masts, wires etc.)
  • electrical clearances (bridge lifts, track lowers etc.)
  • signalling immunisation (where necessary - may not be required in parts of the Shrewsbury station area due to mechanical signalling - human muscle pulling levers isn't going to be impacted by electromagnetic interference)
  • new EMUs for Birmingham-Shrewsbury services
  • new EMUs (or modifications to class 805 bi-modes) for Euston-Shrewsbury services
• benefits (those in red could only be realised if the Cambrian services were operated by bi-modes)
  • reduced running costs for Birmingham-Shrewsbury services
  • elimination of diesel emissions from Birmingham-Shrewsbury services
  • elimination of diesel emissions from Euston-Shresbury services
  • possiblilty of quicker journies on Birmingham-Shrewsbury services, and maybe even creation of capacity for additional services, due to improved acceleration (although the Civity DMUs are apparently quite quick off the mark anyway)
  • reduction of diesel emissions from Cambrian services
  • reduction in running cost of Cambrian services

Another, partly related, problem is that, within the lifespan of the class 197s, we have to stop burning diesel (or identify sequestration to cancel out the residual emissions). Both of the likely alternatives to diesel (hydrogen and battery) will mean that the range between refuelling/recharging is limited, just as it would be with a diesel bi-mode compared with a straight-diesel. However, with hydrogen and battery options the likely range is so limited that completing a full day's diagram might not be realistic - however if the train can run part of the diagram without consuming any fuel (ie. by running under the wires in electric mode) then perhaps the train will make it through the day, particularly if the chosen 'fuel' is battery rather than hydrogen meaning the unit could also recharge while under the wires.

As for Manchester to Swansea, Welsh Government and/or TfW are planning to electrify between Cardiff and Swansea by 2030, which makes their decision to order 77 diesel-only units with a lifespan stretching beyond 2050 appear even more delusional. As things stand, I think the only units using the wires between Bridgend and Swansea would be GWR's class 80X fleet and Grand Union's PAD-Carmarthen bi-modes.

There is that, I suppose. I'm slightly wary of the "everything should be bi-modes" idea though, because I've even seen it suggested elsewhere that bi-modes be used on Huddersfield to Leeds once the wires are up, because of the once-in-blue-moon diversions via Healey Mills.

Sure, but the wires aren't up yet. Once they are, services that don't leave the electrified network should be operated with pure EMUs (at least until someone invents an ultra-lightweight battery for back-up/recovery purposes).

I agree, we need to be careful to avoid the use of bi-modes where EMUs should be deployed instead, but equally we need be able to maximise the use of the electrification we do have in order to increase the benefits and thereby improve the CBR. My personal view is that procurement of any more high-speed bi-modes should be forbidden, since it is the InterCity mainlines that (from a passenger perspective at least) should be the priorities for full electrification.

As for an ultra-lightweight battery, surely there is already a world of difference between a diesel engine (as provided on current bi-mode stock) or battery pack capable of sustaining full speed for many hours and a battery purely for 'recovery' (for want of a better word)? Conventional EMUs have, I assume, always had small batteries for things like raising the pantograph for the start of service. I think would be inclined to support an EMU specification that required batteries to supply 'hotel power' for several hours in the event of the train being stranded without power. If that same battery could also be used to 'limp' to the next station at the cost of reducing the time available then I would probably be ok with that too.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Another, partly related, problem is that, within the lifespan of the class 197s, we have to stop burning diesel (or identify sequestration to cancel out the residual emissions). Both of the likely alternatives to diesel (hydrogen and battery) will mean that the range between refuelling/recharging is limited, just as it would be with a diesel bi-mode compared with a straight-diesel. However, with hydrogen and battery options the likely range is so limited that completing a full day's diagram might not be realistic - however if the train can run part of the diagram without consuming any fuel (ie. by running under the wires in electric mode) then perhaps the train will make it through the day, particularly if the chosen 'fuel' is battery rather than hydrogen meaning the unit could also recharge while under the wires.

It's only in the last two or three years that all of a sudden the powers that be have decided that diesel is evil. The reality is that rail transport only contributes a tiny fraction of carbon emissions, and all this self-flaggelation from within the industry and from public transport advocates will be pounced upon by the road lobby. The rush to remove diesels without a suitable alternative will only hurt the railway in the long term, and battery technology is not at a level where it can be used for a distance as long as Wolverhampton to Pwllheli, and without a huge leap forward in the technology it never will be. Research coming out of Germany suggests that hydrogen is also a dead end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 195 ironing board is the better one, so I hate to think what you'd think of the original, e.g. Class 700!