CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[mmh]

No it's the Dft that set out the guidelines, I was told this by a member of the 197 integration team.

What is the 197 integration team? Who do they work for?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2022 ==

Tfw and caf are in dispute about the coupling of the 197s,

Hmm. I suspect this isn't true. Do you have any evidence?

 

[wobman]

What is the 197 integration team? Who do they work for?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2022 ==


Hmm. I suspect this isn't true. Do you have any evidence?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary to prove otherwise from what I've posted ?

You do not know what an integration team is but you suspect my comment is untrue, I'm interested why you would say this ?

My knowledge comes from working in the industry but again people say its untrue !

 

[wobman]

What guidelines were these? Keolis Amey proposed the stock as part of the tender for the franchise which was run by WG/TfW not the DfT.

The dft lay out guidelines for all rolling stock procurement, otherwise KA could have ordered 200 new trains.
I was told this by a manager in the integration team, he knows better that anyone how the process works.
I would believe him over people on a forum that don't work in the industry or the project. Why would he lie ?

 

[Rhydgaled]

does op think that tfw are going to change the design just for him, after his posts on here?

Not just for me. In fact, some of the issues I'm frequently raising don't actually bother me personally all that much - for me the main reason I'd be avoiding the 197s if another TOC already had them in service is probably the rock hard Sophia seats followed closely by a big reduction in the odds of getting a good view (due to inferior window alignment) and provision of additional standing room instead of legroom (vs 175s) or seats (vs 158s).

Page 75 of the latest Modern Railways (June 2022 issue) points out "we are systematiclly reducing the number of toilets per passenger, dissuading some (eg. those with small children) to travel." Insufficient toilet provision is also an issue for people with some medical conditions who need frequent and urgent access to toilets - having to wait for an occupied toilet to become vacant would be a major problem for some. Thankfully, I don't currently suffer from such problems and rarely use on-board toilets but in the past I have had trouble, for example on a 185 when the one toilet in standard was occupied (I didn't know about the one in 1st class back then and even now that I do I'm not sure about walking through 1st without a 1st class ticket - and I can't be the only person on the autistic spectrum who would take that view). Counting the one in first class, a 185 has a better seat:toilet ratio than a 197.

Maybe they would have been better off raising their concerns before the units had been built, and perhaps actually raising their concerns with the operator rather than moaning about it on here

I did, and I have. I responded to the consultations back when the ATW franchise was nearing the end and wrote to the local Assembly Member almost as soon as the first artist's impressions for the 197s had been released, in June 2018. By December 2018, I had received an unsatisfactory response from Welsh Government and contacted TfW too.

Cardiff to Swansea is a short distance, in South Wales (where the Stadlers will be) and between the largest & second largest cities in Wales. The 197s will be primarily operating in North Wales where most places are much quieter and have much longer journeys.

It appears that TfW intend the class 197s to work everywhere on their network that is not electrified except for the Heart Of Wales Line, parts of the South Wales Metro (eg. Maesteg and Cheltenham) and perhaps Wrexham-Bidston.

Maybe you could've written to your local member of the Welsh Assembly asking them to make sure the 197s have at least the provision for bimode? They changed the seats so adding this to the spec wouldn't be impossible.

It would be impossible on any units already completed (at least 13 units now I believe). There is no complete solution now, only damage limitation by reducing the number of class 197s ordered (I suppose a variation might be possible so that subsequent units are delivered as bi-modes but that would be a very substantial change so the later units would probably be a different class number, probably in the 2xx series). I have been writting to both the local Assembly Member and the deputy minister for climate change for some time regarding this matter, most-recently having received a response from the deputy minister via the AM in March (responding to a letter we sent back in October!)

Have a look at what JCB are doing with hydrogen, they've managed to get it working in a slightly modified engine with no NOx being emitted. This would be well suited to a lot of the 197 routes.

A hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine would not solve the 197's incompatiblity with the TDNS electrification problem or the issue of carrying enough hydrogen to get through a complete day's diagram. What is needed is a pantograph, traction motors and cabling to get power from the pantograph to the motors.

Had this been about the 196s I'd completely agree, they are replacing already nice trains on routes which should be electrified.

The class 197s are also intended to replace already nice trains and to run on routes that should be electrified, including Cardiff-Swansea. Another of those routes that should be electrified (Shrewsbury-Birmingham) is of course also expected to see 196s. However, to get the maximum benefit from electrification between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton, trains from the Cambrian need a pantograph and that isn't possible with 197s (or 158s, but the 158s are old so wouldn't be a problem to replace when the time comes for wires).

The 196s are a small order (just 26 units) and could conceivably be cascaded to something that isn't recommended for electrification (eg. the Cornish branches) - far too many 197s were ordered for that to work, especially given that we already had the 196 order which would take up those cascade options.

I'm a advocate for fighting for things that are achievable, fighting to get 2 cars made to 3 cars this is a win win.

Its more work to keep the Newport factory open until new orders arrive, plus it can solve the toilet / luggage/ bins issues.

Win-win? How is building yet more diesel-only vehicles in a climate emergency a win? It won't solve the toilet and luggage issues (and others such as reduction in tables and seats/legroom) because the doors will still be too wide. I'm a perfectionist - no train is perfect (the 158s outperform the 175s in some respects but in others the 175s are better) but narrower doors would mean more floor space for luggage racks / toilets / legroom / tables and therefore closer to perfect.

Bland colour scheme, bad seats, lack of window alignment, VERY poor legroom (no I've not sat on one, but I've compared the seating layout with the Northern one on the 195, I have used these extensively so know what the spacing is like, and it appears TfW's layout will be VERY tight - TfW basically cram an extra row in the centre section compared with Northern, resulting in a very tight layout similar to the 350/1 centre sections - there are 9 rows and really should only be 8).

The seating plan for the 197s shows the seat spacing - unless my measurements of the current units are out or the Sophias (despite being awfully hard) somehow manage to be thicker than those on the TfW 158s the legroom should be an improvement on a 158. The legroom is however a downgrade compared to a 175.

However, losing a row might allow an extra 2 tables and better window alignment which would be welcome but would reduce the units to fewer seats than a 175 due to the space wasted with wide doors. I don't think I've tried the FISA LEAN seats, but from a Google Image search they don't look very comfortable to me. If I had to choose between seats used in relatively recent new builds / refurbs I think I'd pick the Grammer seats that ATW fitted on the Welsh 158s and Gerald standard class mark 3s but really I don't think anything produced recently is good enough and a new design is needed applying the lessons from the RSSB's seat comfort study.

Also two bogs per unit. This is going to be a big problem given how unreliable they are.

It's not just number of toilets per unit that is concerning - it is the seat:toilet ratio (which doesn't meet the Rail Delivery Group's best practice for long distance). It can also be seen at the fleet level:

• class 158 = 24x2 = 48 vehicles, 48 toilets
• class 175 = 27x2 + 16 = 70 vehicles, 70 toilets
• current total = 118 vehicles, 118 toilets
• class 197 order = 77x2 + 26 = 180 vehicles, 103 toilets

That is a total of 62 additional vehicles in TfW's proposed new fleet but 15 fewer toilets!

 

[Rhydgaled]

It makes me wonder why the poor HOW passengers have to manage with ancient rolling stock for quite a while yet whilst everywhere else is getting new trains. The 170s (even not refurbished inside) would be a massive upgrade on 153s.

Don't forget that the 170s that TfW have would be an upgrade over 197s in some respects. For starters, the TfW 170s have a toilet in every carriage. Also, the 170s weren't furnished by Fainsa meaning there is actually some padding on the seats. While still a step backwards compared to a 175, these 170s would be a better choice for a 3-car Marches service than a 197. Unit end gangways is about the only thing KeolisAmey got right on the 197s.

If Carmarthen to Cardiff needs to retain an hourly direct service then there is no option but to terminate Manchesters in Cardiff if the times don't work west of Cardiff.

Couldn't you do something like Manchester-Milford-Cardiff-Carmarthen-Manchester? Of course if it wasn't for these class 197 abominations I would be arguing for the hourly Cardiff-Carmarthen/Pembrokeshire service to become its own seperate express service via the Swansea District Line with just two or three intermediate stops (Port Talbot, Morriston Tawe Valley Parkway and Llanelli) but that's a job that needs 158s, 175s or new-build bi-mode 442/444-like units. Manchester-Swansea would then be hourly with mark 4s on as many workings as possible and either 5-car 175s or more of the new build bi-mode units on the rest.

 

[Eccles1983]

The seats are very comfortable. I don't care who made them, they are more than sufficient.

I've sat in them for hours. Not looked off a sketch of a unit that isn't the same.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The seats are very comfortable. I don't care who made them, they are more than sufficient.

I've sat in them for hours. Not looked off a sketch of a unit that isn't the same.

The cab seats?

I'm 99% sure that TfW board minutes have confirmed that the standard class seats on the class 197s will be Fainsa Sophias. That is very different from somebody looking at a sketch of a class 197 and saying "that looks like a Fainsa Sophia". The fact remains that, from the best information available, I understand that class 197s are furnished with Fainsa Sophias and I have sat in those for hours (the longest single journey I've done on one being about two hours (Carmarthen to Cardiff)).

 

[Neptune]

The cab seats?

I'm 99% sure that TfW board minutes have confirmed that the standard class seats on the class 197s will be Fainsa Sophias. That is very different from somebody looking at a sketch of a class 197 and saying "that looks like a Fainsa Sophia". The fact remains that, from the best information available, I understand that class 197s are furnished with Fainsa Sophias and I have sat in those for hours (the longest single journey I've done on one being about two hours (Carmarthen to Cardiff)).

Or maybe the seats are fine for @Eccles1983 (it is allowed as seats are subjective). I’ve sat in one on a TPE 802 for 90 minutes and an LNER 801 for 140 minutes and find them fine for me. Am I wrong?

I’m surprised you didn’t go to the preview day to check them out for yourself?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or maybe the seats are fine for @Eccles1983 (it is allowed as seats are subjective). I’ve sat in one on a TPE 802 for 90 minutes and an LNER 801 for 140 minutes and find them fine for me. Am I wrong?

Sophias are a matter of personal preference. I think generally heavier people will have more of an issue with them as they compress the cushion more so are more likely to experience the issue with them which is the ability to feel the frame through the base when sitting for a while.

It's less pronounced on new seats, but very soon the base collapses.

Moquette rather than flat cloth helps a bit too.

 

[Eccles1983]

The cab seats?

I'm 99% sure that TfW board minutes have confirmed that the standard class seats on the class 197s will be Fainsa Sophias. That is very different from somebody looking at a sketch of a class 197 and saying "that looks like a Fainsa Sophia". The fact remains that, from the best information available, I understand that class 197s are furnished with Fainsa Sophias and I have sat in those for hours (the longest single journey I've done on one being about two hours (Carmarthen to Cardiff)).

No.

The saloon ones. Nice leather headrest, comfortable and decent leg room.

People seem fascinated by names of seats. They are configured differently for each train.

They are good.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Or maybe the seats are fine for @Eccles1983 (it is allowed as seats are subjective). I’ve sat in one on a TPE 802 for 90 minutes and an LNER 801 for 140 minutes and find them fine for me. Am I wrong?

I’m surprised you didn’t go to the preview day to check them out for yourself?

I was invited to visit the mock-ups in Taffs Well on 11th May, however a few days before this I received an e-mail from TfW saying they had been forced to cancel all visits to Taffs Well so I didn't get to go and see them for myself. The preview day in Chester would not have been straightforward for me to get to - I'm not even sure when I heard about it - I may not have known it was happening in advance of the event.

Sophias are a matter of personal preference. I think generally heavier people will have more of an issue with them as they compress the cushion more so are more likely to experience the issue with them which is the ability to feel the frame through the base when sitting for a while.

It's less pronounced on new seats, but very soon the base collapses.

My impression of them is that they hardly compress at all ie. they are rock hard. I suppose there must be people who are comfortable sitting on hard seats but the Key Train Requirements seems to support the view that the majority of passengers perfer softer seats since it recommends compressibility of between 40% and 70%.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My impression of them is that they hardly compress at all ie. they are rock hard. I suppose there must be people who are comfortable sitting on hard seats but the Key Train Requirements seems to support the view that the majority of passengers perfer softer seats since it recommends compressibility of between 40% and 70%.

They definitely do under me though I am very heavy (22.5 stone at present). I much prefer hard seats which do not; my backside has plenty of its own padding.

The Sophia frame is unsuitable for a very compressible cushion as everyone would feel the framework.

 

[Eccles1983]

What is the 197 integration team? Who do they work for?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2022 ==


Hmm. I suspect this isn't true. Do you have any evidence?

It is 100% true.

Basically there is a massive issue between what was specified and what happens. Until it is sorted then they will not be coupled outside of a depot.

Evidence - I sign them, but have not coupled one, and have to return for additional training when it is finally sorted.

It's a software problem.

 

[Rhydgaled]

They definitely do under me though I am very heavy (22.5 stone at present). I much prefer hard seats which do not; my backside has plenty of its own padding.

The Sophia frame is unsuitable for a very compressible cushion as everyone would feel the framework.

In other words, the Sophia is attractive only to a very small subset of the population - passengers who aren't particularly heavy but either like hard seats or, despite not being particularly heavy, nevertheless have their own padding.

 

[craigybagel]

In other words, the Sophia is attractive only to a very small subset of the population - passengers who aren't particularly heavy but either like hard seats or, despite not being particularly heavy, nevertheless have their own padding.

And yet all the people on this group who've actually sat on the 197 seats seemingly fall within that "very small subset".

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They definitely do under me though I am very heavy (22.5 stone at present). I much prefer hard seats which do not; my backside has plenty of its own padding.

The Sophia frame is unsuitable for a very compressible cushion as everyone would feel the framework.

This is the thing; slim and bony people like me certainly suffer from hard seats, and I have no problem with Sophias. For the record, my longest 2nd class journey in them is Newcastle - King's Cross, and Plymouth - Reading for the (IMO) less comfortable GWR ones - but both are hefty distances.

I personally don't think the 197s will be a downgrade due to the 197s being bad, I just think the 175s are very nice and have a somewhat premium feel. As someone living in Cardiff I believe the CAFs will be an acceptable replacement. The 175s don't NEED replacing yet, but the rest of the fleet does and it makes sense to do it all at once.

That said, ordering 2 carriage sets (and so many of them) is stupidity beyond belief, and I wish they'd keep 175s just to ensure the 197s (and retained 175s) used on Manchester/Holyhead - South Wales were always doubled up - the two cars certainly. Won't happen though.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And yet all the people on this group who've actually sat on the 197 seats seemingly fall within that "very small subset".

Or, the 197 seats have about as much in common with the seats on the IEP and Nova fleets as the class 195s do with the class 397s (they share the name 'Civity' but have very different specifications). I would know if my visit to Taffs Well to try out the mock ups hadn't been cancelled, but even if the seats are better than other Sophias there is still a long list of other issues with the 197s.

I personally don't think the 197s will be a downgrade due to the 197s being bad, I just think the 175s are very nice and have a somewhat premium feel. As someone living in Cardiff I believe the CAFs will be an acceptable replacement. The 175s don't NEED replacing yet, but the rest of the fleet does and it makes sense to do it all at once.

That is a very good point - the 197s are a downgrade but perhaps that is indeed because the class 175s (and 158s) are such very good trains; it's all relative. If Arriva Trains Wales had nothing but 150s in their fleet then the 197s would look really good (apart from the damage they do to the business case for electrification within the small window we have left on decarbonisation).

I don't however agree with the argument that it makes sense to do the fleet replacement all at once. Once you consider that the 175s and 158s don't need replacing just yet, you have the vast majority of the long-distance fleet accounted for already. Aside from the mark 3s and a few 153s on the Heart Of Wales Line there was essentially one big fleet replacement job - the Cardiff metro - and a few awkward odds and ends here and there (eg. Conwy Valley and Pembroke Dock). It does make sense to do all the Metro stuff together, for example if the 170s had already been in place on Maesteg/Cheltenham/Ebbw in advance of refranchising then it would make sense for them to be moved on to allow a uniform fleet of electrification-compatible units for the Metro.

 

[Philip]

That said, ordering 2 carriage sets (and so many of them) is stupidity beyond belief, and I wish they'd keep 175s just to ensure the 197s (and retained 175s) used on Manchester/Holyhead - South Wales were always doubled up - the two cars certainly. Won't happen though.

Why only mention Manchester and Holyhead to South Wales for strengthening? It isn't the only route which uses 175s and soon to use 197s - Manchester to Chester/North Wales is also in the same boat and those services are as busy as the South Wales ones. The South Wales services shouldn't be using extra units if it leads to Manchester to Chester services being short-formed.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Why only mention Manchester and Holyhead to South Wales for strengthening? It isn't the only route which uses 175s and soon to use 197s - Manchester to Chester/North Wales is also in the same boat and those services are as busy as the South Wales ones. The South Wales services shouldn't be using extra units if it leads to Manchester to Chester services being short-formed.

I forgot about those and meant to include those as well. The only reason I didn’t say “all 197 routes” deserve doubled up trains is that Conwy Valley and West Wales certainly don’t need to be four five or six carriages long. Longer trains are pie in the sky until new plans are announced though, so I won’t discuss how trains could be extended here as I don’t want to become speculative in this section of the forum. All I’m saying is the two carriage 197s are bound to be too short.

I would very much like to see some new pictures of the 197 interior when they surface. I know some have been released but they don’t really allow a clear look inside. I really don’t reckon they’ll be all that bad.

I’d just like to add that on the North South routes, replacing 175s with solely 197s is different to reality, which is replacing 175s with some 197s and some Mk4s. So, while some may see 197s as a downgrade, they might also see MK4s as an upgrade and therefore a compromise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yet all the people on this group who've actually sat on the 197 seats seemingly fall within that "very small subset".

Another "feature" of the seat is that when brand new the effect is not as noticeable, the cushion collapses over time and it becomes more pronounced, so you won't notice it on a brand new unit. It is a design flaw of the seat frame which TfW is not going to have fixed - the rear half of the base has a thicker cushion and the front half a thinner one with a steep drop off between them, which is what you feel. Look underneath and you can see it.

Interestingly if you look at Fainsa's site you can see the rather odd cushion shape intended to fit that...

Compin Fainsa

www.compinfainsa.com

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2022 ==

Why only mention Manchester and Holyhead to South Wales for strengthening? It isn't the only route which uses 175s and soon to use 197s - Manchester to Chester/North Wales is also in the same boat and those services are as busy as the South Wales ones. The South Wales services shouldn't be using extra units if it leads to Manchester to Chester services being short-formed.

The Cambrian is a bigger problem. I was going to use it this weekend and having seen the "capacity checker" I am going to drive, lots of red up there. The 197s will reduce capacity to Pwllheli, unless you think standing for 4 hours is acceptable. If the single line makes increasing it to hourly impossible, it needs 3 car trains, but those won't have ETCS which is a very poor decision.

Locking in a capacity reduction now is beyond stupid. Look where that left XC...

 

[craigybagel]

The Cambrian is a bigger problem. I was going to use it this weekend and having seen the "capacity checker" I am going to drive, lots of red up there. The 197s will reduce capacity to Pwllheli, unless you think standing for 4 hours is acceptable. If the single line makes increasing it to hourly impossible, it needs 3 car trains, but those won't have ETCS which is a very poor decision.

Locking in a capacity reduction now is beyond stupid. Look where that left XC...

Again, as I've pointed out to you so many times, you're making assumptions about the Cambrian based on the current situation with 158s. There are two very important differences which is why I'm not in the least bit worried.

*The new timetable. No longer are ERTMS sets going to be sent to places where they're not needed at the Cambrian's expense.
*Flexibility. Let's just say for a minute that TfW have some how got their sums wrong, and they need more units with ERTMS fitted. It can be fixed, very easily. The units are all prewired for ERTMS - in fact when you're driving a non-ERTMS fitted unit you get a warning on the TMS that ERTMS isn't working! From what we've been told fitting the equipment is a very simple task.

So please can put an end to this "locked in" nonsense?

That said, ordering 2 carriage sets (and so many of them) is stupidity beyond belief, and I wish they'd keep 175s just to ensure the 197s (and retained 175s) used on Manchester/Holyhead - South Wales were always doubled up - the two cars certainly. Won't happen though.

And again, two car sets running by themselves will be few and far between, and should only be happening on the quiet routes. It's not a like for like replacement of the current fleet - it's also a large expansion. There's a big increase in capacity even without retaining any of the 158s or 175s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, as I've pointed out to you so many times, you're making assumptions about the Cambrian based on the current situation with 158s. There are two very important differences which is why I'm not in the least bit worried.

*The new timetable. No longer are ERTMS sets going to be sent to places where they're not needed at the Cambrian's expense.
*Flexibility. Let's just say for a minute that TfW have some how got their sums wrong, and they need more units with ERTMS fitted. It can be fixed, very easily. The units are all prewired for ERTMS - in fact when you're driving a non-ERTMS fitted unit you get a warning on the TMS that ERTMS isn't working! From what we've been told fitting the equipment is a very simple task.

So please can put an end to this "locked in" nonsense?

It's not nonsense.

Are there plans to extend platforms etc to run 4-car sets to Pwllheli? If so can you provide evidence of such plans?

If not there will be a problem. Doubling the frequency of the Aberystwyth service will not do anything for Pwllheli, and to be honest I think doing so is likely to cause a diesel version of a "sparks effect" resulting in those needing to be longer, too. Two-hourly to hourly is a big improvement in utility which will mean more users.

The first summer after these things are introduced, it is going to be utter carnage. Mark my words. I've called these things out before - be it Voyagers on XC on uk.railway, or be it the disastrous Liverpool through workings on LNR. Every time I've called out these obvious, serious flaws in a proposal I've been right. I will be here too.

There needs to be three or four-car working to Pwllheli from day one.

And again, two car sets running by themselves will be few and far between, and should only be happening on the quiet routes. It's not a like for like replacement of the current fleet - it's also a large expansion. There's a big increase in capacity even without retaining any of the 158s or 175s.

Go look at Northern to see if anyone should believe that or not. Their 2-cars weren't meant to be used alone. Surprise surprise, they mostly are.

 

[Neptune]

Go look at Northern to see if anyone should believe that or not. Their 2-cars weren't meant to be used alone. Surprise surprise, they mostly are.

I don’t think that was ever the plan. I certainly don’t recall it. I’m sure they were always planned to run as 2 cars on the Nottingham service replacing 2 car 158’s for a start.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I forgot about those and meant to include those as well. The only reason I didn’t say “all 197 routes” deserve doubled up trains is that Conwy Valley and West Wales certainly don’t need to be four five or six carriages long. Longer trains are pie in the sky until new plans are announced though, so I won’t discuss how trains could be extended here as I don’t want to become speculative in this section of the forum. All I’m saying is the two carriage 197s are bound to be too short.

We are in the 'Speculative Discussion' section... I think there may be an argument for some services in Pembrokeshire to be four coaches in summer, and there are events from time to time when services could really do with being strengthened. For the most part though, I think 3 coaches is probably about right for Milford Haven and two for Pembroke Dock.

The Cambrian is a bigger problem. I was going to use it this weekend and having seen the "capacity checker" I am going to drive, lots of red up there. The 197s will reduce capacity to Pwllheli, unless you think standing for 4 hours is acceptable. If the single line makes increasing it to hourly impossible, it needs 3 car trains, but those won't have ETCS which is a very poor decision.

I've previously looked at doing an 'hourly' service of sorts on the Cambrian Coast, with a 'fast' working every two hours to Porthmadog and all-stops to Pwllheli in the other hours. If I recall correctly the answer was that it could be done, but trains would have to start and terminate at Dovey Junction as having them continue towards Machynlleth would require them to pass at Dovey Junction which of course is only possible for trains on the Aberystwyth line currently.

*The new timetable. No longer are ERTMS sets going to be sent to places where they're not needed at the Cambrian's expense.

Does this mean Cambrian services are going to terminate at Shrewsbury in future with no more through running to Birmingham? If not, how is this going to be acheived?

And again, two car sets running by themselves will be few and far between, and should only be happening on the quiet routes. It's not a like for like replacement of the current fleet - it's also a large expansion. There's a big increase in capacity even without retaining any of the 158s or 175s.

There is indeed a planned increase of 62 carriages when compared with the 158s and 175s. However, despite this the fleet as a whole has a total of 15 fewer toilets. This plainly is not a like-for-like replacement, it is a fleet of (insufficient) long-distance trains being replaced by a larger fleet designed for short-distance stoppers.

Doubling the frequency of the Aberystwyth service will not do anything for Pwllheli, and to be honest I think doing so is likely to cause a diesel version of a "sparks effect" resulting in those needing to be longer, too. Two-hourly to hourly is a big improvement in utility which will mean more users.

It is not two-hourly to hourly though, Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury is already hourly on Sundays and there are parts of the day when it is already hourly Mon-Sat as well. However, given how busy the services with Pwllheli portions are currently I would suggest that the Aberystwyth trains in the other hours (that don't benefit from the addition of the two coaches from Pwllheli) once the full hourly service is provided could do with being three coaches if that were possible assuming of course that they all run through to Birmingham. Unfortunately, I don't think that is possible since the round-trip to Birmingham International and back puts the unit on the AYW portion of a Pwllheli service on the return trip so it would have to be three coaches on all Aberystwyth workings if you wanted to ensure a minimum length of 3 coaches on every train between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth. Perhaps KeolisAmey were counting on the lower quality interiors compared to the 158s to put a dampener on demand?

Go look at Northern to see if anyone should believe that or not. Their 2-cars weren't meant to be used alone. Surprise surprise, they mostly are.

Are you sure about that? Surely if their 2-car 195s were meant to be used in multiple most of the time they would have specified unit end gangways as has been done with the 197s?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not two-hourly to hourly though, Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury is already hourly on Sundays and there are parts of the day when it is already hourly Mon-Sat as well. However, given how busy the services with Pwllheli portions are currently I would suggest that the Aberystwyth trains in the other hours (that don't benefit from the addition of the two coaches from Pwllheli) once the full hourly service is provided could do with being three coaches if that were possible assuming of course that they all run through to Birmingham. Unfortunately, I don't think that is possible since the round-trip to Birmingham International and back puts the unit on the AYW portion of a Pwllheli service on the return trip so it would have to be three coaches on all Aberystwyth workings if you wanted to ensure a minimum length of 3 coaches on every train between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth. Perhaps KeolisAmey were counting on the lower quality interiors compared to the 158s to put a dampener on demand?

The way to do this would be to make the ones that don't go to Pwllheli four coaches. That then works. You can push demand between the two by offering good value Advances on the 4-car runs but none at all to/from Aberystwyth on the ones that have a Pwllheli portion.

That is easily enough done. But sorting out Pwllheli isn't. The need for more capacity has been known for years; Central Trains used to run 2 to Aber, 3 to Pwll (adding a 153 to the then usual 156) in summer. Yet there has been significant growth since then, and if the days of the cheap flight are truly over then it's only going to increase further to the point that you're going to want to be running 8-car formations from Birmingham with 4 to each (or as a minimum pairs of 3s). Best get platform extending...

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

We are in the 'Speculative Discussion' section...

Yes, sorry; I thought this was the main 197 thread in Traction and Rolling Stock and didn’t want to break forum rules by speculating. As we are here, I guess I can go wild

 

[Rhydgaled]

That is easily enough done. But sorting out Pwllheli isn't. The need for more capacity has been known for years; Central Trains used to run 2 to Aber, 3 to Pwll (adding a 153 to the then usual 156) in summer. Yet there has been significant growth since then, and if the days of the cheap flight are truly over then it's only going to increase further to the point that you're going to want to be running 8-car formations from Birmingham with 4 to each (or as a minimum pairs of 3s). Best get platform extending...

Don't forget that there are trains from Wrexham to Birmingham as well - these can be non-ETCS units but presumably will have to share the TfW path into Birmingham so if you have an 8-car train at Machynlleth you are looking at a minimum of 10-cars east of Shrewsbury. Even if we assume 4-cars between Machynlleth and Shrewsbury every hour you are still looking at six coaches burning diesel under the wires east of Wolverhampton once the Wrexham/Chester/Holyhead portion is added at Shrewsbury. Combine that with WMT's class 196s and that's probably 12 coaches per hour on average - surely enough to justify electrification if only those were old DMUs due for replacement rather than brand new ones.

 

[tomuk]

Don't forget that there are trains from Wrexham to Birmingham as well - these can be non-ETCS units but presumably will have to share the TfW path into Birmingham so if you have an 8-car train at Machynlleth you are looking at a minimum of 10-cars east of Shrewsbury. Even if we assume 4-cars between Machynlleth and Shrewsbury every hour you are still looking at six coaches burning diesel under the wires east of Wolverhampton once the Wrexham/Chester/Holyhead portion is added at Shrewsbury. Combine that with WMT's class 196s and that's probably 12 coaches per hour on average - surely enough to justify electrification if only those were old DMUs due for replacement rather than brand new ones.

Midlands Connect are looking to electrify Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton and are putting forward a business case this month, albeit it will probably be in two stages, first line speed improvements then electrification.

If there are redundant 196s or 197s I'm sure Scotrail, Norther, EMR or GWR would snap them up to replace their 15x.

 

[Jez]

Don't forget that the 170s that TfW have would be an upgrade over 197s in some respects. For starters, the TfW 170s have a toilet in every carriage. Also, the 170s weren't furnished by Fainsa meaning there is actually some padding on the seats. While still a step backwards compared to a 175, these 170s would be a better choice for a 3-car Marches service than a 197. Unit end gangways is about the only thing KeolisAmey got right on the 197s.

Couldn't you do something like Manchester-Milford-Cardiff-Carmarthen-Manchester? Of course if it wasn't for these class 197 abominations I would be arguing for the hourly Cardiff-Carmarthen/Pembrokeshire service to become its own seperate express service via the Swansea District Line with just two or three intermediate stops (Port Talbot, Morriston Tawe Valley Parkway and Llanelli) but that's a job that needs 158s, 175s or new-build bi-mode 442/444-like units. Manchester-Swansea would then be hourly with mark 4s on as many workings as possible and either 5-car 175s or more of the new build bi-mode units on the rest.

I was thinking of something similar myself. e.g 0730 Manchester to Carmarthen arrive 1240 then 1305 Carmarthen to Cardiff arrive 1455 then Cardiff to Carmarthen and then return to Manchester. That would keep the consistent pattern of 1 train per hour from Cardiff-Carmarthen with one starting in Manchester and one in Cardiff to Connect with the MK4 services Manchester-Cardiff. Milford might be better being a separate shuttle between Carmarthen and Milford if the timings down work or perhaps a new Swansea-Milford service could work.

Its such a shame the 175s are going as they really are nice comfortable trains to travel on. Im going to reserve judgement on the 197s once ive travelled on one.

 

[craigybagel]

It's not nonsense.

Are there plans to extend platforms etc to run 4-car sets to Pwllheli? If so can you provide evidence of such plans?

No need to extend platforms, ASDO on the 197s takes care of that. There is a technical issue that precludes 158s going to Pwllheli in a 4 car formation; that is due to be fixed as part of the preparations for the 197s

If not there will be a problem. Doubling the frequency of the Aberystwyth service will not do anything for Pwllheli, and to be honest I think doing so is likely to cause a diesel version of a "sparks effect" resulting in those needing to be longer, too. Two-hourly to hourly is a big improvement in utility which will mean more users.

The first summer after these things are introduced, it is going to be utter carnage. Mark my words. I've called these things out before - be it Voyagers on XC on uk.railway, or be it the disastrous Liverpool through workings on LNR. Every time I've called out these obvious, serious flaws in a proposal I've been right. I will be here too.

This is a very different situation from Operation Princess. Virgin tried to do a much larger expansion of services with a much smaller expansion of capacity.

There needs to be three or four-car working to Pwllheli from day one.

Only if it's the one train a day in the one month of the year that has issues. Most trains for most of the year carry a lot of fresh air up and down the coast.

Go look at Northern to see if anyone should believe that or not. Their 2-cars weren't meant to be used alone. Surprise surprise, they mostly are.

As with Cross Country, the number of units acquired meant they had very little choice. If TfW decide to run lots of services as 2 car units, it means there's going to be a lot of units sitting in sidings unused. I can't imagine they're investing so much in a new fleet just for that to happen?

Does this mean Cambrian services are going to terminate at Shrewsbury in future with no more through running to Birmingham? If not, how is this going to be acheived?

Cambrian services will still be running to Birmingham - but seemingly the ERTMS units won't be running on any other route. How that works with the current interworking with Holyhead services I don't know exactly, we'll need to wait for the full timetable to be published.

Midlands Connect are looking to electrify Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton and are putting forward a business case this month, albeit it will probably be in two stages, first line speed improvements then electrification.

If there are redundant 196s or 197s I'm sure Scotrail, Norther, EMR or GWR would snap them up to replace their 15x.

At the end of the day, Midlands Connect is just a pressure group. I could make a fancy website calling for HS3 to be built linking Kyle of Lochalsh to Wick. It doesn't mean it's likely to happen.

With all the pressures on railway finances and the DfT on the prowl, I think people are being very naïve if they expect that kind of investment on the line any time soon. And we can't wait for new units - they were needed several years ago.