CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[tomuk]

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.

Midlands Connect are a Sub National Transport Body they are partners with and their board are made up of representatives from all the LEPs and Councils across the Midlands they are a bit more important than some bloke in his bedroom making a fancy website. They are responsible for the initial strategic plan for any transport investment in the Midlands.

 

[craigybagel]

Midlands Connect are a Sub National Transport Body they are partners with and their board are made up of representatives from all the LEPs and Councils across the Midlands they are a bit more important than some bloke in his bedroom making a fancy website. They are responsible for the initial strategic plan for any transport investment in the Midlands.

Fair enough. I'm still not going to hold my breath on electrification happening any time soon - and I certainly wouldn't want to see desperately needed rolling stock delayed whilst we wait and see what level of investment (if any) is actually made on the line.

And as you say, even if electrification does happen, there's no shortage of potential homes for the CAFs to be moved on to.

 

[tomuk]

Fair enough. I'm still not going to hold my breath on electrification happening any time soon - and I certainly wouldn't want to see desperately needed rolling stock delayed whilst we wait and see what level of investment (if any) is actually made on the line.

And as you say, even if electrification does happen, there's no shortage of potential homes for the CAFs to be moved on to.

I didn't suggest there should be a delay. As I said and you repeated any CAFs made redundant by future electrification will find a home, there are plenty of 15x and 16x to replace. What happens to the existing stock won't come into the decision at least in a negative way.

 

[craigybagel]

I didn't suggest there should be a delay. As I said and you repeated any CAFs made redundant by future electrification will find a home, there are plenty of 15x and 16x to replace. What happens to the existing stock won't come into the decision at least in a negative way.

My apologies, I know that wasn't what you were suggesting - but it has been a frequent suggestion from another poster.

 

[Rhydgaled]

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?

The long-distance fleet inherrited from ATW was 54 sets (51 DMUs and 3 mark 3 sets). With 77 class 197s on-order and a long-distance fleet of just 8 mark 4 sets the future fleet is expected to be 85 sets. Of the 31 additional units, 5 are to cover for the loss of the 170s and at least 14 of the rest are expected to be swallowed up by a combination of lengthening Swansea-Manchester to 5 coaches and the new Liverpool-Llandudno/Cardiff services. Take off units in depots for maintainance and there aren't all that many left for 'sitting in sidings unused' or strenthening other routes.

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.

I don't agree that new units were needed. New units will be needed in south Wales in a few years time because of the so-called 'smart' electrification on the valley lines that renders cascaded units unsuitable but other than that TfW has no need of new units. What has been needed for several years is additional trains - it doesn't matter whether they are new or not and, if they are diesel-only, then it is a. Admittedly there are no spare DMUs to cascade from elsewhere, but had EMR released its 158s as had been expected (not that I agree with EMR's plan to replace them with 170s) a combination of the eight mark 4 sets plus those 158s would have done the job for TfW.

Fair enough. I'm still not going to hold my breath on electrification happening any time soon - and I certainly wouldn't want to see desperately needed rolling stock delayed whilst we wait and see what level of investment (if any) is actually made on the line.

And as you say, even if electrification does happen, there's no shortage of potential homes for the CAFs to be moved on to.

There are places the 196s could be moved to, I agree. However, there are only 26 class 196s, that's a very different proposition to a combined total of 103 units (or 161 if we include the 195s as well). If the level of investment in decarbonisation reflected the warnings from the UN (see quotes below) then the vast majority of the Civity DMU orders can only be described as, to borrow the Secretary-General's word, delusional.

Impacts will accelerate with every fraction of a degree of global warming.

To limit future impacts we need to halve emissions by 2030.

Every fraction of a degree of warming matters.

Every day matters.

Every #ClimateAction matters.

New funding for fossil fuel exploration and production infrastructure is delusional.

Fossil fuels are not the answer.

Renewable energy is.

 

[craigybagel]

The long-distance fleet inherrited from ATW was 54 sets (51 DMUs and 3 mark 3 sets). With 77 class 197s on-order and a long-distance fleet of just 8 mark 4 sets the future fleet is expected to be 85 sets. Of the 31 additional units, 5 are to cover for the loss of the 170s and at least 14 of the rest are expected to be swallowed up by a combination of lengthening Swansea-Manchester to 5 coaches and the new Liverpool-Llandudno/Cardiff services. Take off units in depots for maintainance and there aren't all that many left for 'sitting in sidings unused' or strenthening other routes.

The combined 158,175 and MKIII fleet at ATW consisted of 130 vehicles (24 X 2 car 158, 11 X 2 car 175, 16 x 3 car 175, 3 x 4 car MKIII) . They are being replaced by 215 vehicles (51 x 2 car 197, 26 x 3 car 197, 7 x 5 car MKIV (TfW have mentioned an 8th set in their publicity, but where or when it's coming has not been publicly confirmed)). Granted, it's hard to define exactly what's replacing what since the 197s are also going to be working some routes previously worked by 150/153, and that some trips previously worked by 158s/175s will be replaced with 231s, but either way it's still a massive increase in capacity.

I don't agree that new units were needed. New units will be needed in south Wales in a few years time because of the so-called 'smart' electrification on the valley lines that renders cascaded units unsuitable but other than that TfW has no need of new units. What has been needed for several years is additional trains - it doesn't matter whether they are new or not and, if they are diesel-only, then it is a. Admittedly there are no spare DMUs to cascade from elsewhere, but had EMR released its 158s as had been expected (not that I agree with EMR's plan to replace them with 170s) a combination of the eight mark 4 sets plus those 158s would have done the job for TfW.

As myself and others who actually have to work the things have pointed out to you already, there's a reason why most TOCs are pulling 158s away from intense long distance diagrams. They are, to put it bluntly, knackered.

There are places the 196s could be moved to, I agree. However, there are only 26 class 196s, that's a very different proposition to a combined total of 103 units (or 161 if we include the 195s as well). If the level of investment in decarbonisation reflected the warnings from the UN (see quotes below) then the vast majority of the Civity DMU orders can only be described as, to borrow the Secretary-General's word, delusional.

We shall see. But based on decades of inaction by various British Governments, I see no reason to think these units won't enjoy long and productive careers.

 

[Rhydgaled]

there's a reason why most TOCs are pulling 158s away from intense long distance diagrams. They are, to put it bluntly, knackered.

I've not heard anything to suggest 'most TOCs' are pulling away from 158s - TfW and EMR are the only ones I'm aware of who have/had plans to retire them and the latest Modern Railways confirms that ScotRail plans to retain them until 2035. This seems to support my position that, if you have a coherent electrification policy then you don't replace 158s with new diesel-only trains.

We shall see. But based on decades of inaction by various British Governments, I see no reason to think these units won't enjoy long and productive careers.

I agree that the units are likely to see a long career - that's what I'm afraid of. If I had to develop a rolling stock policy based on the inaction of recent British Government I would agree with the construction of a large number of DMUs*, but doing so ensures we fail to electrify much of the network. I think we should have a rolling stock policy that pushes us in the direction we need to go, rather than one which reflects the likelyhood that we will fail to move in that direction.

* but with single-width doors like a 397 rather than the wide doors of a 197

 

[craigybagel]

I've not heard anything to suggest 'most TOCs' are pulling away from 158s - TfW and EMR are the only ones I'm aware of who have/had plans to retire them and the latest Modern Railways confirms that ScotRail plans to retain them until 2035. This seems to support my position that, if you have a coherent electrification policy then you don't replace 158s with new diesel-only trains.

I didn't say pull away from - I said from intense long distance diagrams.

Going through the current operators:
ScotRail: displaced from most long distance services by HSTs and 170s
GWR: displaced from Portsmouth - Cardiff by Turbos
EMR: currently undergoing replacement with 170s
Northern: mostly displaced from long distance services by 195s
TfW: planned to be entirely replaced by 197s
SWR: the only TOC not actively planning on removing them from the services they were originally acquired to work. But with the reductions since Covid, and the fact there always seemed to be more flex in that fleet than at other TOCs (judging by how readily they've been able to loan units to GWR and EMT in the past) you could argue that their 158s and 159s have always had an easier life.

I can't speak first hand for what other TOCs are doing or what condition their units are in - but there does seem to be a trend to move them away from the front line. I'd be rather worried about TfW trying to keep them on high speed, very busy services all day long for another 10 years.

I agree that the units are likely to see a long career - that's what I'm afraid of. If I had to develop a rolling stock policy based on the inaction of recent British Government I would agree with the construction of a large number of DMUs*, but doing so ensures we fail to electrify much of the network. I think we should have a rolling stock policy that pushes us in the direction we need to go, rather than one which reflects the likelyhood that we will fail to move in that direction.

* but with single-width doors like a 397 rather than the wide doors of a 197

Sorry, I know we're never going to agree on this one but for the work the 197s are doing, wide doors are the way to go. I've worked 158s and 175s through various busy corridors across Wales and England and those narrow doors are a nightmare. I'm hoping the new timetable keeps the MKIVs to limited stop services.

 

[Jez]

I didn't say pull away from - I said from intense long distance diagrams.

Going through the current operators:
ScotRail: displaced from most long distance services by HSTs and 170s
GWR: displaced from Portsmouth - Cardiff by Turbos
EMR: currently undergoing replacement with 170s
Northern: mostly displaced from long distance services by 195s
TfW: planned to be entirely replaced by 197s
SWR: the only TOC not actively planning on removing them from the services they were originally acquired to work. But with the reductions since Covid, and the fact there always seemed to be more flex in that fleet than at other TOCs (judging by how readily they've been able to loan units to GWR and EMT in the past) you could argue that their 158s and 159s have always had an easier life.

I can't speak first hand for what other TOCs are doing or what condition their units are in - but there does seem to be a trend to move them away from the front line. I'd be rather worried about TfW trying to keep them on high speed, very busy services all day long for another 10 years.

Sorry, I know we're never going to agree on this one but for the work the 197s are doing, wide doors are the way to go. I've worked 158s and 175s through various busy corridors across Wales and England and those narrow doors are a nightmare. I'm hoping the new timetable keeps the MKIVs to limited stop services.

I can't speak for most other train companies but I used the GWR Cardiff to Bath earlier this year and had a 158 out and Turbo return and the 158 provided a far better customer experience IMO. So replacing doesn't always mean it's for the best. The 158s are Still excellent units.

Whether the 197s will be worst, as good as or better I will wait until I travel on one and keep an open mind.

 

[Anonymous10]

I can't speak for most other train companies but I used the GWR Cardiff to Bath earlier this year and had a 158 out and Turbo return and the 158 provided a far better customer experience IMO. So replacing doesn't always mean it's for the best. The 158s are Still excellent units.

Whether the 197s will be worst, as good as or better I will wait until I travel on one and keep an open mind.

yes but if they're in mechanically poor condition it may be a risk

 

[craigybagel]

I can't speak for most other train companies but I used the GWR Cardiff to Bath earlier this year and had a 158 out and Turbo return and the 158 provided a far better customer experience IMO. So replacing doesn't always mean it's for the best. The 158s are Still excellent units.

Whether the 197s will be worst, as good as or better I will wait until I travel on one and keep an open mind.

To be fair, I'd agree with you on the comparison between Turbos and 158s.

Thank you for keeping an open mind with the 197s. If only everyone could be the same it would save a lot of space on this forum....

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

@craigybagel I noticed you mentioned that a technical issue on the Cambrian line will be overcome in order to allow 4-197 to operate using pairs of two cars, which would be very wise because as @Bletchleyite rightly says, that line is certainly fairly well used. Are there plans for diagrammed four car workings on Pwllheli to Machynlleth then, or is this a Just In Case measure?

If so, I assume they’d run with the Aberysytwyth service from Machynlleth, providing six carriages to Birmingham via Shrewsbury which would be a very good increase in capacity that would help ease the planned permanent reduction of WMR’s Shrewsburys from 2tph to 1tph.

 

[Jez]

To be fair, I'd agree with you on the comparison between Turbos and 158s.

Thank you for keeping an open mind with the 197s. If only everyone could be the same it would save a lot of space on this forum....

The main gripe I have with the current situation is the 2 or 3 carriages on West Wales-Manchester and overcrowding so one thing the 197s have in favour over the 175s is we have been promised 5 carriage formations for most if not all of Swansea-Manchester workings.

As for everything else to do with the 197s I will keep an open mind until i can travel on one!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Sorry, I know we're never going to agree on this one but for the work the 197s are doing, wide doors are the way to go. I've worked 158s and 175s through various busy corridors across Wales and England and those narrow doors are a nightmare. I'm hoping the new timetable keeps the MKIVs to limited stop services.

That rather depends on whether TfW have got their sums right regarding the number of carriages required to cater for the level of demand (and this is one area where I am keeping an open mind regarding their fleet plan, particularly on routes which we know are planned to see increased capacity) and whether they intend to provide sufficient carriages to give everyone a seat. Having experienced a crush-loaded 175 into Manchester back in June then, if that is how TfW intended to treat these routes in future, I would agree that a suburban door layout would be preferable. However, I don't believe TfW do intend for their services to be crush-loaded - the plan to increase MAN-SWA to five coaches shows that - but if sufficient coaches were provided then the need to compromise on everything else by moving to wider doors evaporates. In other words, the problem is the train is too short, not the door layout although a suburban door layout would mitigate the impact of having trains that are too short to some extent.

In short: 3-cars on Manchester-Swansea = you need a suburban unit, 5-cars = give us something approaching an INTERCITY-style experience.

Ideally I’d d like to see TFW get another rake or two of mark 4 carriages and run all the Manchester services to Swansea. Swanline would be a hourly separate stopping service using 197’s unless electrification happens

Given that even just Manchester to Cardiff every two hours requires four rakes, 'another rake or two' would be nowhere near sufficient to cover Manchester-Swansea hourly, even if there were more mark 4s spare.

I like the concept though; if I had been in a suitable position of influence I would have bid an hourly 5 coach service between Swansea and Manchester with end-door stock or put it in the franchise spec as a requirement.

With the benefit of hindsight, mark 4 sets would have been a good option. Having gone through the 225 group's fleet lists, I'm surprised by how many sets have been scrapped. It appears that 12 TSOEs and at least 8 DVTs have gone for the chop. Together with the 8 sets purchased for TfW, that would presumably have allowed the formation of 16 sets. I think an hourly Manchester to Swansea fast service would require 9 diagrams, which together with the 3 Holyhead-Cardiff diagrams makes 12 out of 16 sets in use daily. It would also release the 175s currently working that route to strengthen other routes or introduce new ones. Compared to the 197s, you effectively save 9 diagrams because the mark 4 sets are a single long train instead of two shorter ones coupled together. Of course you could also have acheived the same thing by buying 16 sets of new mark 5 coaches to run with the 67s (actually, that's a point - would there be enough 67s available?) or 16 bi-mode 5-car 444-like units.

 

[Energy]

That rather depends on whether TfW have got their sums right regarding the number of carriages required to cater for the level of demand (and this is one area where I am keeping an open mind regarding their fleet plan, particularly on routes which we know are planned to see increased capacity) and whether they intend to provide sufficient carriages to give everyone a seat. Having experienced a crush-loaded 175 into Manchester back in June then, if that is how TfW intended to treat these routes in future, I would agree that a suburban door layout would be preferable. However, I don't believe TfW do intend for their services to be crush-loaded - the plan to increase MAN-SWA to five coaches shows that - but if sufficient coaches were provided then the need to compromise on everything else by moving to wider doors evaporates. In other words, the problem is the train is too short, not the door layout although a suburban door layout would mitigate the impact of having trains that are too short to some extent.

In short: 3-cars on Manchester-Swansea = you need a suburban unit, 5-cars = give us something approaching an INTERCITY-style experience.


With the benefit of hindsight, mark 4 sets would have been a good option. Having gone through the 225 group's fleet lists, I'm surprised by how many sets have been scrapped. It appears that 12 TSOEs and at least 8 DVTs have gone for the chop. Together with the 8 sets purchased for TfW, that would presumably have allowed the formation of 16 sets. I think an hourly Manchester to Swansea fast service would require 9 diagrams, which together with the 3 Holyhead-Cardiff diagrams makes 12 out of 16 sets in use daily. It would also release the 175s currently working that route to strengthen other routes or introduce new ones. Compared to the 197s, you effectively save 9 diagrams because the mark 4 sets are a single long train instead of two shorter ones coupled together. Of course you could also have acheived the same thing by buying 16 sets of new mark 5 coaches to run with the 67s (actually, that's a point - would there be enough 67s available?) or 16 bi-mode 5-car 444-like units.

Suburban door layout still has some advantages with loading times even if it isn't crush loaded. I (and I don't think I'm alone) prefer the suburban layout as end doors can really feel like being in a long metal tube.

Also worth remembering that TfW bought their mk4 sets at scrap value, so they might have been willing to compromise on door positions due to the low price.

 

[craigybagel]

Suburban door layout still has some advantages with loading times even if it isn't crush loaded. I (and I don't think I'm alone) prefer the suburban layout as end doors can really feel like being in a long metal tube.

This. I've worked 6 car 158 sets both as a driver and a guard - it still takes forever to get everyone on and off.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Suburban door layout still has some advantages with loading times even if it isn't crush loaded. I (and I don't think I'm alone) prefer the suburban layout as end doors can really feel like being in a long metal tube.

Some advantage yes, but as a passenger I don't consider this to be significant (unlike when the train is crush-loaded, when the narrow doors can really slow things down) on long-distance and limited-stop services and would much rather have more legroom, more tables and better window alignment as can be found on a 175. On a journey from Swansea to Carmarthen in 2019 I timed a 158 doing all stations which had dwells of under a minute at 4 out of the 5 (the exception being Llanelli which was 1min 11sec) which I think is reasonable and I would suggest that having the driver release the doors as soon as the train has stopped rather than waiting for the guard to fight their way past the passengers to the door release controls could save as much (or more) time on a service with reasonable loadings as a suburban door layout would (I would keep guard dispatch though so cost-cutting TOCs can't get rid of the guards though).

As for the feeling of a long metal tube, I think the best of both worlds could be had by going for a bodyshell similar to the pantograph-well coach on a 444 (although I wouldn't outfit the interior like that) - ie. a standard toilet at one end, then a (single-width) door and then have the other door (also single-width) about a third of the way in from the other end of the coach. The accessible toilet and wheelchair spaces would be in a seperate vehicle.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And doing that is only a quick job in a depot, the other sets are designed with that in mind.

As opposed to the current situation where TfW would either have to acquire extra 158s from somewhere, then do the much more complicated modification work for ETCS

Bare in mind that there are 24 class 158s with ETCS compared to the planned 21 class 197s - therefore by sticking with 158s there would be three additional units without having to do any modification work at all (although there would still be the need to find something to cover the class 158's booked work away from the Cambrian in order to focus all the ETCS-fitted 158s on the Cambrian).

 

[craigybagel]

Bare in mind that there are 24 class 158s with ETCS compared to the planned 21 class 197s - therefore by sticking with 158s there would be three additional units without having to do any modification work at all (although there would still be the need to find something to cover the class 158's booked work away from the Cambrian in order to focus all the ETCS-fitted 158s on the Cambrian).

Once you take away the 3 sets that spend all day away from the Cambrian (which you can happily do with the ERTMS 197s since there's no need for them to be in South Wales to keep staff down there competent) you end up like for like.

That's before you take into account the new timetable, which may well no longer see ERTMS fitted units running all the way to Holyhead every two hours.

To make the new timetable work, it requires a large scale introduction of 197s.

This has been explained to you on many occasions.

The 158s will not be staying on the Cambrian.

 

[507020]

Once you take away the 3 sets that spend all day away from the Cambrian (which you can happily do with the ERTMS 197s since there's no need for them to be in South Wales to keep staff down there competent) you end up like for like.

That's before you take into account the new timetable, which may well no longer see ERTMS fitted units running all the way to Holyhead every two hours.

To make the new timetable work, it requires a large scale introduction of 197s.

This has been explained to you on many occasions.

The 158s will not be staying on the Cambrian.

Will the 158s not have to be some of the last to leave, since they will always need enough units to run the Cambrian service?

How likely is it that all the ETCS 197s will enter service first and how possible will it be to run any sort of timetable after only their partial introduction?

I’m still waiting for a date for Llandudno - Blaenau Ffestiniog.

 

[craigybagel]

Will the 158s not have to be some of the last to leave, since they will always need enough units to run the Cambrian service?

How likely is it that all the ETCS 197s will enter service first and how possible will it be to run any sort of timetable after only their partial introduction?

Indeed, as I've said already the Cambrian was always meant to be amongst the last routes to see 197s so yes, 158s are likely to remain there longer than on other routes. But eventually they'll all be gone.

I’m still waiting for a date for Llandudno - Blaenau Ffestiniog.

There is a date that's being planned for, and it's not terribly far off. That's as much as I'm prepared to say publicly.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Once you take away the 3 sets that spend all day away from the Cambrian (which you can happily do with the ERTMS 197s since there's no need for them to be in South Wales to keep staff down there competent) you end up like for like.

That's before you take into account the new timetable, which may well no longer see ERTMS fitted units running all the way to Holyhead every two hours.

Yes, like-for-like in terms of numbers of units actually seen on Cambrian diagrams currently. However, my point was that if you found something else to do the work of the three 158s in south Wales you could increase the Cambrian fleet to 24 units without having to do any of the complicated engineering to fit more 158s with ETCS. This would be helpful as ETCS unit requirements increase to go hourly to Aberystwyth Mon-Sat (already hourly on Sundays).

You are of course correct that, in theroy, not sending ETCS units to Holyhead would release some of the current 21 units to provide hourly to Aberystwyth without an increase in fleet. However, if Birmingham International remains the endpoint of these services I cannot see a solution to avoiding sending ETCS units to Holyhead other than running everything between Shrewsbury and Birmingham International as three units (two ETCS-fitted ones from the Cambrian and joining with one non-ETCS from Holyhead at SHR) or TfW gaining an extra path to Birmingham every 2 hours so that the Holyheads can go via Crewe and Stafford (in which case ETCS-fitted units would still need to do Birmingham-Wrexham).

To make the new timetable work, it requires a large scale introduction of 197s.

If the 'three units between Birmingham International and Shrewsbury' solution is the option taken then it would certainly require a large scale introdution of something as you would need non-ETCS units for Holyhead that can be coupled with the Cambrian units at Shrewsbury. That something could be additional 158s cascaded from somewhere else (although I can't see any being available, so that can probably be ruled out) but it could also be a future-proofed and fit-for-purpose design of new units rather than class 197s.

Nothing requires a large scale introduction of 197s specifically; in fact I would argue that timely rail decarbonisation in the most efficient manner requires that there is no large-scale deployment of 197s (or any other new unit that is not compatible with OHLE - even the planned hydrogen Aventras (which apparently is not intended to have a pantograph) would be a problem unless a pantograph can be easily retro-fitted to those). The TDNS recommendations have scope for a small number of battery units with fast-charging at stations (eg. Vivarail's Thames Valley pilot scheme with GWR) and no pantograph - this (along with hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines, which there is zero work for in the TDNS) is about the only form of alternative traction that looks like it might be feasible for a 197 but is nowhere near enough work for 77 units, let alone the 80-odd 195s+196s that already exist.

 

[craigybagel]

Yes, like-for-like in terms of numbers of units actually seen on Cambrian diagrams currently. However, my point was that if you found something else to do the work of the three 158s in south Wales you could increase the Cambrian fleet to 24 units without having to do any of the complicated engineering to fit more 158s with ETCS. This would be helpful as ETCS unit requirements increase to go hourly to Aberystwyth Mon-Sat (already hourly on Sundays).

You are of course correct that, in theroy, not sending ETCS units to Holyhead would release some of the current 21 units to provide hourly to Aberystwyth without an increase in fleet. However, if Birmingham International remains the endpoint of these services I cannot see a solution to avoiding sending ETCS units to Holyhead other than running everything between Shrewsbury and Birmingham International as three units (two ETCS-fitted ones from the Cambrian and joining with one non-ETCS from Holyhead at SHR) or TfW gaining an extra path to Birmingham every 2 hours so that the Holyheads can go via Crewe and Stafford (in which case ETCS-fitted units would still need to do Birmingham-Wrexham).

Not a hope of Stafford coming back, but running Holyheads coupled to Cambrian services should be doable. It might take a bit of shuffling of the timetable but the whole thing is getting recast anyway

If the 'three units between Birmingham International and Shrewsbury' solution is the option taken then it would certainly require a large scale introdution of something as you would need non-ETCS units for Holyhead that can be coupled with the Cambrian units at Shrewsbury. That something could be additional 158s cascaded from somewhere else (although I can't see any being available, so that can probably be ruled out) but it could also be a future-proofed and fit-for-purpose design of new units rather than class 197s.

I have explained to you repeatedly why the 197s are a better solution than extra 158s, or a different design of new unit. I shan't waste my time doing so again.

Nothing requires a large scale introduction of 197s specifically; in fact I would argue that timely rail decarbonisation in the most efficient manner requires that there is no large-scale deployment of 197s (or any other new unit that is not compatible with OHLE - even the planned hydrogen Aventras (which apparently is not intended to have a pantograph) would be a problem unless a pantograph can be easily retro-fitted to those). The TDNS recommendations have scope for a small number of battery units with fast-charging at stations (eg. Vivarail's Thames Valley pilot scheme with GWR) and no pantograph - this (along with hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines, which there is zero work for in the TDNS) is about the only form of alternative traction that looks like it might be feasible for a 197 but is nowhere near enough work for 77 units, let alone the 80-odd 195s+196s that already exist.

See above.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I have explained to you repeatedly why the 197s are a better solution than extra 158s, or a different design of new unit.

If I recall correctly, you're argument regarding the source of traction is that 'we are going to miss our decarbonisation targets' (because the UK Government is dragging its feet) 'and there is no point trying to do anything about it'. It is true that we don't look like needing electric traction anytime soon, but I disagree that 'there is no point trying to do anything about it'. To borrow from (and paraphrase) a 2020 article by George Monbiot, the Paris Agreement requires governments to pursue “the highest possible ambition”, while the UK Government's current 'net-zero by 2050' target is akin to firefighters arriving at a burning building and themselves a target of rescuing three of the five inhabitants. Firefighters' aim to save everyone; of course they don't always succeed, but they try. A class 197 (and any other new train that is not compatible with OLE) is a surrender, another stretch of railway that we can't even try to electrify.

That's one half of the argument (and probably the more important half now). The other is the interior specification - if we pretend that KeolisAmey had ordered 77 bi-mode units instead of the class 197s but otherwise identical to the 197s then a different design of new bi-mode unit would still have been a better solution unless the relevant parts of network (ie. excluding the HOWL with 153s and South Wales Metro with the 298s, 756s and 231s) were completely recast with Metro-style service patterns (open lots of new stations and have all services call at all stations) and much less running into England. The result would look something like this:

• North Wales & Marches Line
  • 1tph Holyhead - Llandudno
  • 1tph Bangor - Crewe
  • 1tph Llandudno - Liverpool
  • 0.5tph Llandudno - Blaenau Ffestiniog
  • 2tph Bidston - Wrexham Central
  • 1tph Chester - Shrewsbury (via Wrexham)
  • 1tph Chester - Cardiff Central (via Wrexham)
  • 1tph Chester - Oswestry
  • 1tph Crewe - Cardiff Central
  • 1tph Crewe - Shrewsbury
• Cambrian Lines
  • 1tph Aberystwyth - Shrewsbury
  • 1tph Pwllheli - Dovey Junction*
• South Wales
  • 1tph Milford Haven - Swansea
  • 1tph Whitland - Swansea (some services continue to/from Fishguard Harbour)
  • 1tph Pembroke Dock - Whitland
  • 1tph Swansea - Cheltenham Spa (Swanline, using class 231s converted to bi-mode)
  • 1tph Llanelli - Port Talbot Parkway (via Swansea District Line)

* I'm not exactly sure if this is possible with the passing loops, because I cannot remember exactly what it was I checked out a while back. But, if you could do it, the whole Cambrian timetable would require just 9 diagrams, so everything could be run with four coaches (18 units) with the 21 ETCS-fitted 197s.

The mark 4s would probably have to go, due to the lack of overtaking opportunities, but if 3tpd Holyhead-Cardiff and 0.5tph Cardiff-Manchester could be pathed as limited-stop services then these wouldn't be subject to the Metro-style policy and could allow TfW to retain a limited service to Manchester.

With a 'Metro-style' service (at least in terms of frequency of stops), dwell times would become a much more-significant consideration, making the class 197 design (other than the lack of OHLE compatibility) a better solution than an alternative.

Note that I'm not trying to suggest this Metro-style network would be a good idea, but if that's what we had the class 197 design would be far more understandable.

I shan't waste my time doing so again.

Fair enough.

 

[tomuk]

Stop with this door nonsense. The spec of the 197s is OK the only bit I would change is to swap some of the catering\multi use space for more seats and a luggage rack.

 

[craigybagel]

If I recall correctly, you're argument regarding the source of traction is that 'we are going to miss our decarbonisation targets' (because the UK Government is dragging its feet) 'and there is no point trying to do anything about it'. It is true that we don't look like needing electric traction anytime soon, but I disagree that 'there is no point trying to do anything about it'.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Anonymous10]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[craigybagel]

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

I don't think that's off topic at all, I think it's a very relevant point. And the future TfW offering with 197s is going to be a lot more appealing to road users than what has been available up till now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stop with this door nonsense. The spec of the 197s is OK the only bit I would change is to swap some of the catering\multi use space for more seats and a luggage rack.

The things that to me are wrong with the 197s are:
- Fainsa Sophias
- Not being bi mode
- No ETCS in 3 car sets
- Bad window alignment
- No level boarding

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

 

[Energy]

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.

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.