CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[craigybagel]

Split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/caf-civity-for-tfw.182501/

An interesting read here from the Telegraph, of which I've copied the first line.

The Treasury has blocked a £30bn blueprint to electrify Britain’s railways, raising doubts over Boris Johnson's target for a net-zero train network by 2050. ...

The full article is being discussed in this thread but I thought I would mention it here since it backs up the point I've been making since these units were ordered - they're not going to be short of work in the long term, as successive British Governments will continue to do what they've always done and kick the can down the road when it comes to large investment - like electrification.

 

[Rhydgaled]

An interesting read here from the Telegraph, of which I've copied the first line.

The full article is being discussed in this thread but I thought I would mention it here since it backs up the point I've been making since these units were ordered - they're not going to be short of work in the long term, as successive British Governments will continue to do what they've always done and kick the can down the road when it comes to large investment - like electrification.

So, we're not going to have a net-zero rail network. It doesn't change the fact that, if we did have a net-zero rail network, we wouldn't need 161 Civity DMUs.

 

[craigybagel]

So, we're not going to have a net-zero rail network. It doesn't change the fact that, if we did have a net-zero rail network, we wouldn't need 161 Civity DMUs.

And if we all had personal teleportation devices, we wouldn't need trains at all.

But this is the reality we have to live with, and postponing train orders in the hope that things are going to get better in the future when the current fleet is already struggling is only going give you an even bigger mess to deal with in a few years time.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And if we all had personal teleportation devices, we wouldn't need trains at all.

But this is the reality we have to live with

This is the reality yes, but it isn't one humanity can ultimately live with. Failing to decarbonise is going to leave future generations with an almighty mess; one that they won't be able to deal with.

postponing train orders in the hope that things are going to get better in the future when the current fleet is already struggling is only going give you an even bigger mess to deal with in a few years time.

Already struggling? The valleys are yes, but I don't think I've suggested postponing the Metro train orders for years now. COVID aside there are capacity issues outside the valleys for which a number of new units to supplement the current fleet is required. I only advocate postponing class 158 and class 175 replacement, capacity seems to be the only respect in which those units are struggling.

 

[Caaardiff]

This is the reality yes, but it isn't one humanity can ultimately live with. Failing to decarbonise is going to leave future generations with an almighty mess; one that they won't be able to deal with.


Already struggling? The valleys are yes, but I don't think I've suggested postponing the Metro train orders for years now. COVID aside there are capacity issues outside the valleys for which a number of new units to supplement the current fleet is required. I only advocate postponing class 158 and class 175 replacement, capacity seems to be the only respect in which those units are struggling.

You're contradicting yourself here. You're saying a number of new units are required, but the 158's and 175's are not going to last until 2050. 2030 might even be a push! So what happens between 2030-2050 when new units are needed and not much of TfW's network has actually be electrified?
TfW is also a business, it needs to become more efficient as a business, that means reducing the fleet types which will reduce maintenance and running costs. Having a more streamlined fleet will make it more efficient. Also having more fleet types in the mix, none of which are compatible, adds to the complications operationally.
It's not the most ideal position for TfW to be taking on a mainly diesel fleet, but it's the best to make the most impact sooner. TfW is losing passengers by the complete mess thats developed over recent years with lack of investment and capacity. The new fleet will be a huge increase in capacity and frequency that will not only entice people back to the railway, but hopefully attract new users, thus getting people out of their cars and reducing emissions that way.

Realistically decarbonising the railway is going to take a lot longer than people think. Call it whatever you like, but the 197's are the first step in reducing road usage. 200+ people on a train is better than 200 cars on the road.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You're contradicting yourself here.

Where?

You're saying a number of new units are required

Yes, COVID aside, the diet of 2/3 carriage trains on the Manchester-Swansea route is insufficient capacity and TfW don't have any more 158s and 175s to allow them to lengthen those services (and there are probably other examples) so some extra stock is needed and there's no likely cascade prospects other than the mark 4s which are probably not sufficient by themselves.

the 158's and 175's are not going to last until 2050. 2030 might even be a push!

They aren't going to last to 2050, but I'm not asking them to do so. COVID aside, I can't see Northern's 150/1s being retired before 2025, by which time they'll be 40 years old. Give the 175s the same 40 years and they will last until 2040. For the 158s, 40 years takes them to 2030. That's at least one general election and potentially another 9 COP summits away.

So what happens between 2030-2050 when new units are needed and not much of TfW's network has actually be electrified?

Get new units that can make use of the bits that have actually been electrified (which won't be much more than now when the 158s are replaced, but by 2040 when the 175s need replacing hopefully rather more). By 2029 battery and/or hydrogen technology may have developed enough to make them a viable alternative to diesel for the bits that aren't electric and, even if it doesn't, having something that's easily converted from diesel to something else is way better than something that isn't. I'm not expecting one election to completely remove the Treasury's reluctance, but it sure would be easier to pursade them if the trains were basically good-to-go for electrification and they didn't have to spend millions on the trains to make use of electrification as well as the electrification itself.

TfW is also a business, it needs to become more efficient as a business, that means reducing the fleet types which will reduce maintenance and running costs. Having a more streamlined fleet will make it more efficient. Also having more fleet types in the mix, none of which are compatible, adds to the complications operationally.

I understand this, but it's hard to balance that with trying to be efficient at a national level by making full use of existing assets (the 158s and 175s) with the industry being so fragmented. We can't go back and change the design now, but an appropriate new-build product (bi-mode, more toilets, tables and legroom etc.) providing the extra capacity and releasing the 158s to GWR would have made sense.

The new fleet will be a huge increase in capacity and frequency that will not only entice people back to the railway, but hopefully attract new users, thus getting people out of their cars and reducing emissions that way.

Capacity and frequency entice passengers, only for views of window pillars, reduced legroom (where replacing 175s), queues for the loo etc. to send some of them back into their cars. The net effect on patronage is probably fairly neutral.

Realistically decarbonising the railway is going to take a lot longer than people think.

My understanding is that the UK has just under 30 years to meet a legally binding net-zero target. 30 years is a fairly long time; we're not going to decarbonise the railway in 5 years but if we can't do it in 30 we're in big trouble.

200+ people on a train is better than 200 cars on the road.

Yes, but the 197s aren't a long-distance product, so they aren't going to be winning massive amounts of new business from road unless they are moved to provide a Metro service which would probably be crying out for electrification before long.

 

[Caaardiff]

Where?

There's going to be a shift of diesel units around the country, whether they are with TfW or another TOC. TfW getting rid of 158's and 175's isn't them being retired and scrapped, they will end up elsewhere.
Given the number of diesel units currently in service across the UK, 161 Civities is a drop in the ocean which will cover those more rural routes across the whole of the UK to enable the retirement of older stock in years to come. It doesn't mean the 197s will spend their entire lifetime with TfW. If the Welsh or UK Government are committed to the best use of certain stock over part electrified lines then down the line those trains can be ordered.
TfW's Franchise commitments so far cover the planned frequency and capacity increases, along with a couple of new routes. The final plan of the Swansea and North Wales metro still hasn't been decided upon, so more fleet will be required for those once it's confirmed and built, probably 2030+.

Yes, COVID aside, the diet of 2/3 carriage trains on the Manchester-Swansea route is insufficient capacity and TfW don't have any more 158s and 175s to allow them to lengthen those services (and there are probably other examples) so some extra stock is needed and there's no likely cascade prospects other than the mark 4s which are probably not sufficient by themselves.

The last thing TfW needs is a mishmash of fleet types across the network, resulting in higher maintenance costs, higher training costs, more risks in the event of failures due to incompatibility... the list goes on. The 197's allow a uniform fleet for portion working so the busier routes can be longer and split to run on to quieter part of the networks without the need to change.

Capacity and frequency entice passengers, only for views of window pillars, reduced legroom (where replacing 175s), queues for the loo etc. to send some of them back into their cars. The net effect on patronage is probably fairly neutral.

Everyone is sick of hearing this. Very few people will decide to avoid the train because of a blocked view and won't even notice the difference in legroom. A car, especially driving one, is a lot less comfortable and provides a lot less legroom than being able to move around a train. Give it up.

 

[wobman]

And if we all had personal teleportation devices, we wouldn't need trains at all.

But this is the reality we have to live with, and postponing train orders in the hope that things are going to get better in the future when the current fleet is already struggling is only going give you an even bigger mess to deal with in a few years time.

This is the reality of running the railways, from the outside looking in it all looks so simple.
But electrification isn't going to happen for decades unfortunately, so the next best alternative is the 197s from the tfw perspective.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Given the number of diesel units currently in service across the UK, 161 Civities is a drop in the ocean which will cover those more rural routes across the whole of the UK to enable the retirement of older stock in years to come.

It's a drop in the ocean now, and with the current political climate may remain so (I would say 'will remain so' aside from the Government's interest in hydrogen and battery trains and Alstom's proposed new-build hydrogen-only Aventras (with no pantographs)). However, with the shift in attitude necessary to tackle the climate emergency it is massive. Even 80 straight DMUs is more than would be ideal in that suituation.

It doesn't mean the 197s will spend their entire lifetime with TfW.

Correct, they could be cascaded away, but 161 Civities is still a problem for UK wide decarbonisation.

The last thing TfW needs is a mishmash of fleet types across the network, resulting in higher maintenance costs, higher training costs, more risks in the event of failures due to incompatibility... the list goes on.

As said above, I get that. If the 197s were what I thought they should be (a cross between a 397 and what we actually got) I would have been content to see the 158s cascaded to GWR which would mean TfW wouldn't have needed to add an additional type (since the new one would replace the 158s). However, KeolisAmey's decision to introduce a suburban diesel-only design means there's nothing suitable for replacing the 158s and 175s, meaning they need to be kept, leaving us with the mess of needing an additional type.

Given the number of diesel units currently in service across the UK, 161 Civities is a drop in the ocean which will cover those more rural routes across the whole of the UK to enable the retirement of older stock in years to come.

It's a drop in the ocean now, and with the current political climate may remain so (I would say 'will remain so' aside from the Government's interest in hydrogen and battery trains and Alstom's proposed new-build hydrogen-only Aventras (with no pantographs)). However, with the shift in attitude necessary to tackle the climate emergency it is massive. Even 80 straight DMUs is more than would be ideal in that suituation.

It doesn't mean the 197s will spend their entire lifetime with TfW.

Correct, they could be cascaded away, but 161 Civities is still a problem for UK wide decarbonisation.

The last thing TfW needs is a mishmash of fleet types across the network, resulting in higher maintenance costs, higher training costs, more risks in the event of failures due to incompatibility... the list goes on.

As said above, I get that. If the 197s were what I thought they should be (a cross between a 397 and what we actually got) I would have been content to see the 158s cascaded to GWR which would mean TfW wouldn't have needed to add an additional type (since the new one would replace the 158s). However, KeolisAmey's decision to introduce a suburban diesel-only design means there's nothing suitable for replacing the 158s and 175s, meaning they need to be kept, leaving us with the mess of needing an additional type.

EDIT: I came back because I thought I should move this response into this topic instead, but it's not open for further replies: https://railforums.co.uk/threads/cl...fw-alternatives-and-speculation.214525/page-4

 

[tomuk]

If the 197s were what I thought they should be (a cross between a 397 and what we actually got) ....... However, KeolisAmey's decision to introduce a suburban diesel-only design

So in summary you don't like them because the doors are in the 'wrong' place. Climate Change is just you latest excuse to criticise them.

 

[berneyarms]

It's a drop in the ocean now, and with the current political climate may remain so (I would say 'will remain so' aside from the Government's interest in hydrogen and battery trains and Alstom's proposed new-build hydrogen-only Aventras (with no pantographs)). However, with the shift in attitude necessary to tackle the climate emergency it is massive. Even 80 straight DMUs is more than would be ideal in that suituation.


Correct, they could be cascaded away, but 161 Civities is still a problem for UK wide decarbonisation.


As said above, I get that. If the 197s were what I thought they should be (a cross between a 397 and what we actually got) I would have been content to see the 158s cascaded to GWR which would mean TfW wouldn't have needed to add an additional type (since the new one would replace the 158s). However, KeolisAmey's decision to introduce a suburban diesel-only design means there's nothing suitable for replacing the 158s and 175s, meaning they need to be kept, leaving us with the mess of needing an additional type.


It's a drop in the ocean now, and with the current political climate may remain so (I would say 'will remain so' aside from the Government's interest in hydrogen and battery trains and Alstom's proposed new-build hydrogen-only Aventras (with no pantographs)). However, with the shift in attitude necessary to tackle the climate emergency it is massive. Even 80 straight DMUs is more than would be ideal in that suituation.


Correct, they could be cascaded away, but 161 Civities is still a problem for UK wide decarbonisation.


As said above, I get that. If the 197s were what I thought they should be (a cross between a 397 and what we actually got) I would have been content to see the 158s cascaded to GWR which would mean TfW wouldn't have needed to add an additional type (since the new one would replace the 158s). However, KeolisAmey's decision to introduce a suburban diesel-only design means there's nothing suitable for replacing the 158s and 175s, meaning they need to be kept, leaving us with the mess of needing an additional type.

EDIT: I came back because I thought I should move this response into this topic instead, but it's not open for further replies: https://railforums.co.uk/threads/cl...fw-alternatives-and-speculation.214525/page-4

Look we all get that you don't like these trains. But most of us want to come to this thread to read news about the actual trains themselves, and not having to re-read on every single page your objections to them.

You've made your feelings more than abundantly clear, but you don't have to constantly remind us of them. We get it.

Any chance we could stick to actual news of the trains here?

 

[Neptune]

Look we all get that you don't like these trains. But most of us want to come to this thread to read news about the actual trains themselves, and not having to re-read on every single page your objections to them.

You've made your feelings more than abundantly clear, but you don't have to constantly remind us of them. We get it.

Any chance we could stick to actual news of the trains here?

Absolutely.

If you look back through the 55 pages of this thread the same rant is trotted out until the mods get hold of it and then it gets back on track before the door is opened ajar to air those same views yet again and repeat the process. Legroom is one objection, has the poster somehow tried them out yet? For reference the near identical 195’s have excellent legroom in the airline seats.

The poster even started their own thread on these same views a while back which didn’t last too long if I remember rightly.

People come here for news on these new trains (which I’m sure the vast majority of people will welcome after years of no progress in Welsh rolling stock), not to constantly hear one persons objections trotted out every few pages.

 

[tomuk]

it gets back on track before the door is opened ajar to air those same views yet again

Ha Ha I see what you did there

 

[Rhydgaled]

So in summary you don't like them because the doors are in the 'wrong' place. Climate Change is just you latest excuse to criticise them.

Not quite; if they were electric I would potentially like them and would just be arguing for them to be redeployed. You don't see me complaining about 350s or 730s.

 

[Caaardiff]

Not quite; if they were electric I would potentially like them and would just be arguing for them to be redeployed. You don't see me complaining about 350s or 730s.

Another contradiction. You continually to comment on legroom, toilets, window alignments which demonstrates your dislike for perceived customer experience, which as yet, you haven't experienced. Read the room, everyone is tired of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another contradiction. You continually to comment on legroom, toilets, window alignments which demonstrates your dislike for perceived customer experience, which as yet, you haven't experienced. Read the room, everyone is tired of it.

I don't think to be fair that you need to actually sit in seats to see that the seating plans show them with poor alignment and spacing, same with lack of toilets (not so much the absolute number, but that under 2 can be a problem as failure becomes a much bigger issue, particularly on stock that is being used for 4 hour journeys with most stations along the way having no facilities). I do agree that those things are unnecessarily poor and would have been very easy for TfW to fix.

To me, they are certainly inferior to the refurbished 158s in these regards, though the door positions will help on what are often busy services.

Great 150 replacements, of course, which is what I said of the 195s.

 

[Caaardiff]

I don't think to be fair that you need to actually sit in seats to see that the seating plans show them with poor alignment and spacing, same with lack of toilets. I do agree that those things are unnecessarily poor and would have been very easy for TfW to fix.

No-one cares about whether the seats align with windows apart from people on this forum! People seriously need to stop going on about it.

Is there any published official data stating the legroom? Can someone repost the document with the seating plan on? How many seats are actually blocked? From what i've read online it's 2 sets in one carriage of the 3 car units.

You do realise that increasing the legroom will likely decrease capacity as well?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No-one cares about whether the seats align with windows apart from people on this forum! People seriously need to stop going on about it.

TransPennine Express, for example, care enough to have specified it in the 397s (though bizarrely not in the other units). And Wales is particularly scenic. So yes, people do care.

If you don't believe me, go on a Pendolino and see which seats are taken last. It's always the same ones.

Is there any published official data stating the legroom? Can someone repost the document with the seating plan on? How many seats are actually blocked? From what i've read online it's 2 sets in one carriage of the 3 car units.

I believe the pitch is shown on the seating plan (but I don't have it to hand).

You do realise that increasing the legroom will likely decrease capacity as well?

Yes, of course. But for trains that will be used on journeys as long (in time) as Kings Cross to Edinburgh comfort has to be a consideration, particularly with regard to the Cambrian where First Class is not being provided. And I retain my view that two-car units for the Cambrian were the wrong choice.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't think to be fair that you need to actually sit in seats to see that the seating plans show them with poor alignment and spacing, same with lack of toilets (not so much the absolute number, but that under 2 can be a problem as failure becomes a much bigger issue, particularly on stock that is being used for 4 hour journeys with most stations along the way having no facilities). I do agree that those things are unnecessarily poor and would have been very easy for TfW to fix.

Thank you.

No-one cares about whether the seats align with windows apart from people on this forum! People seriously need to stop going on about it.

TransPennine Express, for example, care enough to have specified it in the 397s (though bizarrely not in the other units). And Wales is particularly scenic. So yes, people do care.

If you don't believe me, go on a Pendolino and see which seats are taken last. It's always the same ones.

Thank you again. Also, SARPA care; they got the spec changed for the 2011 class 158 refurb because the original plans had very few (5 or 6) table bays aligned with the windows. As a result, we now have 158s with the vast majority of the 16 bays being aligned with the windows (unfortunately with the pandemic I've not been able to get a ride on a 158 recently to check exactly how many). The 197s are even worse than the aborted version of the 2011 refurbishment spec, with only four table bays aligned with the windows.

Is there any published official data stating the legroom?

Not the legroom technically, but the spacing between rows (seat pitch) can be seen on the seat plan (820mm).

Can someone repost the document with the seating plan on? How many seats are actually blocked? From what i've read online it's 2 sets in one carriage of the 3 car units.

The PDF vector is over 6,000KB so I've taken a screenshot instead. As for seats blocked, that depends on the degree to which they are blocked. As noted above there are only four table bays with completely unobstructed views in each unit (2 or 3 car, first class fitted or otherwise, it doesn't matter). Some of the obstructed ones may only be slightly so, but they are obstructed all the same. The worst one is in the middle carriage of the 3-car units which has the pillar essentially dead-centre. Two of the four bays in first class are partially obstructed as well.

You do realise that increasing the legroom will likely decrease capacity as well?

Yes. A 158 has a fair number of extra seats compared to a 2-car 197 or 175, but one of the 158's few downsides is poor legroom (seat pitch on a 158 is 80cm I believe, though I don't have a seat plan to confirm that). However, a 2-car 197 has two fewer seats than a 2-car 175 and the seat pitch on a 175 is I believe 84cm (2cm greater than the 197), although as with the 158 I am unable to confirm the class 175 figure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The First Class end bit is particularly careless, as the bay could be much closer to aligned by simply moving the luggage racks from their present location to by the cab and shifting the seats along. Furthermore that layout would allow one more First Class seat.

 

[wobman]

The First Class end bit is particularly careless, as the bay could be much closer to aligned by simply moving the luggage racks from their present location to by the cab and shifting the seats along. Furthermore that layout would allow one more First Class seat.

Maybe the first class spec may change or not exist on the 197s if the Mk4s run on the Cardiff to Manchester route as planned, one good thing about tfw they are welcome to changing plans if it's feasible.

 

[craigybagel]

If you don't believe me, go on a Pendolino and see which seats are taken last. It's always the same ones.

It's interesting that you mention the Pendolinos, since there's a lot to be learnt from there.

Virgin replaced a popular but aging and no longer truly fit for purpose fleet with a large fleet of brand new purpose built units. The Pendolinos didn't have as many toilets as the vehicles they replaced, and the seat to window ratio wasn't as good - but they were modern, and they came with an updated timetable making the most both of their increased abilities and the fact there were more of them than what they replaced.

Far from being put off by the new fleet, passenger numbers went up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Virgin replaced a popular but aging and no longer truly fit for purpose fleet with a large fleet of brand new purpose built units. The Pendolinos didn't have as many toilets as the vehicles they replaced, and the seat to window ratio wasn't as good - but they were modern, and they came with an updated timetable making the most both of their increased abilities and the fact there were more of them than what they replaced.

As compared to TfW's Class 197s, which, on the Cambrian, will:
1. Not operate any faster than the Class 158s;
2. Have an inferior standard of passenger accommodation to the Class 158s in most regards (the only one in which they won't is that the aircon is likely to work);
3. Have less passenger capacity than the Class 158s.

Not quite the WCML transformation (which probably did make it worth putting up with the Pendolino's downsides), is it?

I'm not super-anti-197 but they really have done a bad job in terms of the layout, and the Cambrian really needs some 3-car units unless the Pwllheli frequency is to be increased alongside the Aber one. Locking in reduced capacity for the next 30 years is a really bad idea. And if you don't think it is, just take a look at 185-era TPE or XC.

 

[craigybagel]

As compared to TfW's Class 197s, which, on the Cambrian, will:
1. Not operate any faster than the Class 158s;
2. Have an inferior standard of passenger accommodation to the Class 158s in most regards (the only one in which they won't is that the aircon is likely to work);
3. Have less passenger capacity than the Class 158s.

Not quite the WCML transformation (which probably did make it worth putting up with the Pendolino's downsides), is it?

I'm not super-anti-197 but they really have done a bad job in terms of the layout, and the Cambrian really needs some 3-car units unless the Pwllheli frequency is to be increased alongside the Aber one. Locking in reduced capacity for the next 30 years is a really bad idea. And if you don't think it is, just take a look at 185-era TPE or XC.

1. Top speed may not be improved over 158s but acceleration will, as well as hill climbing ability (very handy on Talerdig) and station dwell times.

2. Very subjective and in your own opinion which I've pointed out many times.

3. Only if they run at the same timetable and with the same unit allocations as now. The Cambrian mainline will be going hourly all day, thus increasing capacity. The Coast will keep it's current frequency and yes, with 2 car 197s that represents a reduction in capacity. 95% of the year that isn't a problem in the slightest - and unlike with the current fleet, TfW should be in a position to increase capacity on the coast on the rare occasions it is needed.

And the above issues only apply to the Cambrian coast, which makes up a tiny proportion of the network. Going back to my WCML analogy, it's a bit like condemning the entire VHF project because for some of its services Holyhead went from HSTs to single Voyagers.

 

[berneyarms]

@Bletchleyite @Rhydgaled at the risk of repeating myself - you two have gone over all of this again, and again, and again on this thread. I really do get that you have issues with the design of these trains, but could you maybe post them elsewhere and can we please focus on actual news about them here?

Whether either of you like it or not, the trains have been ordered, contracts have been signed and the trains are being built and delivered.

We are surely past the point in this thread of discussing whether they should be ordered or not, and whether the spec is right or not.

They aren’t going to change them now unless issues arise after they enter service and need modifications.

I’ll report my own post for moderator guidance at this stage.

 

[Neptune]

@Bletchleyite @Rhydgaled at the risk of repeating myself - you two have gone over all of this again, and again, and again on this thread. I really do get that you have issues with the design of these trains, but could you maybe post them elsewhere and can we please focus on actual news about them here?

Whether either of you like it or not, the trains have been ordered, contracts have been signed and the trains are being built and delivered.

We are surely past the point in this thread of discussing whether they should be ordered or not, and whether the spec is right or not.

They aren’t going to change them now unless issues arise after they enter service and need modifications.

I’ll report my own post for moderator guidance at this stage.

It happened before and there was nothing different to what’s going on on this thread. Its totally futile repeating everything over and over.

 

[craigybagel]

Indeed, and I apologise to other posters for my part in engaging in and thus prolonging these nonsensical arguments. However, when unknowing readers come to this thread they may be left with the impression that the new fleet is going to be a disaster, and I feel something has to be done to counter that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, and I apologise to other posters for my part in engaging in and thus prolonging these nonsensical arguments. However, when unknowing readers come to this thread they may be left with the impression that the new fleet is going to be a disaster, and I feel something has to be done to counter that.

Perhaps the thread should be split, with this one used for updates only (and renamed accordingly) and a speculative one regarding what is wrong with them? Too complex I guess to move postings around but going forward that would make sense.

 

[Caaardiff]

Perhaps the thread should be split, with this one used for updates only (and renamed accordingly) and a speculative one regarding what is wrong with them? Too complex I guess to move postings around but going forward that would make sense.

No. Because its just repetition. Each side has aired their views, some more repetitively than others. Speculation on a fleet that has already been built and will soon be entering service is an absolutely pointless task. Let's not keep repeating the same conversations and once they enter service and people actually experience it for themselves then a new thread can be made to discuss the reality.

3. Only if they run at the same timetable and with the same unit allocations as now. The Cambrian mainline will be going hourly all day, thus increasing capacity. The Coast will keep it's current frequency and yes, with 2 car 197s that represents a reduction in capacity. 95% of the year that isn't a problem in the slightest - and unlike with the current fleet, TfW should be in a position to increase capacity on the coast on the rare occasions it is needed

Hopefully with more available units they can at least plan something additional to Barmouth at least to ease the peak summer pressure.

 

[Neptune]

Perhaps the thread should be split, with this one used for updates only (and renamed accordingly) and a speculative one regarding what is wrong with them? Too complex I guess to move postings around but going forward that would make sense.

As I’ve twice said, it was done before and offered nothing more than another set of rants seen on here regularly.