CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[Bletchleyite]

Some would argue the first go was in 1976.

I suppose they initially were, but I guess they're more conventional top-and-tail LHCS in practice.

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader which got more things right, though

Ummm, what about the very trains the 197s are replacing - don't the 3-car 175s have one toilet per car?

I can't remember now. I think it's two per unit (one big, one small) but I could be wrong.

 

[RealTrains07]

They'll be about 35 years old by then. No need to get hung up on "oh, but a train has to last 50 years" like people were with say the HEx units - it doesn't, 35 is perfectly respectable. Just because the Class 101s became depot pets and enthusiasts' obsessions doesn't mean every unit has to last that long.

Thats not the point though is it. Investing in a fleet thats build to last 40 years getting rid of it after 20 is just wasting investment which could have been saved and used otherwise. Better off saving money by investing trains that will last 20 years. (HEx units were an exception. They were just awful)

Which at the rate we are going is most likely to be how long the civity units such as the 197s will last. I would say 20 years at most.

Ill save it for another thread but you cant dismiss people who complain about trains being wasted as just hung up enthusiasts.

Not every new train is perfect and the 197s certainly arent looking to be what TfW promised them to be.

 

[Neptune]

I can't remember now. I think it's two per unit (one big, one small) but I could be wrong.

I’m fairly sure that the 175’s have a toilet in each coach. The 3 car 158’s likewise. 2 is more than enough to be fair and 3 is a luxury that isn’t massively necessary.

The 195’s (and 331’s) are incredibly popular with passengers. I work 195’s on Blackpool - York services amongst others and although a 2nd toilet would be a good idea, the single DDA toilets are proving reliable and I am yet to see one not working in the 18 months I’ve worked them.

The seats are also comfortable enough for long journeys. Perhaps TfW should have stuck with fitting these seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thats not the point though is it. Investing in a fleet thats build to last 40 years getting rid of it after 20 is just wasting investment which could have been saved and used otherwise. Better off saving money by investing trains that will last 20 years. (HEx units were an exception. They were just awful)

I would reckon on 35 years, not 20. 35 years is a very respectable age for a train.

FWIW if they are the last of the mechanical DMUs I would expect they will in due course have quite a following of enthusiasts!

 

[Jamesrob637]

I’m fairly sure that the 175’s have a toilet in each coach. The 3 car 158’s likewise. 2 is more than enough to be fair and 3 is a luxury that isn’t massively necessary.

The 195’s (and 331’s) are incredibly popular with passengers. I work 195’s on Blackpool - York services amongst others and although a 2nd toilet would be a good idea, the single DDA toilets are proving reliable and I am yet to see one not working in the 18 months I’ve worked them.

The seats are also comfortable enough for long journeys. Perhaps TfW should have stuck with fitting these seats.

I had a 195 Leeds to Manchester just before COVID-19 whose loo was out of order. Cue a slightly extended stop at Bradford!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Until any form of electrification is confirmed or even gets any sort of funding. DMU such as the 197s are the option we have in terms of modern DMU. This same electrification argument could be said about the 196s.

They are not the only option we have. Although I don't think FLIRTs would be ideal for the routes concerned, both 755s and 231s would have been a better choice from a decarbonisation perspective than 197s assuming the 231 is as easy to convert to bi-mode as I believe it will be. There's also the possibility of a bi-mode Aventra and I think CAF's website offers a bi-mode Civity although it's not clear whether they can do one to UK loading guage. Diesel-only trains should be ruled out; indeed the TDNS strongly advises against procurement of new diesel-only stock. As for the 196s the difference is they are only a small fleet that could easily be cascaded to replace 150s.

I agree the 197s may not be ideal for people (especially considering the trains they are replacing) but
their definitely is time for them to be improved in terms of layout and seating.

They could improve the interiors at a refurbishment yes, but they cannot hope to match the trains they are replacing with that bodyshell. To be suitable for long-distances they need an extra toilet and the space for that has to come from somewhere and the 197 bodyshell wastes space by having wide doors.

Hopefully TfW will come to their senses and try a bi mode conversion for the 197 fleet at some point? Surely that will have more chance at getting funding than electrification schemes?

I suspect that if that had been the only problem they would have added cables. It's not exactly a difficult problem. Crikey, Pendolinos have a 25kV bus bar along most of the roofline, and this would be low(er) voltage. There were lots of issues with Project Thor which meant that building new Class 80x make more sense than doing it.

It may not be the ONLY reason Project Thor wasn't a goer, but it was a contributing factor apparently. As a mechanical unit rather than a DEMU, a bi-mode class 197 would appear an even greater challange than e-Voyager. If e-Voyager ended up in the 'too difficult' bin I suspect the same will happen with the 197s. It would certainly be harder than buying a new bi-mode to replace a practically life-expired 158 in 2030.

The only place I hear backlash against ironing board seats is on here, particularly given that the variant they used has a different (thicker and contoured) seat base and is thus nothing like the Thameslink one (say). It's actually a very comfortable seat (by modern standards) that by its simplicity suits people of lots of different shapes and sizes. To me it's vastly better than a Sophia (which is why I think TfW made the wrong choice there) though that's my opinion and not everyone agrees.

I've not used either seat enough to form an opinion on which is worse, but I dislike both.

The longest routes these operate on are the Barrows and Windermeres, but most people aren't using them end to end.

Really? I thought something like Leeds-Chester or Blackpool-York would be longer. Maybe Northern's regional routes weren't as long as I thought they were.

If you ask me the 195s are even worse than 197s, if it wasn't for the embedded carbon instead of saying cancel the 197s I would be saying send them to Northern and scrap the 195s. If people actually want to use 195s then maybe car makers should start putting blocks of wood in instead of padded seats.

It would be madness to scrap the 195s. While I would still describe them as "poor man's Turbostars" they are a vast improvement on just about everything else Northern have other than 158s, and they are much more suited to busy services than end-doored units.

Yes, it would be madness to scrap the 195s - my suggestion that they should be scrapped had an IF in it - note the "if it wasn't for the embedded carbon" bit. Maybe I should have been clearer that that is a very big IF.

However, I disagree with the rest. The only things they are a 'vast improvement' on are 150s and Pacers. With 153s (in pairs), 155s and 156s there's not much in it, there are pros and cons to each type.

Emptying out a full-and-standing 158 takes well upwards of 5 minutes, it's like emptying out a full single-door double decker bus. Whereas a 195 loads and empties in seconds

The problem there is the 158 is full and standing. Any regional service should not be full and standing, rolling stock needs to be matched to the route it works. A stopping commuter service needs something like a 196 or 197, a regional express needs something like a 158.

They'll be about 35 years old by then. No need to get hung up on "oh, but a train has to last 50 years" like people were with say the HEx units - it doesn't, 35 is perfectly respectable.

I wasn't suggesting they would last more than 35 years. I was suggesting that:

• if we didn't have 77 class 197s, there could be a small amount of electrification (eg. Cardiff-Swansea) between now and 2042 and
• if we didn't have 77 class 197s, there could be quite a bit more electrification between 2042 and 2057

However, in 2042 the class 197s will only be 20 years old, which works against electrification of Cardiff-Swansea for example. Similarly, any electrification that might have taken place between 2042 and 2050 may be delayed until after 2057 to await replacement for the class 197s.

I've heard quite few very positive comments about them. I can't recall them all, but I've certainly heard "wow, this is much nicer than the London train" from someone changing onto one at Lancaster - yes, comparing a cheapo DMU with a rather more expensive Pendolino.

Have any of these positive comments compared them to a car? Maybe most people don't share my dislike of hard seats and a view of a window pillar.

Do any 3-car UK trains have one toilet per carriage? I can't think of any. 2 in the unit is most common, one big and one small.

Ummm, what about the very trains the 197s are replacing - don't the 3-car 175s have one toilet per car?

I can't remember now. I think it's two per unit (one big, one small) but I could be wrong.

The 175/1s and 3-car 170s are listed as having three toilets on TfW's stock specification spreadsheets - see here for example. While I think most 170s only have two toilets, the 3-car units TfW have are an exception I believe.

Those wide doors will be an advantage on busy trains, particularly on the Cambrian Coast in summer.

Double-edged sword. At the same time as getting passengers on and off faster they mean less space for tables (which may loose some repeat business from passengers hoping for a scenic journey) and all those passengers forming a queue for the one and only loo. If you fit a second loo, you further reduce the seating capacity.

It doesn't matter where electrification happens first, and I agree most of Wales will be a way down the list. The fact is 161 Civity DMUs is a barrier to completing Network Rail's recommended electrification programme by 2050.

That is not a fact, it's your opinion, and with respect I completely disagree with it.

Fact: 161 Civity DMUs have been ordered. Fact: given a 35 year life, they will still be running in the early 2050s. Fact: they are not bi-mode, so they don't contribute to the business case for electrification. Fact: the TDNS recomends widespread electrification.

I'll accept that my statement may have been partly opinion-based, but under 130 self-powered trains (most of them bi-mode) are needed if the TDNS is implemented in full. So forgive me for struggling to see how having 161 straight DMUs still running in 2050 is in any way compatible with getting to that stage by then.

 

[DB]

The 195’s (and 331’s) are incredibly popular with passengers.

Anything replacing Pacers and 150s on a route would be seen as a massive step up!

Against the 333s it's far less clear - I actually prefer the 333s.

 

[Neptune]

Anything replacing Pacers and 150s on a route would be seen as a massive step up!

Against the 333s it's far less clear - I actually prefer the 333s.

We all have a personal opinion but I’ve never heard a punter say anything but positive things about them. Tables, plugs, capacity, all seem happy with them. 333’s in the peaks (pre-COVID obviously) are over cramped because of the 3+2 seating and narrow aisle meaning everyone blocks the doorway. 331’s have the stand back area, they just lack grab handles in this area but then so do the 333’s.

Remember that on a lot of routes the 195’s replaced 156, 158 & 185’s (rather than 14x and 150’s) and again, no adverse comments. In fact the passengers (who unlike on here have no particular class bias or nostalgia for anything railway) are more than happy with their new trains.

But for the awful ride (and that is what really lets CAF products down) they are a perfect commuter unit. With minimal mods they are also perfectly fine for inter-regional services.

 

[RealTrains07]

I would reckon on 35 years, not 20. 35 years is a very respectable age for a train.

FWIW if they are the last of the mechanical DMUs I would expect they will in due course have quite a following of enthusiasts!

I disagree. With the way the industry is going in terms of removing DMUs from the network by 2050 and with the way the rail manufacturing is going. I would be surprised if the 197s lasted more than 25 years.

 

[DB]

We all have a personal opinion but I’ve never heard a punter say anything but positive things about them. Tables, plugs, capacity, all seem happy with them. 333’s in the peaks (pre-COVID obviously) are over cramped because of the 3+2 seating and narrow aisle meaning everyone blocks the doorway. 331’s have the stand back area, they just lack grab handles in this area but then so do the 333’s.

Remember that on a lot of routes the 195’s replaced 156, 158 & 185’s (rather than 14x and 150’s) and again, no adverse comments. In fact the passengers (who unlike on here have no particular class bias or nostalgia for anything railway) are more than happy with their new trains.

But for the awful ride (and that is what really lets CAF products down) they are a perfect commuter unit. With minimal mods they are also perfectly fine for inter-regional services.

I'm not saying they are bad - they are perfectly OK, but I wouldn't have said they are as good as the 170s or 158s, or the 333s. I also don't think the layout of the 331s is very sensible - a lot of table seats isn't a good use of space on commuter units (on the triangle lines, the maximum journey is 40 minutes and most are no more than half an hour) - they'd be better off with more airline seats. Of course it's fine at the moment, but with normal levels of usage it would be better to have more airline seats as these take up a bit less space than table bays.

 

[37424]

I'm not saying they are bad - they are perfectly OK, but I wouldn't have said they are as good as the 170s or 158s, or the 333s. I also don't think the layout of the 331s is very sensible - a lot of table seats isn't a good use of space on commuter units (on the triangle lines, the maximum journey is 40 minutes and most are no more than half an hour) - they'd be better off with more airline seats. Of course it's fine at the moment, but with normal levels of usage it would be better to have more airline seats as these take up a bit less space than table bays.

The 331 layout was clearly designed for Northern Connect services to Blackpool and potentially Windermere before the wires got canned. The alternative would have been to have 2 different layouts with reduced flexibility.

The 331/195's seem perfectly fine for Northern yes ideally the seats could be a bit better and ideally you would get that for the Welsh Trains but otherwise if the new trains offer more capacity and a reasonable travel environment I doubt most punters will complain, I remember traveling on a 155 not long after they were introduced on the Manchester Cardiff route and thinking what cramped noisy piece of crap they were compared to the previous loco hauled trains, it stopped me travelling on that route but it didn't stop normal punters from travelling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 331/195's seem perfectly fine for Northern yes ideally the seats could be a bit better and ideally you would get that for the Welsh Trains but otherwise if the new trains offer more capacity and a reasonable travel environment I doubt most punters will complain, I remember traveling on a 155 not long after they were introduced on the Manchester Cardiff route and thinking what cramped noisy piece of crap they were compared to the previous loco hauled trains, it stopped me travelling on that route but it didn't stop normal punters from travelling.

It really astonishes me that @Rhydgaled would take a 153 or 155 over even the proposed 197 interior. They really are junk. Noisy, rattling, smelly and no legroom. 156s are the pinnacle of the non-aircon Sprinters, but TBH a 195 is still nicer.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The 331/195's seem perfectly fine for Northern yes ideally the seats could be a bit better and ideally you would get that for the Welsh Trains but otherwise if the new trains offer more capacity and a reasonable travel environment I doubt most punters will complain

The 197s only offer more capacity if you count standing capacity or you are on one of the few routes that gains an extra carriage or two. Where a 197 replaces a 158 on a coach-for-coach basis (such as the Cambrian) the seating capacity is actually reduced, and it is still not confirmed how TfW plan to serve Milford Haven. Currently Milford Haven has 3-car 175s on some services, and pre-COVID on summer Saturdays boarding the 09:23 (or thereabouts) at Haverfordwest to head towards Carmarthen I'd say that the 3-car set was needed (I can't speak for other times). But it seems likely KeolisAmey planned to use 2-cars on all Manchester-Milford services west of Swansea.

I remember traveling on a 155 not long after they were introduced on the Manchester Cardiff route and thinking what cramped noisy piece of crap they were compared to the previous loco hauled trains, it stopped me travelling on that route but it didn't stop normal punters from travelling.

How many of the 'normal punters' are discresionary travel? My worry is that we need to get people out of cars to tackle climate change - putting an uncomfortable train on might not put that many existing passengers off but it's hardly going to be a big draw. You doubt that most punters will complain, and you could well be right, but will they recomend it to their friends? That's what I think the rail industry should be aiming for, at least on long-distance routes; a high-quality product that says "Thank you for choosing rail" and generates repeat business. A service that people actually want to use because it is a pleasant experience, not just because they want to get into a big crowded city and it's faster than sitting in a traffic jam on the roads.

It really astonishes me that @Rhydgaled would take a 153 or 155 over even the proposed 197 interior. They really are junk. Noisy, rattling, smelly and no legroom. 156s are the pinnacle of the non-aircon Sprinters, but TBH a 195 is still nicer.

Did I say that? If I did, I have also contradicted myself above (post #821). What I said there was "The only things they are a 'vast improvement' on are 150s and Pacers. With 153s (in pairs), 155s and 156s there's not much in it, there are pros and cons to each type." I didn't say I would certainly take a 153 over a 195, I said there wasn't much in it. Quite frankly I would avoid any of them (153/155/195) for a long journey although if I was given a choice of bare bodyshells to fit out how I wanted I would use the 155 as the starting point in part because the 195s don't have end gangways. Stupid mistake there Northern. If it were 197s not 195s and I was in charge, busier stopping services would be 197s and stuff like the Heart Of Wales would be... well none of those.

I agree with you on 156s, they are the pinnacle of the non-aircon Sprinters. They're the closest thing we have to a perfect fit for the Heart Of Wales, though the airline seats nead more legroom and now that dumping sewage on the track is frowned upon a 2nd toilet is needed to provide additional tank capacity on the unit. Of the five types (153/155/156/195/197) the 156 is probably the one I'd go for because I'm more likely to get a table aligned with the windows and the seats on Super Sprinters are way comfier than Fainsa's widely used UK products. Stick those seats (or better yet original 158 seats) in a 197 and fix the window alignment and you'd be onto someting, but I'd still be resenting all that extra standing room created by the wide doors. If I knew all the tables were taken on whichever unit, then I might pick the 197 because of the extra legroom in the airline seats compared to a Sprinter.

 

[Envoy]

Surely, Haverfordwest and Milford Haven deserve an hourly service? If they plan to stick with one train every other hour and that being a 2 car, then surely that will be inadequate? If that is the case, perhaps it is the 3 car section that should be sent west of Swansea? Of course, much depends on whether or not they bring into regular use the Swansea District Line - with a Parkway station near Morriston to encourage people off the M4 as well as serve the hospital via a bus link. With a raised speed limit, this could well become the fastest route from say Cardiff to Llanelli and beyond. So, the overall capacity in SW Wales clearly needs looking at.

Had the south Wales mainline been electrified as far as Swansea plus an intention to electrify Wolverhamton to Shrewsbury, I wonder if they still would have ordered a large fleet of diesel only DMU’s (!97’s)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe things will change now the Welsh government are running the TFW franchise, no more keolis Amey from today.

I doubt the contracts will change. Though I believe TfW are fishing for a few more Mk4 sets, which could free up 3-car 197s for more lengthening - sounds a good bet.

To me they need to find a way to get 3-car sets on the Pwllheli portion, otherwise in summer it's going to be awful. Aber should be OK with 2-cars as it's getting a frequency increase and so effectively 100% capacity increase anyway. Central Trains used to run 3-car sets to Pwllheli so there's got to be a way (typically a 156 and a 153 coupled).

 

[Energy]

Maybe things will change now the Welsh government are running the TFW franchise, no more keolis Amey from today.

Probably not, the Sophia upgrade was done by the Welsh government, hopefully we may see some sets extended to three cars to combat the seating capacity and toilet problem.

Though I believe TfW are fishing for a few more Mk4 sets

Doubt it, I don't think TfW have a single mk4 set in service yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doubt it, I don't think TfW have a single mk4 set in service yet.

It was reported in last month's Modern Railways that they are after another couple of sets from the abortive Grand Central project. It's discussed on one of the Mk4 threads if you want to delve into it more.

 

[Caaardiff]

The 197s only offer more capacity if you count standing capacity or you are on one of the few routes that gains an extra carriage or two. Where a 197 replaces a 158 on a coach-for-coach basis (such as the Cambrian) the seating capacity is actually reduced, and it is still not confirmed how TfW plan to serve Milford Haven. Currently Milford Haven has 3-car 175s on some services, and pre-COVID on summer Saturdays boarding the 09:23 (or thereabouts) at Haverfordwest to head towards Carmarthen I'd say that the 3-car set was needed (I can't speak for other times). But it seems likely KeolisAmey planned to use 2-cars on all Manchester-Milford services west of Swansea.

How many of the 'normal punters' are discresionary travel? My worry is that we need to get people out of cars to tackle climate change - putting an uncomfortable train on might not put that many existing passengers off but it's hardly going to be a big draw. You doubt that most punters will complain, and you could well be right, but will they recomend it to their friends? That's what I think the rail industry should be aiming for, at least on long-distance routes; a high-quality product that says "Thank you for choosing rail" and generates repeat business. A service that people actually want to use because it is a pleasant experience, not just because they want to get into a big crowded city and it's faster than sitting in a traffic jam on the roads.

In many parts of the network there will be frequency increases which will increase the capacity overall. Having a uniform fleet will also create the flexibility to move the fleet around to better suit demand should it be needed.

The notion that people really won't use the railway because of a seat doesnt really have any merit, its only your personal opinion. If the general public need to get somewhere and the price is acceptable, they will use it. Hardly anyone will go 'I don't like those seats so ill take the car instead.' Absolute rubbish. People want convenience and price before comfort is part of the decision. As has been discussed to death already, most of TfWs customers, especially along the Marches routes are commuters or not making the full Swansea/Cardiff - Manchester journey anyway. If they are it us likely going to be a business person that will need to use the train so they can use the time to work, or leisure travellers that won't be a regular user if the railway and won't even be concerned about seat quality or if they can see out if a window.
Is there any actual proof that GWR have seen a drop in passengers since the IETs came in?

Also, purely out of curiosity, why would 150+ people be boarding a specific train from Milford Haven or Haverfordwest?
Even on a match day, overcrowding of peak dead trains only really starts from Carmarthen/Llanelli onwards.

 

[RealTrains07]

In many parts of the network there will be frequency increases which will increase the capacity overall. Having a uniform fleet will also create the flexibility to move the fleet around to better suit demand should it be needed.

The notion that people really won't use the railway because of a seat doesnt really have any merit, its only your personal opinion. If the general public need to get somewhere and the price is acceptable, they will use it. Hardly anyone will go 'I don't like those seats so ill take the car instead.' Absolute rubbish. People want convenience and price before comfort is part of the decision. As has been discussed to death already, most of TfWs customers, especially along the Marches routes are commuters or not making the full Swansea/Cardiff - Manchester journey anyway. If they are it us likely going to be a business person that will need to use the train so they can use the time to work, or leisure travellers that won't be a regular user if the railway and won't even be concerned about seat quality or if they can see out if a window.
Is there any actual proof that GWR have seen a drop in passengers since the IETs came in?

Also, purely out of curiosity, why would 150+ people be boarding a specific train from Milford Haven or Haverfordwest?
Even on a match day, overcrowding of peak dead trains only really starts from Carmarthen/Llanelli onwards.

Presuming that every member of the general public will take a train no matter the level of comfort is also just your opinion. Money and convenience are not the only 2 factors in deciding whether every single person will take a train. This will continue to be the case with the 197.

The same as if someone said people always take a train no matter how dinghy or loud or unpleasant it is. This is also not true and is again an opinion.

The 197s wont be everyones cup of tea and some people will still take the car if they dont like riding the 197 even if most wont.

It more than obvious even members of this forum sometimes avoid particular trains because they dont like the class whether its to do with comfort or not.

Commuters may be able to put up with riding traind they dont like but thats because they will majority of the time not have a choice due to a variety of reasons. Thats based on my own observations of course.

 

[Envoy]

In many parts of the network there will be frequency increases which will increase the capacity overall. Having a uniform fleet will also create the flexibility to move the fleet around to better suit demand should it be needed.

The notion that people really won't use the railway because of a seat doesnt really have any merit, its only your personal opinion. If the general public need to get somewhere and the price is acceptable, they will use it. Hardly anyone will go 'I don't like those seats so ill take the car instead.' Absolute rubbish. People want convenience and price before comfort is part of the decision. As has been discussed to death already, most of TfWs customers, especially along the Marches routes are commuters or not making the full Swansea/Cardiff - Manchester journey anyway. If they are it us likely going to be a business person that will need to use the train so they can use the time to work, or leisure travellers that won't be a regular user if the railway and won't even be concerned about seat quality or if they can see out if a window.
Is there any actual proof that GWR have seen a drop in passengers since the IETs came in?

Also, purely out of curiosity, why would 150+ people be boarding a specific train from Milford Haven or Haverfordwest?
Even on a match day, overcrowding of peak dead trains only really starts from Carmarthen/Llanelli onwards.

The people who live on The Marches have poor roads such as the A49. Hereford must be one of the largest population centres in Britain that does not have a dual carriageway to the outside world or a by-pass. So, they may well take the train instead of using the car but it is still regrettable that a new fleet of trains are ordered with not very comfortable seats.

I think that some leisure travellers are very keen to look out of the window. I have seen Americans on The Marches avidly trying to look out of the window at the rolling lush meadows and hills whilst having a map out to chart their progress. I contend that it is important to have seats aligned with windows and that it might only be the regulars who may be less inclined to look outside.

I note that nearly all the direct trains from Cardiff to Pembrokeshire go to Milford Haven. It is regrettable that Tenby is so badly served being as it is one of the most desirable seaside towns in Britain. Getting from Cardiff to Tenby by train takes just over 3 hours with (usually) 1 change. By road, it takes around half that time - although the road route is straighter than the railway. If a way could be found to transport people ideally by direct train between Cardiff and Tenby more quickly - at least in summer, then day trip business could surely grow? So, London is an easy day trip by train from Cardiff but not Tenby.

 

[Caaardiff]

The people who live on The Marches have poor roads such as the A49. Hereford must be one of the largest population centres in Britain that does not have a dual carriageway to the outside world or a by-pass. So, they may well take the train instead of using the car but it is still regrettable that a new fleet of trains are ordered with not very comfortable seats.

I think that some leisure travellers are very keen to look out of the window. I have seen Americans on The Marches avidly trying to look out of the window at the rolling lush meadows and hills whilst having a map out to chart their progress. I contend that it is important to have seats aligned with windows and that it might only be the regulars who may be less inclined to look outside.

I note that nearly all the direct trains from Cardiff to Pembrokeshire go to Milford Haven. It is regrettable that Tenby is so badly served being as it is one of the most desirable seaside towns in Britain. Getting from Cardiff to Tenby by train takes just over 3 hours with (usually) 1 change. By road, it takes around half that time - although the road route is straighter than the railway. If a way could be found to transport people ideally by direct train between Cardiff and Tenby more quickly - at least in summer, then day trip business could surely grow? So, London is an easy day trip by train from Cardiff but not Tenby.

Exactly that, people living on the Marches area will use the train more, but for shorter journeys to get around.

I'm afraid there is a big difference between wanting to look out of a window on your journey and specifically not travelling by train because there's a chance you might not be looking out of the window from your seat. Surely if people drive instead then at least one of those in the car can't look out at the views because they have something else to concentrate on, the road.

I do agree with you regarding Tenby. Vastly underserved with great potential. The Welsh Government set the requirements from daily frequencies and have always favoured Milford Haven over the Pembroke and Fishguard lines. You would think the WG tourism arms would push to promote access to Tenby and stops on the route because it probably has the most demand within Pembrokeshire as a whole. Even splitting the frequency of Manchester trains between Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock and then using Swansea/Carmarthen trains alternating between Milford and Pembroke Dock.
The demand that the Cambrian and North Wales coast sees during the holiday season is fairly big and I cant help but think TfW and the WG are missing something here especially given the lengthy drive and poor road access, even with the recent upgrades.

 

[PHILIPE]

I doubt the contracts will change. Though I believe TfW are fishing for a few more Mk4 sets, which could free up 3-car 197s for more lengthening - sounds a good bet.

To me they need to find a way to get 3-car sets on the Pwllheli portion, otherwise in summer it's going to be awful. Aber should be OK with 2-cars as it's getting a frequency increase and so effectively 100% capacity increase anyway. Central Trains used to run 3-car sets to Pwllheli so there's got to be a way (typically a 156 and a 153 coupled).

There is a restriction on sets formed more than two cars at Pwllheli due to ETRMS radio transmissions at that particular location.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a restriction on sets formed more than two cars at Pwllheli due to ETRMS radio transmissions at that particular location.

Needs fixing, then. 2-car operation on that line in summer will be a disaster unless frequency can be increased to hourly, which I'm not sure it can?

Yet another reason, of course, why ERTMS has been an utter disaster for the route.

 

[Caaardiff]

There is a restriction on sets formed more than two cars at Pwllheli due to ETRMS radio transmissions at that particular location.

Is there also issues with platform lengths and trains hanging over level crossings when in platform at some locations? Not sure the specifics of it but heard there is reasons why longer trains aren't used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there also issues with platform lengths and trains hanging over level crossings when in platform at some locations? Not sure the specifics of it but heard there is reasons why longer trains aren't used.

The thing is, longer trains were used, and not all that much has changed on the line in the last 20 years. Therefore it can't require much to be changed to use 3-car trains again.

Platform lengths in and of themselves are not an issue as SDO or local door can be used.

 

[Kite159]

Needs fixing, then. 2-car operation on that line in summer will be a disaster unless frequency can be increased to hourly, which I'm not sure it can?

Yet another reason, of course, why ERTMS has been an utter disaster for the route.

Probably could support an hourly service, with trains passing at Porthmadog, Harlech, Barmouth, Tywyn & Machynlleth although would be tight for timekeeping

 

[Anonymous10]

Exactly that, people living on the Marches area will use the train more, but for shorter journeys to get around.

I'm afraid there is a big difference between wanting to look out of a window on your journey and specifically not travelling by train because there's a chance you might not be looking out of the window from your seat. Surely if people drive instead then at least one of those in the car can't look out at the views because they have something else to concentrate on, the road.

I do agree with you regarding Tenby. Vastly underserved with great potential. The Welsh Government set the requirements from daily frequencies and have always favoured Milford Haven over the Pembroke and Fishguard lines. You would think the WG tourism arms would push to promote access to Tenby and stops on the route because it probably has the most demand within Pembrokeshire as a whole. Even splitting the frequency of Manchester trains between Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock and then using Swansea/Carmarthen trains alternating between Milford and Pembroke Dock.
The demand that the Cambrian and North Wales coast sees during the holiday season is fairly big and I cant help but think TfW and the WG are missing something here especially given the lengthy drive and poor road access, even with the recent upgrades.

i have a few points to add we shall start with 153s the non prm units are awful However the prm units are quite nice.

the 158/175 discussion i agree with and the toilet issue as well but lets not judge the 197s to harshly till at least a few are in service only the 195s could at all be used and even that should be avoided in my opinion.

in regards to extra services to Tenby/ Pembroke Dock that was significantly undermined a few years ago when the tracks for the second Pembroke dock platform were removed however if reinstated or the bay platform at Tenby would allow a shuttle from Pembroke dock to tenby then connection onwards to Cardiff or preferably a direct train over the entire branch with the 170s coming up west in a few years that isnt completely out of realms of possiblity given speeds clearance ect.

i would also like to make a point as to how busy these trains can be and how quiet as a regular user of the Pembroke dock branch and a local to it. in the summer a hourly service would definitely be appreciated or a 3 car (id prefer a hourly service) however in the winter of 2019 i also saw only 3 or 4 other people on the train on some days (was a pacer so could see) and as a result a hourly service in winter would be a waste and likely as would a 3 car so i can see reasons on both sides but on a fundamental basis there needs to be a service improvement in summer at minimum tenby is a nightmare to drive into and parking is very expensive so the market is there if prices are reasonable i know it would cost me £6 to park all day and is same to catch the train this i deem as acceptable but maybe a little less would help drive interest

 

[Rhydgaled]

Surely, Haverfordwest and Milford Haven deserve an hourly service? If they plan to stick with one train every other hour and that being a 2 car, then surely that will be inadequate? If that is the case, perhaps it is the 3 car section that should be sent west of Swansea?

No frequency improvement was promised for Milford Haven when the franchise went to KeolisAmey, so as far as we know it's staying at every 2hrs. It may well be that the 3-car section goes through, at least on some trips, although 1st class was only advertised from Manchester to Swansea. I think the number of 3-car units with first class does allow them to run through to Milford, or to fill in the gaps between the mark 4 sets on Holyhead-Cardiff, but not both.

Aber should be OK with 2-cars as it's getting a frequency increase and so effectively 100% capacity increase anyway.

Don't forget roughly 50% of the even hours had an Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury working added a few years ago, so the increase to hourly isn't a doubling in the frequency (although the COVID timetable did drop back to 0.5tph I think). In fact on Sundays wasn't it already an hourly service before COVID hit?

In many parts of the network there will be frequency increases which will increase the capacity overall. Having a uniform fleet will also create the flexibility to move the fleet around to better suit demand should it be needed.

I think the only frequency increase planned on an existing route was Shrewsbury-Aberystwyth (filling in the few remaining gaps to get to hourly). The other boost was that the Liverpools were to be extended to Shrewsbury/Cardiff/Bangor* which gives an extra train between Cardiff and Chester and between Chester and Bangor.

*I'm aware that it's actually Liverpool-Llandudno with the current Manchesters diverted to Bangor

The notion that people really won't use the railway because of a seat doesnt really have any merit, its only your personal opinion.

My personal opinion yes, but I'm not the only one to hold that opinion. Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways often writes that train seats need to be better.

Is there any actual proof that GWR have seen a drop in passengers since the IETs came in?

Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not aware of any proof that there hasn't been a drop in patronage either. Plus we don't know how many passengers choose to travel by train because they want to and how many are 'distress purchases'.

I think that some leisure travellers are very keen to look out of the window. I have seen Americans on The Marches avidly trying to look out of the window at the rolling lush meadows and hills whilst having a map out to chart their progress. I contend that it is important to have seats aligned with windows and that it might only be the regulars who may be less inclined to look outside.

Thank you. At least 99% of my rail travel is for leisure and I am displeased if I cannot see out.

I note that nearly all the direct trains from Cardiff to Pembrokeshire go to Milford Haven. It is regrettable that Tenby is so badly served being as it is one of the most desirable seaside towns in Britain. Getting from Cardiff to Tenby by train takes just over 3 hours with (usually) 1 change. By road, it takes around half that time - although the road route is straighter than the railway. If a way could be found to transport people ideally by direct train between Cardiff and Tenby more quickly - at least in summer, then day trip business could surely grow? So, London is an easy day trip by train from Cardiff but not Tenby.

Apart from Fishguard boat trains, Haverfordwest is probably the most important town in Pembrokeshire for through trains to/from Cardiff. Unfortunately Whitland to Tenby and back takes about an hour while Whitland to Milford Haven and back (with recovery time at Milford) takes about 1hr 15-20mins, so if you split at Whitland the units won't get back to Whitland at the same time.

Probably could support an hourly service, with trains passing at Porthmadog, Harlech, Barmouth, Tywyn & Machynlleth although would be tight for timekeeping

I had a look at whether a semi-fast could be put in from Porthmadog to Machynlleth on the other hours a few years ago but if you wanted an hourly service trains would have to pass at Dovey Junction where there isn't a loop for the Cambrian Coast line at present.

 

[HSTEd]

There is a restriction on sets formed more than two cars at Pwllheli due to ETRMS radio transmissions at that particular location.

Wait why would ERTMS prevent use of more than two vehicles?

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a reminder that the discussion topic of this thread is "Caf-Civity for TfW".

Please do not use this to discuss speculation about service frequencies etc.

I've split off some off topic speculative threads about services in Pembrokeshire to this thread:

(3) Speculation on better services for Pembrokeshire | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

Thanks