CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[anthony263]

With tfw wanting more services around Swansea I think they'll either need more 197s or retain existing dmus or as has been.rumoured keep the 769s.

Although they want to extend the current gwr West country/Taunton - Cardiff services through to carmarthen either via Swansea to the SDL. GWR are going to have to get more castle sets or dmus

Years ago it was the Portsmouth services they wanted extended.

I'm going to.hold judgement on the 197s

 

[greatvoyager]

TfW Rail are undergoing a full fleet replacement programme, with the vast majority of these trains being either brand new (197, 231, 398, 756), heavily upcycled (230) or high quality cascades (170, Mk4 LHCS). Meanwhile in Northern land, we've had less than a third of our fleet replaced by rolling stock which fits into any of those categories. Our fleet modernisation programme is close to being completed, and we've still got over 200 ageing (and knackered, in the case of the 150s) Sprinters, with very few of them earmarked for replacement at the moment.

The Wales & Borders franchise has it pretty good in comparison, so until someone can actually offer a single constructive reason why the 197s shouldn't have been procured, which doesn't include criticising CAF build quality before they've even entered service, the number of toilets per unit or the manufacturer of the seats, I'm not going to take any of the negative comments about them seriously. I'm sorry, but the very much baseless anti-197 sentiment has become both boring and ridiculous now.

Rant over...

Agreed, the investment in new stock is much more than other areas are receiving.

 

[RealTrains07]

Agreed, the investment in new stock is much more than other areas are receiving.

GA and EMR are also doing full fleet replacements.

197s are just the next in line of new diesel trains.

Begs the question why full fleet replacements are necessary? as in the case of the 197s. 2 fleets are being replaced which reduces the amount of work available in the future for manufacturers if they dont find new homes once all the 197s are in service.

 

[Rhydgaled]

until someone can actually offer a single constructive reason why the 197s shouldn't have been procured, which doesn't include criticising CAF build quality before they've even entered service, the number of toilets per unit or the manufacturer of the seats, I'm not going to take any of the negative comments about them seriously.

161 diesel-only units in 2050. Also - why is a reduction of toilets on 3hr plus services not something to be taken seriously?

 

[craigybagel]

161 diesel-only units in 2050. Also - why is a reduction of toilets on 3hr plus services not something to be taken seriously?

Because those of us who actually work on the trains feel this is sufficient?

 

[Goldfish62]

Because those of us who actually work on the trains feel this is sufficient?

I didn't know train toilets were only provided for the staff.

 

[507021]

161 diesel-only units in 2050.

I'm as passionate about decarbonisation as you are, but I'm afraid that's not going to happen. I'd be willing to bet the 185s will also still be around by then considering they're over-engineered to the same level as the Austin/Carbodies FX4 taxi. The reality is that unless a viable alternative for large scale deployment presents itself within the next few years or so, it will be necessary to procure more diesel units for Northern. You simply can't keep sending Sprinters our way. However, it's not all doom and gloom though because there's this marvellous thing called biodiesel, which is both inexpensive and considered to be a zero carbon fuel source.

I also expect the vast majority, if not all, of the 755, 800, 802, 805 and 810 dual-mode and 756 tri-mode fleets will still be fitted diesel powerplants by 2050.

Because those of us who actually work on the trains feel this is sufficient?

This. I'd rather hear facts from people who will be paid to work these units, rather than hysterical straw-clutching.

 

[greatvoyager]

However, it's not all doom and gloom though because there's this marvellous thing called biodiesel, which is both inexpensive and considered to be a zero carbon fuel source.

Biodiesel would be a nice compromise.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm as passionate about decarbonisation as you are, but I'm afraid that's not going to happen. I'd be willing to bet the 185s will also still be around by then considering they're over-engineered to the same level as the Austin/Carbodies FX4 taxi. The reality is that unless a viable alternative for large scale deployment presents itself within the next few years or so, it will be necessary to procure more diesel units for Northern. You simply can't keep sending Sprinters our way. However, it's not all doom and gloom though because there's this marvellous thing called biodiesel, which is both inexpensive and considered to be a zero carbon fuel source.

I think any solution will need to involve 100mph bi-modes (Aventras and/or Civities not just FLIRTs) designed to allow removal of diesel engines - you're right we cannot just keep the Sprinters going but 161 pure DMUs is far more than enough as it is. If I add the 51 class 185s as well that is 212 DMUs in 2050. That would mean we are a long way off full rail decarbonisation by 2050 and if you add to that by buying yet more pure DMUs for Northern decarbonisation will be very, very dead.

A major problem is that we need to replace diesel stock (sprinters) very soon but new diesel stock will last far too long to support a decarbonisation programme. We need to ensure that the diesel engines are easy to remove (and ensure that it is attractive to do so, perhaps by using reconditioned internal combustion engines in the new units instead of brand new ones) and that any new unit can easily be converted to an EMU.

I also expect the vast majority, if not all, of the 755, 800, 802, 805 and 810 dual-mode and 756 tri-mode fleets will still be fitted diesel powerplants by 2050.

I was only counting mechanical DMUs - the FLIRT fleets (231, 755 and 756) will also make it to 2050 but I expect the 231s will be easily converted to bi-mode and the bi-mode intercity stock will last too.

 

[Richard Scott]

This. I'd rather hear facts from people who will be paid to work these units, rather than hysterical straw-clutching.

Think being overdramatic calling it hysterical straw clutching. Toilet provision is important and the old flush on the track system rarely went wrong, running out of water was biggest issue. I remember going on a 5 coach double deck train in Germany where only one toilet was working out of five so can imagine the chaos this was causing so if there is only one toilet and it fails, what will happen? It's fine making statements about working on them and being happy with that but you may not be the person with a medical issue who's left in an embarrassing situation due to a failed toilet.

 

[Energy]

If I add the 51 class 185s as well that is 212 DMUs in 2050.

Why are you adding the 185s? They are from 2006, I'd be very suprised if they weren't scrapped before 2050.

 

[507021]

I think any solution will need to involve 100mph bi-modes (Aventras and/or Civities not just FLIRTs) designed to allow removal of diesel engines - you're right we cannot just keep the Sprinters going but 161 pure DMUs is far more than enough as it is. If I add the 51 class 185s as well that is 212 DMUs in 2050. That would mean we are a long way off full rail decarbonisation by 2050 and if you add to that by buying yet more pure DMUs for Northern decarbonisation will be very, very dead.

A major problem is that we need to replace diesel stock (sprinters) very soon but new diesel stock will last far too long to support a decarbonisation programme. We need to ensure that the diesel engines are easy to remove (and ensure that it is attractive to do so, perhaps by using reconditioned internal combustion engines in the new units instead of brand new ones) and that any new unit can easily be converted to an EMU.

I was only counting mechanical DMUs - the FLIRT fleets (231, 755 and 756) will also make it to 2050 but I expect the 231s will be easily converted to bi-mode and the bi-mode intercity stock will last too.

Unfortunately the problem with that is Northern simply doesn't make enough money to procure enough dual-mode units to replace all of the 150s, of which there will soon be 72 two-car and six three-car units. A better alternative, in my opinion, would be a modular 75mph commuter diesel unit designed with the capability of being converted to electric as and when OHLE infrastructure allows. Like I said, I'm a big advocate of decarbonisation, but I think we're just going to have with diesel for a good while yet. While the Class 600 is a good option, I expect it'll be nearer the end of the decade before they become viable for mass deployment.

Think being overdramatic calling it hysterical straw clutching. Toilet provision is important and the old flush on the track system rarely went wrong, running out of water was biggest issue. I remember going on a 5 coach double deck train in Germany where only one toilet was working out of five so can imagine the chaos this was causing so if there is only one toilet and it fails, what will happen? It's fine making statements about working on them and being happy with that but you may not be the person with a medical issue who's left in an embarrassing situation due to a failed toilet.

I understand and completely agree with what you're saying, particularly because my late father was diabetic and had a bowel condition, but toilet provision (or lack of) simply isn't a valid argument against the procurement of the Class 197 fleet. However in hindsight, I'm happy to admit my wording was unfair.

However, a three car 197 will have two toilets, which is one more than the 195/1s and 331/0s of the same length. A pair of 197s will have two toilets across their four coaches, which is one more than a 331/1 of the same length. I don't know how many toilets there'll be on the 196s, but is the Class 197 toilet provision really so bad when you compare it to similarly sized Northern units based on the same platform?

 

[RealTrains07]

Unfortunately the problem with that is Northern simply doesn't make enough money to procure enough dual-mode units to replace all of the 150s, of which there will soon be 72 two-car and six three-car units. A better alternative, in my opinion, would be a modular 75mph commuter diesel unit designed with the capability of being converted to electric as and when OHLE infrastructure allows. Like I said, I'm a big advocate of decarbonisation, but I think we're just going to have with diesel for a good while yet. While the Class 600 is a good option, I expect it'll be nearer the end of the decade before they become viable for mass deployment.



I understand and completely agree with what you're saying, particularly because my late father was diabetic and had a bowel condition, but toilet provision (or lack of) simply isn't a valid argument against the procurement of the Class 197 fleet. However in hindsight, I'm happy to admit my wording was unfair.

However, a three car 197 will have two toilets, which is one more than the 195/1s and 331/0s of the same length. A pair of 197s will have two toilets across their four coaches, which is one more than a 331/1 of the same length. I don't know how many toilets there'll be on the 196s, but is the Class 197 toilet provision really so bad when you compare it to similarly sized Northern units based on the same platform?

Not when you take into account the services the 197s will provide and the services that the 195s provide.

Northern and TfW do have their differences when it comes to the routes and places they serve

 

[6Gtraincrew]

I don't know how many toilets there'll be on the 196s, but is the Class 197 toilet provision really so bad when you compare it to similarly sized Northern units based on the same platform?

I've just had a quick look of the CAF website. It says one PRM toilet on the two car, and a PRM plus one standard toilet on the four car.

 

[Caaardiff]

If a toilet fails then provision will be made to take the unit out of service at the next opportunity. The effect will be minimal, and rare.

 

[craigybagel]

I didn't know train toilets were only provided for the staff.

Most traincrew do everything they can to avoid using them in my experience!

Think being overdramatic calling it hysterical straw clutching. Toilet provision is important and the old flush on the track system rarely went wrong, running out of water was biggest issue. I remember going on a 5 coach double deck train in Germany where only one toilet was working out of five so can imagine the chaos this was causing so if there is only one toilet and it fails, what will happen? It's fine making statements about working on them and being happy with that but you may not be the person with a medical issue who's left in an embarrassing situation due to a failed toilet.

You'd be surprised how easy the old type of toilet could clog. One busy junction station on my patch had an old uncoupling rod permanently set aside for dealing with it....

Being more serious though, your example is one of extremes. A 5 car Dosto set is probably the equivalent of an 8 car UK single deck set - of course only 1 toilet is going to be an issue! The 197s will have one toilet per 2 car, and 2 per 3 car, a much higher ratio. Obviously medical issues are important and I'm not discounting them - I'm just saying that based on my own experience I've never known there to be any issues on our existing trains that only have 1 toilet per 2 cars, they really aren't used by that many people.

And as I've pointed out before, as part of this project the infrastructure for emptying the CET tanks is being upgraded, so trains should be spending less time between tanking.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Why are you adding the 185s? They are from 2006, I'd be very suprised if they weren't scrapped before 2050.

Because the post I was replying to said:

I'd be willing to bet the 185s will also still be around by then considering they're over-engineered to the same level as the Austin/Carbodies FX4 taxi.

Unfortunately the problem with that is Northern simply doesn't make enough money to procure enough dual-mode units to replace all of the 150s, of which there will soon be 72 two-car and six three-car units. A better alternative, in my opinion, would be a modular 75mph commuter diesel unit designed with the capability of being converted to electric as and when OHLE infrastructure allows.

I've replied to this in the 'alternatives and speculation' topic.

a three car 197 will have two toilets, which is one more than the 195/1s and 331/0s of the same length. A pair of 197s will have two toilets across their four coaches, which is one more than a 331/1 of the same length.

All true, but you are not comparing the 197s with the stock TfW would be replacing. If you do that, you will see that:

• 3-car 175 vs 5-car 197 = much more capacity (and therefore potential demand for toilets if they don't end up carrying fresh air) but no change in number of toilets provided
• 3-car 175 vs 3-car 197 = 1 fewer toilet
• 2-car 175 vs 2-car 197 = 1 fewer toilet (and 1 failure = no toilets at all)
• 2-car 158 vs 2-car 197 = 1 fewer toilet (and 1 failure = no toilets at all)
• 4-car 158 vs 4-car 197 = 2 fewer toilets

Put it like that and you can see that there would be an increased risk of having to queue for use of a toilet. It may still be a low risk, but it's enough to worry rail users groups (SARPA and I believe Railfuture at least).

 

[507021]

I've just had a quick look of the CAF website. It says one PRM toilet on the two car, and a PRM plus one standard toilet on the four car.

Thanks for that.

All true, but you are not comparing the 197s with the stock TfW would be replacing. If you do that, you will see that:

• 3-car 175 vs 5-car 197 = much more capacity (and therefore potential demand for toilets if they don't end up carrying fresh air) but no change in number of toilets provided
• 3-car 175 vs 3-car 197 = 1 fewer toilet
• 2-car 175 vs 2-car 197 = 1 fewer toilet (and 1 failure = no toilets at all)
• 2-car 158 vs 2-car 197 = 1 fewer toilet (and 1 failure = no toilets at all)
• 4-car 158 vs 4-car 197 = 2 fewer toilets

Put it like that and you can see that there would be an increased risk of having to queue for use of a toilet. It may still be a low risk, but it's enough to worry rail users groups (SARPA and I believe Railfuture at least).

I do appreciate what you're saying, but I'd personally rather take craigybagel's word for it based on their personal experience as a TfW Rail employee. Bear in mind as well if we start having a fully accessible toilet module in each carriage of a two or three car unit, that's going to have a noticeable effect on overall capacity.

I think for now though, it's best to see how things pan out

 

[Bletchleyite]

Biodiesel would be a nice compromise.

The thing about biodiesel is that it requires the planting of an awful lot of rapeseed or similar. So if you tried to switch every diesel car to it you'd blanket the country in the stuff. If, however, the cars and buses go electric and all you need it for is lorries, long-distance coaches and trains (with both probably having smaller batteries for use in towns where the particulates are an issue) then that might actually prove a reasonably practicable answer.

Biodiesel is indeed carbon-neutral in and of itself because the carbon is taken in by the plant as it grows and then released again when burnt.

 

[43096]

Biodiesel is indeed carbon-neutral in and of itself because the carbon is taken in by the plant as it grows and then released again when burnt.

You could argue the same about coal - just the plant has been underground for a very long time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've just had a quick look of the CAF website. It says one PRM toilet on the two car, and a PRM plus one standard toilet on the four car.

To be fair, the 196s are for much more local journeys - the Herefords (about an hour and a half from Brum) are the furthest they will go, whereas the 197s will operate the Cambrian which if you go to Pwllheli is well over 4 hours. I'd venture that most passengers won't use the toilet at all on the former, as a normal, healthy person can easily last an hour and a half, but that a goodly proportion of people *will* on the longer journey as only those with the strongest bladders (or who are severely dehydrated) last 4 hours between "visits".

You could argue the same about coal - just the plant has been underground for a very long time.

Yes, true, but the thing is that it's been underground for *so* long that releasing it causes an issue, whereas if it was taken in and released within a few months (as biodiesel from plants is) it basically makes no difference.

 

[507021]

The thing about biodiesel is that it requires the planting of an awful lot of rapeseed or similar. So if you tried to switch every diesel car to it you'd blanket the country in the stuff. If, however, the cars and buses go electric and all you need it for is lorries, long-distance coaches and trains (with both probably having smaller batteries for use in towns where the particulates are an issue) then that might actually prove a reasonably practicable answer.

Biodiesel is indeed carbon-neutral in and of itself because the carbon is taken in by the plant as it grows and then released again when burnt.

I agree the enormous scale of seed planting makes it unrealistic to introduce biodiesel across the board, but I really do think it's a very good option for rail decarbonisation. Plus there's the economic benefits too, as you'll obviously need people to grow the plants and then turn it into fuel.

 

[Domh245]

Biodiesel is little more than a fudge that lets us figure out what to do longer term - it 'solves' the CO2 problem, but doesn't solve many other problems such as the other emissions that you get from Diesel engines (which granted are less of a concern with modern engines with various aftertreatments, nor if they're belching particulates into the middle of the countryside rather than a city)

 

[bnsf734]

Last Monday (April 12 2021) I was on the M5 going south/west near Gloucester and saw a 2 car 197 set on 2 Allelys low loaders going the other way. I'm not sure of their IDs or their likely destination. I was hoping this thread may have some info, but most recent posts seem to concern toilets!

So there is at least one set out there somewhere!

 

[507021]

Last Monday (April 12 2021) I was on the M5 going south/west near Gloucester and saw a 2 car 197 set on 2 Allelys low loaders going the other way. I'm not sure of their IDs or their likely destination. I was hoping this thread may have some info, but most recent posts seem to concern toilets!

So there is at least one set out there somewhere!

That'll have been 197001, the only completed unit so far.

 

[greatvoyager]

GA and EMR are also doing full fleet replacements.

197s are just the next in line of new diesel trains.

Begs the question why full fleet replacements are necessary? as in the case of the 197s. 2 fleets are being replaced which reduces the amount of work available in the future for manufacturers if they dont find new homes once all the 197s are in service.

I expect it comes down to money and keeping maintenance costs down. Some full fleet replacements are good, some aren’t.

 

[squizzler]

If a toilet fails then provision will be made to take the unit out of service at the next opportunity. The effect will be minimal, and rare.

A better idea might be to make the entire train into a giant pissoir on wheels. Then nobody will complain about the toilet provision, and as a bonus neither would they be able to complain about the type or layout of seats.

 

[PHILIPE]

Last Monday (April 12 2021) I was on the M5 going south/west near Gloucester and saw a 2 car 197 set on 2 Allelys low loaders going the other way. I'm not sure of their IDs or their likely destination. I was hoping this thread may have some info, but most recent posts seem to concern toilets!

So there is at least one set out there somewhere!

See Post #1048

 

[krus_aragon]

A better idea might be to make the entire train into a giant pissoir on wheels. Then nobody will complain about the toilet provision, and as a bonus neither would they be able to complain about the type or layout of seats.

I think that's already the case in parts of Cardiff on weekends. :P

 

[507021]

Not when you take into account the services the 197s will provide and the services that the 195s provide.

Northern and TfW do have their differences when it comes to the routes and places they serve

Precisely, and the length of services the 197s will operate has been taken into account when specifying the number of toilets per unit. There'll be two toilets available to passengers whether it's a three car unit or a pair of two car units. If it's a five car formation, then there'll be three. I think they're all very good provisions, despite what the rail user lavatory action groups seem to think.

Passengers of Northern regional services aren't quite so fortunate. Like a pair of two-car 197s, pair of 195/0s also has two toilets, but if toilet of the unit you're in is out of order, then you're out of luck because of the lack of foresight to incorporate gangways when the Class 195 and their Class 331 fleetmates were designed.

Now, can we PLEASE talk about something other than toilets?

As a follow on to the earlier debate on rail decarbonisation, I've set up a new thread for anyone who's interested in taking part.

Rail decarbonisation: What are the solutions?

With the early Sprinter fleets now rapidly reaching the end of their service life, I think it's imperative that the powers that be start looking at replacing them as soon as possible. But with all of the various net zero carbon emissions targets which are becoming increasingly common, is the...

www.railforums.co.uk