CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[RealTrains07]

Aventra is a specifically british design and was designed in Derby, although it does use a whole host of European/global parts.

A “british” design by a canadian company bare in mind. Bombardier is not a British company like all train manufacturers they are non british.

 

[tomuk]

Although given its rather belated entry into service I'm not sure if that's something to be proud of!

Would have helped if the parent company wasn't going bankrupt.

 

[Mrs. Fortescue]

honestly im happy with their current stock refurbed 150+153 is adequate and relatively comfy on my journeys and 158/175 are great as are the 170s

Long term, that simply isn't an option. The age of the 150s and 153s dictate that.

That is where the 197s come in. Cleaner, more environmentally friendly & uniform stock means its a lot easier to maintain and manage.

They are already keeping the 170s and I wouldn't be surprised to see 175s kept too.

Honestly, the backlash against the 197s is laughable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Honestly, the backlash against the 197s is laughable.

Why, when they are of lower quality than what they are replacing?

They are a perfect Class 150 replacement, just as they are on Northern, but they are nowhere near up to standard compared with 158s. The worst thing is that this could in my book be solved by simple interior changes - fewer seats, a more premium choice of seat (I know this is a matter of opinion), another toilet etc.

 

[Mrs. Fortescue]

These are all fair criticisms, ones that can be rectified in time.

BUT, some of the extreme hysterics on here by some are nothing but laughable and pathetic.

 

[43096]

These are all fair criticisms, ones that can be rectified in time.

BUT, some of the extreme hysterics on here by some are nothing but laughable and pathetic.

Ah, the old “rectified in time” statement. How about rectifying them before they are built rather than punters having to put up with #@*% for at least the next 15 years?

 

[craigybagel]

I think a large part of the problem here is that people aren't getting the train that "they" want. Some are complaining because they don't like the choice of seat. Others would rather the doors were at the end of the carriages and not at ⅓ & ⅔. Some think there aren't enough toilets. Some say they are too few seats and others are saying there are too many!

At the end of the day TfW can't keep everyone happy. But I do find it interesting that those of us on this thread who are going to be spending far more time on these units then any passenger or enthusiasts and are most likely to suffer the consequences of any bad decisions about their design also seem to be the ones happiest to see them come.

 

[Mrs. Fortescue]

Ah, the old “rectified in time” statement. How about rectifying them before they are built rather than punters having to put up with #@*% for at least the next 15 years?

Why not contact TfW, rather than ranting aimlessly on a forum?

I think a large part of the problem here is that people aren't getting the train that "they" want. Some are complaining because they don't like the choice of seat. Others would rather the doors were at the end of the carriages and not at ⅓ & ⅔. Some think there aren't enough toilets. Some say they are too few seats and others are saying there are too many!

At the end of the day TfW can't keep everyone happy. But I do find it interesting that those of us on this thread who are going to be spending far more time on these units then any passenger or enthusiasts and are most likely to suffer the consequences of any bad decisions about their design also seem to be the ones happiest to see them come.

It is rather amusing to see people from parts of the country that the trains will never reach, ranting about them.

Similar seats to the 800s and 802s? (I'm not really anal enough to know much about train seats) well those seats work perfectly fine for me and thousands of other people who use them daily. It will be nice to see cleaner, more efficient and reliable trains on the network. I shall certainly be enjoying these new trains whilst the enthusiast are stamping their feet on the floor on a forum.

 

[43096]

Why not contact TfW, rather than ranting aimlessly on a forum?



It is rather amusing to see people from parts of the country that the trains will never reach, ranting about them.

Similar seats to the 800s and 802s? (I'm not really anal enough to know much about train seats) well those seats work perfectly fine for me and thousands of other people who use them daily. It will be nice to see cleaner, more efficient and reliable trains on the network. I shall certainly be enjoying these new trains whilst the enthusiast are stamping their feet on the floor on a forum.

So at the same time as lecturing us all about who we should write to and that something that isn’t built yet is wonderful, you now tell us you don’t know much about the seats.


You are Ken Skates and I claim my prize.

 

[Richard Scott]

Why not contact TfW, rather than ranting aimlessly on a forum?



It is rather amusing to see people from parts of the country that the trains will never reach, ranting about them.

Similar seats to the 800s and 802s? (I'm not really anal enough to know much about train seats) well those seats work perfectly fine for me and thousands of other people who use them daily. It will be nice to see cleaner, more efficient and reliable trains on the network. I shall certainly be enjoying these new trains whilst the enthusiast are stamping their feet on the floor on a forum.

You need to remember enthusiasts use trains too and have an expectation of comfort. Previous experience tells me contacting operators results in some corporate reply containing useless drivel. Remember having a survey from GWR, as a regular customer, for the 800 interiors, what good did that do.

 

[Mrs. Fortescue]

So at the same time as lecturing us all about who we should write to and that something that isn’t built yet is wonderful, you now tell us you don’t know much about the seats.


You are Ken Skates and I claim my prize.

HAHA so I can't have an opinion because I'm not sad enough to know about seats?

Nobody is lecturing anyone - I'm just saying that being proactive in giving your opinion will be far more influential than rolling your eyes on a forum.

You need to remember enthusiasts use trains too and have an expectation of comfort. Previous experience tells me contacting operators results in some corporate reply containing useless drivel. Remember having a survey from GWR, as a regular customer, for the 800 interiors, what good did that do.

Where have I claimed that enthusiasts don't use trains?

 

[Domh245]

A “british” design by a canadian company bare in mind. Bombardier is not a British company like all train manufacturers they are non british.

Bombardier Transportation were German, but the parent company was Candian. I'm not really sure the point that's trying to be made though?

 

[Richard Scott]

Where have I claimed that enthusiasts don't use trains?

Ok, you haven't but the implication is that they use them as an enthusiast not as a member of the public. I use (or used to before March last year) trains a lot as a means of getting around so am travelling as a member of the public lime anyone else so if I miss about comfort I'm not moaning because it's not a loco on mk 2 stock, I'm moaning as a member of the public because the product isn't up to scratch. Your post doesn't appear to take that into account.

 

[43096]

HAHA so I can't have an opinion because I'm not sad enough to know about seats?

You can have an opinion, but an opinion on something you say you don’t know about is just asking to be shot down.

I’m not sure why you felt the need to call knowledge (or experience) of seats is “sad”. You’ve got a username and avatar that are just asking for a reply in kind, but I’ll resist.

Nobody is lecturing anyone - I'm just saying that being proactive in giving your opinion will be far more influential than rolling your eyes on a forum.

If you think the Welsh government would listen then I’d suggest that is at best naïve.

 

[Mrs. Fortescue]

Ok, you haven't but the implication is that they use them as an enthusiast not as a member of the public. I use (or used to before March last year) trains a lot as a means of getting around so am travelling as a member of the public lime anyone else so if I miss about comfort I'm not moaning because it's not a loco on mk 2 stock, I'm moaning as a member of the public because the product isn't up to scratch. Your post doesn't appear to take that into account.

Thanks for confirming that I haven't.

You can have an opinion, but an opinion on something you say you don’t know about is just asking to be shot down.

I’m not sure why you felt the need to call knowledge (or experience) of seats is “sad”. You’ve got a username and avatar that are just asking for a reply in kind, but I’ll resist.

If you think the Welsh government would listen then I’d suggest that is at best naïve.

I agree, but I haven't based my opinion on something I know nothing about. I've clearly stated that the 800 seats are perfectly acceptable - I know this because I travel on them daily.

and if you think rolling eye emojis on a forum are going to be more influential than writing to someone responsible, then you're even more naive.

And, as I seem to end up pointing out oh so often, this is already a very heavily subsidised franchise. Nobody would have expected Northern to stump up the costs for a large fleet of Stadlers, so I don't see why people expect W&B to be so extravagant either.

Finally - some sense and a realistic outlook on the franchise.

 

[Caaardiff]

You need to remember enthusiasts use trains too and have an expectation of comfort. Previous experience tells me contacting operators results in some corporate reply containing useless drivel. Remember having a survey from GWR, as a regular customer, for the 800 interiors, what good did that do.

Couple of points in response to this....

Are these new seats uncomfortable, or just not as comfortable as the current seats? There is a big difference.

So if contacting the operator doesn't result in a satisfactory response, what exactly is everyone expecting as a response from an enthusiasts forum? This isn't the place to complain about something if you want something changed. It is however a place to vent if you don't agree with something. However continually repeating the same vents become boring for other forum users when the venting is not actually going to change anything.

A question I've also raised previously. Are there facts and concrete evidence that GWR has seen a decline in passengers because of their new seats?


The Railway need to become more cost effective and competitive against other modes of transport. Compare this to Airlines, which is 20+ years ahead of the railway. Seat comfort was change in favour of space and capacity for many Airlines (In economy). The railway continues to p**s fare payers money up the wall, whereas Airlines as private companies do their best to keep costs low and make fares competitive and enable more people to travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some of us find Fainsa Sophias very uncomfortable, and would even prefer a Pacer bus bench.

 

[Anonymous10]

Long term, that simply isn't an option. The age of the 150s and 153s dictate that.

That is where the 197s come in. Cleaner, more environmentally friendly & uniform stock means its a lot easier to maintain and manage.

They are already keeping the 170s and I wouldn't be surprised to see 175s kept too.

Honestly, the backlash against the 197s is laughable.

im not saying they arent in need of replacement and indeed they may be up to the task i will not pass judgement on that till i use one them replacing the 158s and 175s though in current lay out is a shambles in my opinion ok use the same train but make them 3/4 car and be more suitable for long distances

They are all very old rolling stock & have lots of age related problems, 153/150 have no air con. The 150's are very noisy at higher speeds & the 158's air con fails every summer.
The 175's being the youngest are still 20 years old & have severe corrosion problems, plus reliability issues.

All have done a good service for the franchise, but a new euro 5 emissions engined uniform fleet of 197's makes sense in so many ways.
More economical with lower emissions that all have compatible couplers, much lower running costs with better cost savings with uniform parts for the whole fleet. Enhanced line speeds over the sprinters that will save time. For most passengers they will see a new fleet of modern trains with a better Customer experience. I know there's the toilet & seat issues but I don't think these can be resolved so late in the order process.

all very good arguments i wasnt aware of corrosion on the 175s but even so the 197s are not InterCity or anything like it when you consider Milford haven - Manchester Piccadilly is over 6 Hours Carmarthen to Manchester is again 6 hours and Swansea is 5 you have to remember these trains are running long routes and should have proper long haul layout's and comfort like the 158 and 175 (yes Aircon is a issue but at least theres windows to sort that issue) personally if they had a extra car so were 3-4 car 2 toilets and a long distance comfortable seating layout i would be happy for them to replace them but they dont so i am jot happy at the moment

 

[Energy]

Some of us find Fainsa Sophias very uncomfortable, and would even prefer a Pacer bus bench.

The issue with Sophias is the cushion being so thin, given TfW's extra attention to the seat it will probably have a better cushion.

 

[Wyrleybart]

all very good arguments i wasnt aware of corrosion on the 175s but even so the 197s are not InterCity or anything like it when you consider Milford haven - Manchester Piccadilly is over 6 Hours Carmarthen to Manchester is again 6 hours and Swansea is 5 you have to remember these trains are running long routes and should have proper long haul layout's and comfort like the 158 and 175 (yes Aircon is a issue but at least theres windows to sort that issue) personally if they had a extra car so were 3-4 car 2 toilets and a long distance comfortable seating layout i would be happy for them to replace them but they dont so i am jot happy at the moment

Whilst I don't disagree with your overall stance, ask yourself how many passengers disembark at Piccadilly having travelled from West of Llanelli. Bit like the XC voyagers from Scotland to Penzance, I have no doubt odd passengers make long distance journeys on them, but how many actually make the full linear journey ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue with Sophias is the cushion being so thin, given TfW's extra attention to the seat it will probably have a better cushion.

Yes, true. I'd like them if I couldn't feel the frame through the base.

 

[Energy]

Yes, true. I'd like them if I couldn't feel the frame through the base.

Considering the Welsh Government went to the effort to change them to Sophias I would imagine they negotiated a better cushion.

 

[Anonymous10]

Whilst I don't disagree with your overall stance, ask yourself how many passengers disembark at Piccadilly having travelled from West of Llanelli. Bit like the XC voyagers from Scotland to Penzance, I have no doubt odd passengers make long distance journeys on them, but how many actually make the full linear journey ?

i would still wager a large amount of passengers will use them for half the journey its roughly 7 hours Manchester to Milford haven by train 3 hours to cardiff it isnt unreasonable to assume a decent amount would travel Cardiff to Manchester and i know alot of people traveling the 3 hours to cardiff then you have the people doing the long distance its worth the money in my opinion as you can compete with others if your trains are comfortable

 

[Rhydgaled]

They are all very old rolling stock & have lots of age related problems, 153/150 have no air con. The 150's are very noisy at higher speeds & the 158's air con fails every summer.
The 175's being the youngest are still 20 years old & have severe corrosion problems, plus reliability issues.

All have done a good service for the franchise, but a new euro 5 emissions engined uniform fleet of 197's makes sense in so many ways.
More economical with lower emissions that all have compatible couplers, much lower running costs with better cost savings with uniform parts for the whole fleet. Enhanced line speeds over the sprinters that will save time. For most passengers they will see a new fleet of modern trains with a better Customer experience. I know there's the toilet & seat issues but I don't think these can be resolved so late in the order process.

I agree that a new uniform fleet makes sense in some respects, but in others in makes no sense at all mostly because of the timing of the replacement with a uniform fleet (if it were done around 2030, electrification should be ongoing and the new fleet could be bi-mode instead of straight diesel). Also, the specific design of the class 197s makes no sense for the routes they are planned to work because of the toilet and seat issues. The toilet issue cannot be satisfactorily resolved with wide exterior doors. You are correct that it is too late for these issues to be resolved, the trains are in build, therefore the only hope is for production to be halted after the first 20 or so units with the rest either redesigned before resuming construction or cancelled altogether.

Ah, the old “rectified in time” statement. How about rectifying them before they are built rather than punters having to put up with #@*% for at least the next 15 years?

Well said. Unfortunately some have been built so as noted above it's now a question of damage limitation; build fewer of the damn things.

I think a large part of the problem here is that people aren't getting the train that "they" want. Some are complaining because they don't like the choice of seat. Others would rather the doors were at the end of the carriages and not at ⅓ & ⅔. Some think there aren't enough toilets. Some say they are too few seats and others are saying there are too many!

I am complaining about ALL of those things, plus a few more (eg. number of tables, window alignment and type of traction) except number of seats. The number of seats is similar to a class 175 and, if the same ample seat pitch was provided (which it isn't), that is exactly right. Given that I wouldn't want any less seats, or less legroom, the only place for the extra space to come from to fit in the missing toilet is to make the doors narrower, as they are on a 175. You can put one of those doors towards the middle of the vehicle if you want (as long as interior partition doors are provided), but this is supposed to be a long-distance fleet surely the vehicle should be different to a train designed for a short-distance stopper. Comfort should not be sacrificed to the god of dwell time.

Why not contact TfW, rather than ranting aimlessly on a forum?

Don't just contact TfW; contact your assembly representatives (or MP if in England) and, in particularly, the transport minister Ken Skates and, if you can, his deputy Lee Waters. It is what I'm doing and have been every now and again for the past few years.

Similar seats to the 800s and 802s? (I'm not really anal enough to know much about train seats) well those seats work perfectly fine for me and thousands of other people who use them daily. It will be nice to see cleaner, more efficient and reliable trains on the network. I shall certainly be enjoying these new trains whilst the enthusiast are stamping their feet on the floor on a forum.

Ian Walmsley (if I recall correctly) has written that the class 800 has taken the joy out of Intercity travel. Thousands of people may still use them, but if they aren't enjoying it they won't they be more likely to use alternatives in future, if they can? Sometimes rail is the only practical option.

If you think the Welsh government would listen then I’d suggest that is at best naïve.

Have you got a better idea? If enough of us write to the Senedd we might eventually get through to them, and by writing about the problems on a public forum it potentially draws the issues to the attention of more people who can also send their objections to the Welsh Government.

 

[craigybagel]

It's nice to see some sense written on here, all the ranting about some issues but ignoring the huge improvements the 197's will give the passengers.
Plus the savings the 197's will give the government ran TOC, the savings will go back into the TOC & improve the franchise.

All rolling stock purchases are comprises which are dictated by the budgets, especially after zero investment in new rolling stock by ATW it's so positive to see this kind of new investment for all areas of the franchise.

I for one am excited to experience a new train, with things like working air con & heating. Good wifi with working plug sockets.

Thanks. My good lady wife has been worried I get too worked up about some of the arguments I get involved with online but I feel like an oasis of calm on this particular thread

I agree that a new uniform fleet makes sense in some respects, but in others in makes no sense at all mostly because of the timing of the replacement with a uniform fleet (if it were done around 2030, electrification should be ongoing and the new fleet could be bi-mode instead of straight diesel). Also, the specific design of the class 197s makes no sense for the routes they are planned to work because of the toilet and seat issues. The toilet issue cannot be satisfactorily resolved with wide exterior doors. You are correct that it is too late for these issues to be resolved, the trains are in build, therefore the only hope is for production to be halted after the first 20 or so units with the rest either redesigned before resuming construction or cancelled altogether.


Well said. Unfortunately some have been built so as noted above it's now a question of damage limitation; build fewer of the damn things.


I am complaining about ALL of those things, plus a few more (eg. number of tables, window alignment and type of traction) except number of seats. The number of seats is similar to a class 175 and, if the same ample seat pitch was provided (which it isn't), that is exactly right. Given that I wouldn't want any less seats, or less legroom, the only place for the extra space to come from to fit in the missing toilet is to make the doors narrower, as they are on a 175. You can put one of those doors towards the middle of the vehicle if you want (as long as interior partition doors are provided), but this is supposed to be a long-distance fleet surely the vehicle should be different to a train designed for a short-distance stopper. Comfort should not be sacrificed to the god of dwell time.


Don't just contact TfW; contact your assembly representatives (or MP if in England) and, in particularly, the transport minister Ken Skates and, if you can, his deputy Lee Waters. It is what I'm doing and have been every now and again for the past few years.


Ian Walmsley (if I recall correctly) has written that the class 800 has taken the joy out of Intercity travel. Thousands of people may still use them, but if they aren't enjoying it they won't they be more likely to use alternatives in future, if they can? Sometimes rail is the only practical option.


Have you got a better idea? If enough of us write to the Senedd we might eventually get through to them, and by writing about the problems on a public forum it potentially draws the issues to the attention of more people who can also send their objections to the Welsh Government.

Thanks for proving my point, as I felt sure you would. You're not getting the train you want. Fine, I get it.

In the interests of openness here's the train I want, based partly on personal favour but mainly on several years experience working many parts of the network that these units will work, in a variety of different roles.

*Better performance. Obviously we won't know for definite on this one till the units arrive, but with more powerful engines, a lighter body and a 6 speed gearbox, these should be a big improvement over the tired fleet we have now.
*More efficient. Contrary to what you might think given some of the stuff I've posted here, I actually do care about the environment and so on. So modern diesel engines with a more efficient transmission tick the boxes nicely for me.

Now you could very well argue that as good as the CAFs will be in the above areas, some Stadler bi modes would be even better. Even on diesel mode they positively fly off the mark, and of course no diesel engine can be as good fit the environment as electric. However, my next few desires are areas in which the Stadlers struggle.

*Numbers - namely enough of them to replace all the 150s and all the 158s, and to bring about the timetable improvements desperately needed.
The Sprinters were great in their day, but that day is long since gone. With the electrification of the Valleys there isn't really and part of the network left where the former wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb, and the latter whilst looking good above the sole bar are trains that even British Rail described as "Garden Shed Engineering" - and if you spend enough time working on them, you'll soon see why. Arriva and TfW have worked wonders on them, but it's time for them to be gone.
Merely replacing them like for like isn't enough though - the timetable has been pretty stagnant for over a decade now, thanks to the ridiculous 15 year no growth franchise of 2003. The transformational timetable TfW are planning will unlock so much potential.
So why don't we just order the Stadlers in those greater numbers? Because they cost a lot more - and I don't believe the numbers would add up for that kind of investment.
And why don't we keep all the 175s to keep those costs down? Well, that brings on my next two points.
*Doors. I can already see certain posters frothing at the mouth on this one, but yes - doors at ⅓ and ⅔ are a good idea. This is not an intercity franchise - most passengers are making shorter journeys, and almost every unit will pass through a busy city or urban area in the peak hours every day. The 175s and 158s, as great as they are, struggle on the TfW network. For the vast majority of passengers, this door arrangement is more suitable. And I'm not convinced that those making longer journeys will really suffer, but I'll get to that further down.
*Compatibility. Almost every driver and guard in the North of the franchise signs 4 different tractions at present. Some sign 5, and the guards at Shrewsbury may soon end up (albeit briefly) with 6 on their cards! Those training costs add up, and hold back money that could be interested in other things. It also makes rostering a nightmare, and having been on a failed 153 it wasn't fun waiting for the two 175s behind us to be shunted out of the way for a 158 to rescue us.
It also opens up the timetable to all kinds of creative coupling ideas. One of the issues at the moment is that the full and standing 175 leaving Manchester in the peaks is carting around lots of fresh air five hours later in West Wales. Timetabling splitting and attaching is a lot easier when you don't have to worry about what happens when you try couple a 158 and a 175 (hint: very bad and very expensive things happen). This also leads on to my next point.
*Gangways. Yes as traincrew they lead to a very cramped cab which isn't that nice - but I'm not at work to look at the view, I'm there to move people around safely and efficiently - and it's a lot easier to do that when you can walk through the entire train.
*Comfort. Here's where things might get a bit controversial, but it's important to remember these things are subjective. So what do I mean by comfort? Well obviously the seats for a starter. I'm typing this whilst sat on one of our existing trains, and I personally don't find the Fainsa Sophia to be any worse. I know not everyone agrees, but as I said, these things are subjective. The fact is though, they've been officially deemed suitable for IETs which make much longer journeys than what the TfW units will be doing, so that's good enough for me. Now what else is there? Reliable air con for a start. 158 air con is a disaster and has been since day one, everybody knows that. It's hard to design a train with a worse air con system! Obviously on a 150 you're relying on an open window and the laws of physics, but people are also forgetting how unpopular the air con on a 175 is. Yes, it's reliable - but it usually works too well at each end of the carriage, with passengers complaining of the cold. All of my experience traveling on CAF units so far leads me to think they won't struggle here.
As for the doors? A red herring in my view. Chiltern and LNWR have done a great job competing against Avanti despite the doors on 170s and 350s being in the "wrong" place in the eyes of some. I've made many long journeys in all weathers on these units and various others with the doors and never cared about where they are.
*Toilets. 1 per two cars. Really, that's all you need. Do you know how many complaints I've had from passengers whilst working 150s about their only being one toilet? Zero. The aforementioned LNWR 350s have the same ratio and people there don't complain. Now I do want these toilets to work more reliably then they did on the 175s, but that should be fixed simply enough. How? Well about 95% of the toilet issues on those units in my experience was the tank being full. Under Arriva, the 175s were the only units with tanks and there were very few locations they could be emptied. Now the entire fleet (tram trains excepted) will have tanks, the investment is going in to the infrastructure to support that.

Now, that's not to say that I'm right and the complaining posters are wrong, or indeed vice versa. I'm just saying that to me, the CAFs are a near perfect compromise for what the network requires.

Time will tell as to which of us is right - but either way, they're coming. Arguing about them isn't going to help anyone.

 

[Caaardiff]

This is an extract for a TfW (Gov) meeting.....

The Board discussed a paper requesting approval of additional costs related to Fainsa Sophia seats to be installed in the fleet of 77 CAF Civity trains due to enter the TfW fleet from 2022 onwards on many of the long-distance services routes. The technical specification for these units, mandates that the trains must be comfortable and practical for journeys of up to three hours. Based testing and RSSB scoring, the proposed Fainsa Comrail seats are deemed to be uncomfortable and unsuitable for long distance journeys and are the same type as installed on the Thameslink class 700 which have come in for much criticism. TfW raised concerns about the proposed seats with TfW Rail Services in July 2019. It was decided that there would not be a strong legal argument to enforce CAF / TfWRS funding of the incremental cost between seats. Such legal action would be unlikely to succeed but would incur considerable additional cost and cause significant programme delay. Therefore to secure the Gold Standard (Fainsa Sophia) seats TfW would need to fund the incremental cost. The Board agreed use of the Fainsa Sophia seats at a cost of £1.9 million, with the expectation that the costs would rentalised at around £130,000 per year through to the end of the Grant Agreement (October 2033).

Therefore it was part of the Franchise agreement regarding comfort. Now that the operations are in house, i would expect TfWRL to stick to that requirement. Also another article which explains the original order vs the upgraded order at a cost of £2m.

Taxpayers to pay £2m for better seats on Wales' new trains - Wales Online

So, do we know that these seats on order are the EXACT same ones used in GWR's IETs? I see Fainsa Sophia GOLD is mentioned in the article.
If no, for the love of trains, can we stop going around in circles on an issue that no-one actually knows which seat is going to be in these trains?

I agree that a new uniform fleet makes sense in some respects, but in others in makes no sense at all mostly because of the timing of the replacement with a uniform fleet (if it were done around 2030, electrification should be ongoing and the new fleet could be bi-mode instead of straight diesel). Also, the specific design of the class 197s makes no sense for the routes they are planned to work because of the toilet and seat issues. The toilet issue cannot be satisfactorily resolved with wide exterior doors. You are correct that it is too late for these issues to be resolved, the trains are in build, therefore the only hope is for production to be halted after the first 20 or so units with the rest either redesigned before resuming construction or cancelled altogether.

Are you seriously proposing to redesign or cancel a new order that is already in production just because of your opinion? Do you not think this has been scrutinised not only by TFWRS and KA but TfW Gov as well?? What planet are you living on?

 

[Rhydgaled]

You're not getting the train you want.

True; that's a large part of it. There's also the problem that I don't think this is the right time to be doing a full fleet replacement due to the current uncertainty regarding future electrification. Building a large fleet that presumes little or no future electrification cannot be good for the prospects of electrification. If the class 197s, above the floor, were exactly what I wanted but still diesel-only under the floor I would probably still be concerned about building so many of them. But I would probably have given up my campaign against them by now if they were either a worthy DMU successor to 158s/175s or were bi-modes but otherwise exactly as TfW have specified them (in the latter case I'd be trying to get them cascade them elsewhere).

In the interests of openness here's the train I want, based partly on personal favour but mainly on several years experience working many parts of the network that these units will work, in a variety of different roles.

*Better performance. Obviously we won't know for definite on this one till the units arrive, but with more powerful engines, a lighter body and a 6 speed gearbox, these should be a big improvement over the tired fleet we have now.
*More efficient. Contrary to what you might think given some of the stuff I've posted here, I actually do care about the environment and so on. So modern diesel engines with a more efficient transmission tick the boxes nicely for me.

I agree the acceleration performance of the class 197s should be quite impressive. However, and appologies in advance for this pedantic point, but saying the 197s have lighter bodies may not be completely true. I'm not sure how much the 197s weigh, but Wikipedia gives the axle weights of a 195. Multiplying these figures by 4 axles gives 87.4t for a 2-car and 128.36t for a 3-car unit. I'm not sure whether that's metric or imperial, but according to TfW's datasheets a 158 is 77 tonnes, a 170 is 91.4 (or 133.7 for 3-car) tonnes a 175/0 is 99.2 tonnes and a 175/1 is 146.7 tonnes. That suggests a 195 is lighter than a Turbostar or 175 but heavier than a 158.

As for the environment, if human health in the short term is your number 1 priority then getting rid of the 158s would almost certainly be the right thing to do. However, the position regarding greenhouse gases is far less clear. If all 77 class 197s are built then the most likely outcome in my opinion is a later elimination of fossil fuel trains and a delay to electrification with less of the network electrified by 2050 than would otherwise be the case. IF building all 77 class 197s does not reduce electrification and results in the TfW 158s and 175s going for scrap immediately this MAY result in lower total emissions than if the 197s were not built, but I think that is a fairly unlikely scenario.

Now you could very well argue that as good as the CAFs will be in the above areas, some Stadler bi modes would be even better. Even on diesel mode they positively fly off the mark, and of course no diesel engine can be as good fit the environment as electric. However, my next few desires are areas in which the Stadlers struggle.

*Numbers - namely enough of them to replace all the 150s and all the 158s, and to bring about the timetable improvements desperately needed.
The Sprinters were great in their day, but that day is long since gone. With the electrification of the Valleys there isn't really and part of the network left where the former wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb, and the latter whilst looking good above the sole bar are trains that even British Rail described as "Garden Shed Engineering" - and if you spend enough time working on them, you'll soon see why. Arriva and TfW have worked wonders on them, but it's time for them to be gone.
Merely replacing them like for like isn't enough though - the timetable has been pretty stagnant for over a decade now, thanks to the ridiculous 15 year no growth franchise of 2003. The transformational timetable TfW are planning will unlock so much potential.
So why don't we just order the Stadlers on those numbers? Because they cost a lot more - and I don't believe the numbers would add up for that kind of investment.

The 150s are going anyway, the Stadlers on the Metro (with help from the 230s) will see to that. I agree that they have had their day. The 158s might have been described by some at BR as "Garden Shed Engineering" but I'm sure a 'Pan-Up' column in Modern Railways described the 158s as the 'best DMU ever' and, as you point out, the engineers can work wonders on them. Salisbury depot even manages to get them to beat many EMU fleets in the golden spanners. The 158s are nearing retirement age but they are not quite there yet, particularly while Northern and GWR are still running 150s.

Compatibility. Almost every driver and guard in the North of the franchise signs 4 different tractions at present. Some sign 5, and the guards at Shrewsbury may soon end up (albeit briefly) with 6 on their cards! Those training costs add up, and hold back money that could be interested in other things. It also makes rostering a nightmare, and having been on a failed 153 it wasn't fun waiting for the two 175s behind us to be shunted out of the way for a 158 to rescue us.
It also opens up the timetable to all kinds of creative coupling ideas. One of the issues at the moment is that the full and standing 175 leaving Manchester in the peaks is carting around lots of fresh air five hours later in West Wales. Timetabling splitting and attaching is a lot easier when you don't have to worry about what happens when you try couple a 158 and a 175 (hint: very bad and very expensive things happen). This also leads on to my next point.

This is about the one thing that TfW's rolling stock policy outside the Metros has going for it. But 197s are one of these modern types (like the 175s) that won't multi with anything else (except perhaps 196s in the 197's case) which makes cascading part of the fleet elsewhere to allow electrification and bringing in bi-modes or EMUs more problematic. The new bi-mode stock at TfW would break TfW's uniform fleet and the incoming 197s would be a similar problem for GWR (who could use them to get rid of their 150s) and possibly could be an issue for Northern (I suppose they might be able to modify the 195s to be compatible).

Gangways. Yes as traincrew they lead to a very cramped cab which isn't that nice - but I'm not at work to look at the view, I'm there to move people around safely and efficiently - and it's a lot easier to do that when you can walk through the entire train.

Ok, that's another thing that TfW's rolling stock policy outside the Metros has going for it. If you are timetabling units to split in service, gangways are a must in my view (as a passenger) and that is something whoever wrote the spec for the 197s got right.

*Comfort. Here's where things might get a bit controversial, but it's important to remember these things are subjective. So what do I mean by comfort? Well obviously the seats for a starter. I'm typing this whilst sat on one of our existing trains, and I personally don't find the Fainsa Sophia to be any worse. I know not everyone agrees, but as I said, these things are subjective. The fact is though, they've been officially deemed suitable for IETs which make much longer journeys than what the TfW units will be doing, so that's good enough for me. Now what else is there?

Officially deemed suitable for IETs? By whom? There are plenty of people who don't think they are suitable for IETs, to the extent that at least one of Avanti and EMR have made a point of saying they won't be using the same unpopular seats on their new Hitachi units. The latest version of the Rail Delivery Group's Key Train Requirements provides two objective (or at least less-subjective) means of evaluating seat comfort - unfortunately nobody is releasing the scores of any train seats.

Toilets. 1 per two cars. Really, that's all you need.

No, it's not. The Rail Delivery Group's Key Train Requirements states that, for a long-distance service, the ratio of seats to toilets should not exceed 85 seats per toilet. I seem to recall it also states that all multiple units should contain at least two toilets. Even the 3-car units with first class (which consequentially have fewer seats) come out at 87 seats per toilet. While that could be considered a quibble, the ratio given for a short-distance commuter unit is 125 seats per toilet and the 2-car class 197s are nearer to breaching that threshold than they are to being compliant with the long-distance best-practice.

Do you know how many complaints I've had from passengers whilst working 150s about their only being one toilet? Zero. The aforementioned LNWR 350s have the same ratio and people there don't complain. Now I do want these toilets to work more reliably then they did on the 175s, but that should be fixed simply enough. How? Well about 95% of the toilet issues on those units in my experience was the tank being full. Under Arriva, the 175s were the only units with tanks and there were very few locations they could be emptied. Now the entire fleet (tram trains excepted) will have tanks, the investment is going in to the infrastructure to support that.

You say virtually all the toilet issues are the tank being full. 150s have only recently been fitted with CET tanks, so for much of their lives the risk of a toilet being out-of-order and therefore a second toilet being needed was much lower.

So, do we know that these seats on order are the EXACT same ones used in GWR's IETs? I see Fainsa Sophia GOLD is mentioned in the article.

We don't know for certain that they are exactly the same, but given TPE reportedly went with the Sophia because it was already approved for rail use, wouldn't a variation on it require a new approvals process that would be reported on in the TfW minutes? 'Gold Standard' is how TfW refer to the Sophia, I've always taken that to mean that the Sophia is the top-of-the-range of the seats that CAF/Fainsa were offering to TfW rather than the 'Sophia Gold Standard' being a seperate product.

Are you seriously proposing to redesign or cancel a new order that is already in production just because of your opinion?

No. I am seriously proposing cancelation of the majority (not all) of a new fleet that is already in production (there's no point cancelling an order for units that have already been built). The reason I am doing it is because of my opinion but the reason I think I have a (very slim) chance of success is because that new fleet is directly opposed to elements of the Welsh Government's stated policy on rail and their new transport strategy, and because at least two rail user groups appear to share my opinion that the new trains are not suitable for long distance services. I am under no illusions that the most likely outcome by along way is that 77 class 197s will be built and displace the 158s and 175s, but in my opinion that is not yet 100% certain. I'd say it was 90-99% certain. If you felt strongly enough about something, wouldn't you fight to the bitter end?

 

[Caaardiff]

No. I am seriously proposing cancelation of the majority (not all) of a new fleet that is already in production (there's no point cancelling an order for units that have already been built). The reason I am doing it is because of my opinion but the reason I think I have a (very slim) chance of success is because that new fleet is directly opposed to elements of the Welsh Government's stated policy on rail and their new transport strategy, and because at least two rail user groups appear to share my opinion that the new trains are not suitable for long distance services. I am under no illusions that the most likely outcome by along way is that 77 class 197s will be built and displace the 158s and 175s, but in my opinion that is not yet 100% certain. I'd say it was 90-99% certain. If you felt strongly enough about something, wouldn't you fight to the bitter end?

You're delusional if you think you're going to be the influence on cancelling and changing of orders, along with that influence being expressed through an enthusiasts forum.

What is the alternative fleet you would order?
And can you provide a comprehensive business case as to how that fleet will fit the exact requirements of TfW in the way that the 197s have been made to fit. And I'm not just talking about a comfy seat and a window view.

TfW operate on an expansive network that varies in requirements in several places. For whatever reason the 197 has been matched to that.
What is the alternative that is also cost effective?

 

[Rhydgaled]

What is the alternative fleet you would order?

With hindsight, what I would have ordered would be a fleet of around 30 bi-mode units (a mix of 2 and 3-cars) with unit-end gangways but otherwise a similar specification to the class 175s. I would have kept both the 158s and 175s in service, and if the budget allowed taken on another 3 or 4 mark 4 sets (these being 5 coaches instead of 4). A follow-on order for another 25-30 units would be delivered around 2030 to replace the 158s with more (or perhaps an EMU version) following in 2035 or 2040 to replace the 175s.

What I would do now, given we are where we are, is accept 20-30 class 197s and not order any alternative fleet at this stage but aim to introduce bi-modes to the specification above around 2030 to replace the 158s as noted above and then continue from there.

 

[Energy]

A follow-on order for another 25-30 units would be delivered around 2030 to replace the 158s with more (or perhaps an EMU version) following in 2035 or 2040 to replace the 175s.

Good luck getting a follow on order in 2030, let alone 2035-40. Other trains have had their production lines restart, but the gap between the 350/2s and the 3/4s was only 5/6 years apart. Similar thing with the electrostars, their production line was still open with not much gap between orders. I heavily doubt we will see the 197 line stay open.

We don't know for certain that they are exactly the same, but given TPE reportedly went with the Sophia because it was already approved for rail use, wouldn't a variation on it require a new approvals process that would be reported on in the TfW minutes?

I would imagine it is the standard Sophia with a better cushion, TPE has similar units to the GWR ones probably because they were needed by TPE pretty quickly.