CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[St. Paddy]

Many thanks St Paddy - still waiting for mine to drop through the letter-box!

You’re welcome

 

[anthony263]

1st class 197 been completed and due to be tested this spring on the North Wales coast line

 

[Philip]

1st class 197 been completed and due to be tested this spring on the North Wales coast line

Well it was about 6 months between the first 175 arriving at Chester with the subsequent testing, and entering service, and these had all sorts of problems. Class 185s only took about 3 months in this aspect. So if things go well then perhaps September/October is a possible timescale for 197s entering service.

It'll only need about 20 197s in service to cover all the North and South Wales to Manchester services, then the majority/all of 175s can leave. I don't think it's particularly unrealistic.

 

[yorkie]

Just another reminder that this is a Traction & Rolling stock thread to discuss CAF Civity for TfW

Please create as new thread (if there isn't one already) to discuss anything else.

Some posts have been moved to https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/suggestions-regarding-tfw-class-197-introduction.214879/

Thanks

 

[Rhydgaled]

If you look at the franchise plan, there is an increase in all the services & extra routes with many being multiple units coupled.

As far as I recall, the only major changes planned with the 197s are the extension of Liverpool-Chester services to Shrewsbury/Cardiff/Llandudno and lengthening of services between Manchester and Swansea to 5 coaches. Compared to the existing 158/175 fleet, 77 class 197s would be 26 additonal units. Manchester-Swansea requires 9 or 10 units by itself and Liverpool-Llandudno probably 6 or 7 units so together that is around 16 of the proposed additional fleet accounted for. Can't remember how many units extending the other portion of the Liverpool service to Cardiff/Shrewsbury needs.

 

[Anonymous10]

According to Wikipedia TFW has at present

36 -150's the last stock the franchise will be losing & a varied amount used on non valleys routes

24 - 158's all ERTMS Equipped but used on various routes outside the Cambrian

27 - 175's used on various routes & the core traction in N Wales / borders routes

Then all the 153's TFWlease & extra 153's from other TOCs

Which the 197's are planned to replace on lots of the routes outside the valleys/ S Wales/ borderlands / heart of Wales & TFW think the order of 77 units makes Sence.

TFW gain much lower running costs from a uniform fleet, only needing parts for one traction is a big plus.
Less traction knowledge & training needed for traincrew, uniform coupler for strengthening/flexibility & especially if units breakdown for recovery.
Hopefully better reliability & as a result less running costs, better fuel economy with Euro 5 engines fitted.
An enhanced customer experience with modern air conditioning & customer information systems.

The 197's have a 100mph top speed & better acceleration, which can help speed up services on some routes.

I'm glad to see the ambitious plans for the Wales & Borders franchise, especially after over 15 years of little growth under ATW.
The Welsh government have exciting plans for the franchise & it's great to see positive investment by a government for a change.

in relation to coupling and to traction knowledge most the tfw fleet (all be it aging) is based on the sprinter family or has same couplers with only the 175 at present not. and the 170s also being different traction but compatible its likely just come down to keeping the 158s a move i believe they could well come to regret in the future if they have the chance to keep them they should they may be aging but they are still very good long distance units in my opinion

 

[Envoy]

in relation to coupling and to traction knowledge most the tfw fleet (all be it aging) is based on the sprinter family or has same couplers with only the 175 at present not. and the 170s also being different traction but compatible its likely just come down to keeping the 158s a move i believe they could well come to regret in the future if they have the chance to keep them they should they may be aging but they are still very good long distance units in my opinion

The 158’s are not very good long distance (or any distance) trains because the air conditioning keeps failing.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I want to see how these will compare to a refurbished 175

I've only done a refurbished 175 for 8 minutes from Stockport to Wilmslow but it looked pretty good!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I want to see how these will compare to a refurbished 175

I've only done a refurbished 175 for 8 minutes from Stockport to Wilmslow but it looked pretty good!

In comfort terms, very poor. Imagine a Northern 195 with worse seats and a higher density interior.

In passenger circulation and overhead luggage rack terms, vastly better.

 

[Rhydgaled]

only needing parts for one traction is a big plus.
Less traction knowledge & training needed for traincrew, uniform coupler for strengthening/flexibility & especially if units breakdown for recovery.

All true, and great for TfW Rail Services (is the OLR still trading under that name?) for at least the next 10 years. However, the trains should last alot longer than that and, when combined with the 195s and 196s, I fear will become an albatross around the neck of the rail industry. One of my critics has tried to tell me that the introduction of the class 197s will not be armageddon, and they're right. However, a failure to electrify routes like Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury and the north Wales coast line by 2050 could well spell doom for much of the network, and having 161 Civity DMUs in the UK will give the treasury and DfT another excuse not to electrify. If these routes are electrified, TfW will need to introduce new bi-mode or EMU stock which most likely won't be compatible with the Civty DMUs.

An enhanced customer experience with modern air conditioning & customer information systems.

I'll conceed that the air conditioning is likely to be an improvement, but customer information systems I would say are an equality thing and not a passenger experience thing. Yes we need to have them but 'enhanced customer experience'? See below:

In comfort terms, very poor. Imagine a Northern 195 with worse seats and a higher density interior.

I'm glad to see the ambitious plans for the Wales & Borders franchise, especially after over 15 years of little growth under ATW.

The Welsh government have exciting plans for the franchise & it's great to see positive investment by a government for a change.

Ambitious, exciting and positive? In the Cardiff Metro area yes, and even then there's no electrification planned on the route to Barry Island and Penarth so not as ambitious as I would have liked. On regional routes, while the Welsh Government might have some good ideas most of them didn't made it into franchise commitments - finally delivering an hourly service to Aberystwyth that was originally promised 'by 2011' is positive but hardly ambitious and, apart from overhead rack space and, perhaps, air-con replacing 158s with 197s on the Cambrian would not be a positive for the passenger experience. The big change is extending the Liverpools to north Wales and Cardiff; west of Swansea all we get is a downgrade from 175s to 197s.

 

[craigybagel]

In comfort terms, very poor. Imagine a Northern 195 with worse seats and a higher density interior.

In your opinion. As is the case with all of this endless seat wibble

All true, and great for TfW Rail Services (is the OLR still trading under that name?) for at least the next 10 years. However, the trains should last alot longer than that and, when combined with the 195s and 196s, I fear will become an albatross around the neck of the rail industry. One of my critics has tried to tell me that the introduction of the class 197s will not be armageddon, and they're right. However, a failure to electrify routes like Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury and the north Wales coast line by 2050 could well spell doom for much of the network, and having 161 Civity DMUs in the UK will give the treasury and DfT another excuse not to electrify. If these routes are electrified, TfW will need to introduce new bi-mode or EMU stock which most likely won't be compatible with the Civty DMUs.

They don't need any further excuse not to electrify. They already have an awful BCR to see to that.

I'll conceed that the air conditioning is likely to be an improvement, but customer information systems I would say are an equality thing and not a passenger experience thing. Yes we need to have them but 'enhanced customer experience'? See below:

These customer screens will be an improvement not just for passengers with disabilities, but will be a benefit to everybody.

Ambitious, exciting and positive? In the Cardiff Metro area yes, and even then there's no electrification planned on the route to Barry Island and Penarth so not as ambitious as I would have liked.

As is always the issue, how do you plan on paying for further electrification? I think a network expansion that sees most services doubled and in some cases quadrupled, and at the same time getting journey times reduced is pretty ambitious.

On regional routes, while the Welsh Government might have some good ideas most of them didn't made it into franchise commitments - finally delivering an hourly service to Aberystwyth that was originally promised 'by 2011' is positive but hardly ambitious and, apart from overhead rack space and, perhaps, air-con replacing 158s with 197s on the Cambrian would not be a positive for the passenger experience. The big change is extending the Liverpools to north Wales and Cardiff; west of Swansea all we get is a downgrade from 175s to 197s.

West of Swansea you're mostly getting 3 car 170s (assuming the 2 cars go on the HOWL), which is a big improvement over the 153s and 150s you've had for the last few years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In your opinion. As is the case with all of this endless seat wibble

Yes, OK, I don't like Sophias. But more objectively, both legroom and window alignment will be worse. And the number of seats lower, so more chance of the ultimate discomfort of standing.

Thread for further discussion of seating on these units: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-caf-class-197-for-tfw-if-not-what-is.215112/

 

[craigybagel]

That's as maybe, but it's getting pretty tiring seeing people declaring things as being categorically worse when the trains haven't been built yet and the full timetable hasn't been made public yet. Until we've actually seen what these trains are like, and know what services they'll be running and how many will be out and about, we can't really pass judgement on how things will definitely be.

 

[Rhydgaled]

All true, and great for TfW Rail Services (is the OLR still trading under that name?) for at least the next 10 years. However, the trains should last alot longer than that and, when combined with the 195s and 196s, I fear will become an albatross around the neck of the rail industry. One of my critics has tried to tell me that the introduction of the class 197s will not be armageddon, and they're right. However, a failure to electrify routes like Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury and the north Wales coast line by 2050 could well spell doom for much of the network, and having 161 Civity DMUs in the UK will give the treasury and DfT another excuse not to electrify. If these routes are electrified, TfW will need to introduce new bi-mode or EMU stock which most likely won't be compatible with the Civty DMUs.

They don't need any further excuse not to electrify. They already have an awful BCR to see to that.

In that case, by 2040 we will likely be back to the 1960s with rail (away from the electrified main lines) seen as an outdated mode in terminal decline. This article from July last year (https://www.railengineer.co.uk/getting-electrification-done-the-net-zero-imperative/) has Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury as 'Definite' and the north Wales coast as 'Possible'; Network Rail's TDNS lists both routes as 'Core Electrification'. If these have an awful BCR and the government cannot see past that, rail decarbonisation is in serious trouble.

As is always the issue, how do you plan on paying for further electrification? I think a network expansion that sees most services doubled and in some cases quadrupled, and at the same time getting journey times reduced is pretty ambitious.

I agreed that the Metro was ambitious; just not as ambitious as I'd have liked to see. As for how to pay for it; stop building extra road capacity.

West of Swansea you're mostly getting 3 car 170s (assuming the 2 cars go on the HOWL), which is a big improvement over the 153s and 150s you've had for the last few years.

True, the Pembroke Dock and Fishguard lines get an upgrade on the 150s but those services are in the minority compared to the hourly 175 to Carmarthen and 2-hourly to Milford Haven.

Until we've actually seen what these trains are like, and know what services they'll be running and how many will be out and about, we can't really pass judgement on how things will definitely be.

We've seen what they're like. There are photos of exteriors of the first unit in the factory, photos of the interior mock-up, various CGI renders and a very detailed seat plan which shows things like window alignment. We also know that TfW doesn't plan to have any other stock except for the Metro fleets (Stadlers down south and 230s up north), the mark 4s and the 170s. Since we have a pretty good idea which services TfW intends to use those other types on, we also have a pretty good idea what services the 197s would be used on (unless the Welsh Government suddenly comes up with funding for an unelectrified Swansea metro and some of the 197s are redeployed to Landore to run it).

 

[craigybagel]

In that case, by 2040 we will likely be back to the 1960s with rail (away from the electrified main lines) seen as an outdated mode in terminal decline. This article from July last year (https://www.railengineer.co.uk/getting-electrification-done-the-net-zero-imperative/) has Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury as 'Definite' and the north Wales coast as 'Possible'; Network Rail's TDNS lists both routes as 'Core Electrification'. If these have an awful BCR and the government cannot see past that, rail decarbonisation is in serious trouble.

If by 2040 electrifying the North Wales coast is the only thing that can save the railways from deep decline, then the battle has probably already been lost.

I should add, I'm not against it being electrified by any means. I just can't see any British government being prepared to pay for it, especially when there are other lower hanging fruits out there. I don't necessarily agree with that choice, I'm just being realistic.

I agreed that the Metro was ambitious; just not as ambitious as I'd have liked to see. As for how to pay for it; stop building extra road capacity.

Surely as someone living in rural Wales you can accept that there's always going to be a need for road based transport? Besides, again no government is likely to be brave enough to defund a majority of road users just so a minority of railway users can have their journey powered by electricity rather then diesel, especially when it will be using the same trains!

Again, I'm not saying I agree with these things, I'm just being realistic.

True, the Pembroke Dock and Fishguard lines get an upgrade on the 150s but those services are in the minority compared to the hourly 175 to Carmarthen and 2-hourly to Milford Haven.

We've seen what they're like. There are photos of exteriors of the first unit in the factory, photos of the interior mock-up, various CGI renders and a very detailed seat plan which shows things like window alignment. We also know that TfW doesn't plan to have any other stock except for the Metro fleets (Stadlers down south and 230s up north), the mark 4s and the 170s. Since we have a pretty good idea which services TfW intends to use those other types on, we also have a pretty good idea what services the 197s would be used on (unless the Welsh Government suddenly comes up with funding for an unelectrified Swansea metro and some of the 197s are redeployed to Landore to run it).

You haven't seen what they're like. The renders are out of date, and the photos from the factory show nothing (especially the so called "first look" from Modern Railways, which is just one poor photo of part of the side of a unit).

More importantly, we also don't know the full unit allocation to the planned timetable, so we don't know either that it's going to result in more people standing, despite claims to the contrary.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

That's as maybe, but it's getting pretty tiring seeing people declaring things as being categorically worse when the trains haven't been built yet and the full timetable hasn't been made public yet. Until we've actually seen what these trains are like, and know what services they'll be running and how many will be out and about, we can't really pass judgement on how things will definitely be.

Some sense and reason. Well said.

 

[irish_rail]

Managed to travel on a refurbished 175 last year during the lull between lockdowns, and hands down it was the nicest train I travelled on all year. Real shame if TFW are axing these...

 

[Bletchleyite]

You haven't seen what they're like. The renders are out of date, and the photos from the factory show nothing (especially the so called "first look" from Modern Railways, which is just one poor photo of part of the side of a unit).

Are the seating plans that were issued out of date? They show a very high density and non-aligned layout - basically an updated version of TfW's 150/2s.

More importantly, we also don't know the full unit allocation to the planned timetable, so we don't know either that it's going to result in more people standing, despite claims to the contrary.

We do know that only the 2-car sets will be fitted with ETCS, which means formations to Aber and Pwllheli can only be 2 to each (or all 4 to Aber), which will mean an overcrowding problem round the Coast at busy times due to the reduced capacity.

 

[yorkie]

Just another reminder that this is a Traction & Rolling stock thread to discuss CAF Civity for TfW

Please create as new thread (if there isn't one already) to discuss anything else.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You haven't seen what they're like. The renders are out of date, and the photos from the factory show nothing (especially the so called "first look" from Modern Railways, which is just one poor photo of part of the side of a unit).

The interior mock-up is unlikely to be particularly out of date

The left hand shot looks quite good to be fair, but then again do some shots of the interior of class 800s; the seats only appear to be comfortable. Both of those shots tie up with the seating plans, except that there is one less tip-up seat by the toilet on the mock-up compared to the seat plan.

More importantly, we also don't know the full unit allocation to the planned timetable, so we don't know either that it's going to result in more people standing, despite claims to the contrary.

True, we don't know that. The only things we know for certain that suggest more people will have to stand are the seating capacity of each unit and the number intended to be fitted with ETCS (only 21 units). That suggests (but does not confirm, admitedly, as some 4-car services may be operated) that there will be less capacity on the Cambrian Coast line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The appearance is certainly high quality, but the question is does it live up to that in practice?

 

[superalbs]

The interior mock-up is unlikely to be particularly out of date
View attachment 92310
The left hand shot looks quite good to be fair, but then again do some shots of the interior of class 800s; the seats only appear to be comfortable. Both of those shots tie up with the seating plans, except that there is one less tip-up seat by the toilet on the mock-up compared to the seat plan.


True, we don't know that. The only things we know for certain that suggest more people will have to stand are the seating capacity of each unit and the number intended to be fitted with ETCS (only 21 units). That suggests (but does not confirm, admitedly, as some 4-car services may be operated) that there will be less capacity on the Cambrian Coast line.

What a shame...

 

[Martin222002]

The interior mock-up is unlikely to be particularly out of date
View attachment 92310
The left hand shot looks quite good to be fair, but then again do some shots of the interior of class 800s; the seats only appear to be comfortable. Both of those shots tie up with the seating plans, except that there is one less tip-up seat by the toilet on the mock-up compared to the seat plan.


True, we don't know that. The only things we know for certain that suggest more people will have to stand are the seating capacity of each unit and the number intended to be fitted with ETCS (only 21 units). That suggests (but does not confirm, admitedly, as some 4-car services may be operated) that there will be less capacity on the Cambrian Coast line.

Something I've just noticed is that the cgi render of the 197 (top right image) seems to suggest that there's been a change in the window layout that have previously been shown in previous renders. Going from the window layout of the 195s, which have only four windows between the doors, to the style found on the 196s, which have five windows between the doors. If this is the case and not just some render mix-up, then this should guarantee that all the seats should line up with the windows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Something I've just noticed is that the cgi render of the 197 (top right image) seems to suggest that there's been a change in the window layout that have previously been shown in previous renders. Going from the window layout of the 195s, which have only four windows between the doors, to the style found on the 196s, which have five windows between the doors. If this is the case and not just some render mix-up, then this should guarantee that all the seats should line up with the windows.

If that is true it is an extremely positive development, though the interior mock-up looks like the higher Class 195 like window frame.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Something I've just noticed is that the cgi render of the 197 (top right image) seems to suggest that there's been a change in the window layout that have previously been shown in previous renders. Going from the window layout of the 195s, which have only four windows between the doors, to the style found on the 196s, which have five windows between the doors. If this is the case and not just some render mix-up, then this should guarantee that all the seats should line up with the windows.

Good spot; I'd missed that.

If that is true it is an extremely positive development, though the interior mock-up looks like the higher Class 195 like window frame.

I think it's a render mix-up (probably somebody had a CGI model of a 196 and 'repainted' it into TfW colours) - there certainly appears to be only four windows between the doors on the picture of the first bodyshell here, although there is an obstrubtion partly blocking the view of that section. I'm not sure making the windows smaller (as I think WMR have done with the 196s) would be an improvement for TfW though.

 

[py_megapixel]

I'm not sure making the windows smaller (as I think WMR have done with the 196s) would be an improvement for TfW though.

If you make the windows smaller but have more of them then it doesn't matter though!

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, the 4-windowed CAF bodyshell has very narrow pillars so it's not the worst thing in the world, but without standbacks getting them aligned wouldn't be that hard.

 

[Anonymous10]

All true, and great for TfW Rail Services (is the OLR still trading under that name?) for at least the next 10 years. However, the trains should last alot longer than that and, when combined with the 195s and 196s, I fear will become an albatross around the neck of the rail industry. One of my critics has tried to tell me that the introduction of the class 197s will not be armageddon, and they're right. However, a failure to electrify routes like Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury and the north Wales coast line by 2050 could well spell doom for much of the network, and having 161 Civity DMUs in the UK will give the treasury and DfT another excuse not to electrify. If these routes are electrified, TfW will need to introduce new bi-mode or EMU stock which most likely won't be compatible with the Civty DMUs.


I'll conceed that the air conditioning is likely to be an improvement, but customer information systems I would say are an equality thing and not a passenger experience thing. Yes we need to have them but 'enhanced customer experience'? See below:



Ambitious, exciting and positive? In the Cardiff Metro area yes, and even then there's no electrification planned on the route to Barry Island and Penarth so not as ambitious as I would have liked. On regional routes, while the Welsh Government might have some good ideas most of them didn't made it into franchise commitments - finally delivering an hourly service to Aberystwyth that was originally promised 'by 2011' is positive but hardly ambitious and, apart from overhead rack space and, perhaps, air-con replacing 158s with 197s on the Cambrian would not be a positive for the passenger experience. The big change is extending the Liverpools to north Wales and Cardiff; west of Swansea all we get is a downgrade from 175s to 197s.

cant agree with you more with services honestly

 

[Rhydgaled]

To be fair, the 4-windowed CAF bodyshell has very narrow pillars so it's not the worst thing in the world, but without standbacks getting them aligned wouldn't be that hard.

47cm pillars are very narrow? The Rail Delivery Group's Key Train Requirements (v5.1) states that these "should be as narrow as practicable, and no greater than 450mm wide".

If you make the windows smaller but have more of them then it doesn't matter though!

It does matter; if they are too small then you always have a pillar in your field of view. Class 153s/155s are the best example of this, lots of windows but if you're a group of four sat round a table two of you have your view impacted by the pillar. Granted the pillars are very narrow but they are still there. The standard class bay pitch on a 197 is 1840mm while the windows I think are 1310mm. For perfect alignment with bay seating, you put the back of each seat at the mid-point of the pillar and make the width of the window plus one pillar equal to the bay pitch. On a class 197, window plus pillar is about 1782mm - since that is not equal to the bay pitch putting the bays together would see them drift further out of alignment as you go along the carriage. Not that this matters since the bays aren't together on a 197 and still manage to be out of alignment, even some of the 1st class bays don't align.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The standard class bay pitch on a 197 is 1840mm while the windows I think are 1310mm.

In common with Desiros, they are not all the same size. As a result on Northern's units the end sections are aligned but the middle sections are not. The mock-up would seem to suggest the same of TfW's units.