CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[g_m_h_redwood]

If 196 and 197 differ only in internal layout, wouldn't you expect some synergy between the technical introduction of the two fleets, leading to one UK certification?
ie done by the same teams at the same depots?
Or is that unrealistic today?
They will be sharing routes in parts of the West Midlands (Shrewsbury-Birmingham and around Hereford).

I should imagine the 197s will need a different certification, as they have to be capable of single track working on lines like the Cambrian Coast.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I should imagine the 197s will need a different certification, as they have to be capable of single track working on lines like the Cambrian Coast.

Yes that's understandable with the ETCS-fitted units (21 out of 77).
But generic acceptance should still be common.

 

[krus_aragon]

Richard Clinnick has "apparently tweeted" that the first "Class 197" has arrived at Donnington and will move to Crewe for testing on North Wales coast.

I am unable to provide any links as I am not on Twitter.

Mark

It appears he was 'retweeting' a pair of messages that someone else sent to him:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Yorkiekid200/status/1381707805212749826

https://mobile.twitter.com/Yorkiekid200/status/1381877475907678210

 

[Energy]

WMT's 196s appear to be owned by the franchise owners (Abellio, JR East and Mitsui, the latter being a bank), but I may be wrong.

Corelink rail infrastrucure, owned by Infracapital (owners of GBRf) and Deutche Asset Management, mostly owned by Deutche Bank.

197s are owned by a normal ROSCO, it was found to have better value for money.

 

[Rhydgaled]

197001

The picture posted by paddyb6 appears to show a 2-car unit, so class 197/0 is a 2-car subclass. Anyone know whether it is one of the ETCS-fitted units and, if so, whether there will be a seperate subclass for non-fitted units? Otherwise, I'm assuming the 3-car units would be class 197/1.

I'm tempted to say it's what you get when you follow the strange UK aberration for gangway unit ends, which hardly anyone else in Europe does.
Apart from the aesthetics, I'd much rather the driver had a proper view out front, as with Northern's versions.
In the fullness of time, it would be nice to hear what drivers think of this aspect compared to their current steeds (gangwayed 158, non-gangwayed 175).

Does anyone else in Europe have large amounts of portion working with multiple units or do they typically only divide trains which are formed of LHCS? While a 175 almost certainly is better from a driver's point of view, for passengers, guards and catering staff it would be better if they had unit-end gangways in my view. In terms of aesthetics, I actually think 158s are better-looking than 175s and 150/2s are better-looking than 150/1s although a pointy front end like you get on a 22x are better looking than any of the lower-speed DMUs.

Keep an eye on this , should be the drag from Donnington to Crewe tomorrow.

Why has it gone to Donnington? Why not just haul it directly from the factory at Newport to Crewe?

Has anybody worked out who owns/is funding the class 197 fleet?
Usually the Rosco (which picks up all the long-term maintenance issues) figures in the press releases, but apparently not for this.
Northern's Civitys (195/331) are owned by Eversholt.
WMT's 196s appear to be owned by the franchise owners (Abellio, JR East and Mitsui, the latter being a bank), but I may be wrong.
It's difficult to know who is responsible for what with TfW and the recent rewriting of franchise contracts.

The annoucements were indeed very quiet regarding who the ROSCO for the 197s was - the only place I've seen an answer was a Modern Railways article which had a table of various fleets with their owners. If I recall correctly each of the new TfW fleets was to be owned by a Special Purpose Venture (single-fleet ROSCOs) - possibly Cambrian Rail Leasing Number 1, 2 and 3?

If 196 and 197 differ only in internal layout, wouldn't you expect some synergy between the technical introduction of the two fleets, leading to one UK certification?
ie done by the same teams at the same depots?
Or is that unrealistic today?
They will be sharing routes in parts of the West Midlands (Shrewsbury-Birmingham and around Hereford).

The window layout is different too; the 197 is more like a 195 than a 196 except the cabs.

I should imagine the 197s will need a different certification, as they have to be capable of single track working on lines like the Cambrian Coast.

Birmingham - Hereford contains some single-line sections doesn't it? If so the 196s will be working on single lines too.

 

[PHILIPE]

Why has it gone to Donnington? Why not just haul it directly from the factory at Newport to Crewe?

Probably road access

 

[Phil Scott]

Have the individual vehicle numbers for the 197 units been announced yet? Thanks

 

[craigybagel]

Why has it gone to Donnington? Why not just haul it directly from the factory at Newport to Crewe?

Probably road access

The factory at Newport isn't rail connected, so they have to go by road somewhere. Donnington is already being used to store some of the WMR 196s so it's as logical a place as any. Presumably it was deemed easier to transfer them from from road to rail there rather then truck them all the way to Crewe.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The factory at Newport isn't rail connected, so they have to go by road somewhere.

I thought it was. Isn't it right next to the GWML?

 

[g_m_h_redwood]

Birmingham - Hereford contains some single-line sections doesn't it? If so the 196s will be working on single lines too.

I don't actually know if it does. I've never been on the line so it might, it might not. You're right though, if it does the 196s will also need to be able to work single lines.

 

[Domh245]

I thought it was. Isn't it right next to the GWML?

Google's last satellite images (taken mid may last year) show a bit of track heading away from the factory but ending abruptly before joining the network

 

[Rhydgaled]

Google's last satellite images (taken mid may last year) show a bit of track heading away from the factory but ending abruptly before joining the network

Ah, ok. Donnington makes alot more sense now, but still building a train factory next to a railway but without a rail connection doesn't seem very sensible.

 

[Class172]

Birmingham - Hereford contains some single-line sections doesn't it? If so the 196s will be working on single lines too.

I don't actually know if it does. I've never been on the line so it might, it might not. You're right though, if it does the 196s will also need to be able to work single lines.

Single line sections on the Birmingham-Hereford services include Stoke Works Jct-Droitwich Spa, Malvern Wells-Ledbury and Ledbury-Shelwick Jct, in addition to the lines around the Worcester triangle, so the 196s will have a decent amount of single line working.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Does anyone else in Europe have large amounts of portion working with multiple units or do they typically only divide trains which are formed of LHCS? While a 175 almost certainly is better from a driver's point of view, for passengers, guards and catering staff it would be better if they had unit-end gangways in my view. In terms of aesthetics, I actually think 158s are better-looking than 175s and 150/2s are better-looking than 150/1s although a pointy front end like you get on a 22x are better looking than any of the lower-speed DMUs.

I'll keep this brief as it's off topic, but portion working with units is fairly widespread in Germany as far as I know. Including splitting up 6-car formations of 2-car regional DMUs from Nürnberg to serve 3 destinations (Cheb(CZ)/Hof/Regensburg). The units used (BR-612s) are not gangwayed.

 

[Domh245]

Ah, ok. Donnington makes alot more sense now, but still building a train factory next to a railway but without a rail connection doesn't seem very sensible.

Depends entirely on How much it'd cost to connect to the network, and how many trains you'd be able to deliver through it. My suspicion is that it'd cost a lot, and that with only the 196 and 197 fleets likely to use it the payback may not have made sense - though that is assuming that they intend to continue with road deliveries - it is quite possible that the connection will be finished at some point in the near future, particularly for delivering the 197s - if it hasn't already

 

[Philip]

The negativity around 197s before they've even entered service is funny. These are brand new trains, in longer formation and soon to be with a first class section which the 175s don't have. The 175s have had a deep clean; a refresh of new seat covers/carpets and plug sockets added; they look smart but it is hardly an 'out of this world' refurbishment and I'm sure the brand new ambience of the 197 will be superior.

The 175s have had corrosion issues in recent years, yes they are generally reliable but the corrosion is still a concern going forward. The ride quality on these is also poor, I don't know if the refurb has seen the tables fixed to the side panels, but beforehand they were only fixed to the floor and so the tables vibrated a lot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The negativity around 197s before they've even entered service is funny.

I don't think I need to ride on one to know that:
1. Fainsa Sophias are rubbish
2. They are too short/too few in number
3. CAF has a build and ride quality problem (from riding 195s)

I do think the interior colour scheme is nice, which is a plus point (unlike Northern's stark blue scheme) but if the physical product isn't up to it...

That do?

With 195s I though they looked really good and was less impressed when I rode one, FWIW.

 

[craigybagel]

I don't think I need to ride on one to know that:
1. Fainsa Sophias are rubbish
2. They are too short/too few in number
3. CAF has a build and ride quality problem (from riding 195s)

I do think the interior colour scheme is nice, which is a plus point (unlike Northern's stark blue scheme) but if the physical product isn't up to it...

That do?

With 195s I though they looked really good and was less impressed when I rode one, FWIW.

(Bangs head against wall)

1: in your opinion

(Bangs head against wall)

2: 180 vehicles replacing 122 (all the 158s, 175s and 2 150s (from Blaneau and Crewe - Chester). How much more units do you want?

(Bangs head against wall)

3: The 195 design was finished several years ago. We have no way of knowing if the same faults will re-occur on the 197s. Yes it's a concern I'll admit, but it's way too early to declare that these units are going to be awful.

(Bangs head against wall)

 

[greatvoyager]

The negativity around 197s before they've even entered service is funny. These are brand new trains, in longer formation and soon to be with a first class section which the 175s don't have. The 175s have had a deep clean; a refresh of new seat covers/carpets and plug sockets added; they look smart but it is hardly an 'out of this world' refurbishment and I'm sure the brand new ambience of the 197 will be superior.

The 175s have had corrosion issues in recent years, yes they are generally reliable but the corrosion is still a concern going forward. The ride quality on these is also poor, I don't know if the refurb has seen the tables fixed to the side panels, but beforehand they were only fixed to the floor and so the tables vibrated a lot.

I’m optimistic, and looking forward to travelling on one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2: 180 vehicles replacing 122 (all the 158s, 175s and 2 150s (from Blaneau and Crewe - Chester). How much more units do you want?

As I've already said, enough that the Cambrian Coast capacity (towards Pwllheli) is not an overall reduction. Which means 3-car units with ASDO.

 

[craigybagel]

As I've already said, enough that the Cambrian Coast capacity (towards Pwllheli) is not an overall reduction. Which means 3-car units with ASDO.

Or as I've already said, it means using the ERTMS fitted 2 car units in multiple, during those rare periods (ie high summer) when the Cambrian needs that kind of capacity. People are assuming that similar numbers of ERTMS fitted units are required to the amount of 158s available now, when we don't actually know how many units the Cambrian will get as we don't know the full details of the timetable yet. I see no reason for ERTMS fitted units to end up in South Wales or Holyhead as they do now - so I see no reason to worry about the Cambrian.

Contrary to popular belief, the people who actually make these decisions aren't complete idiots.

 

[berneyarms]

I have to say that constantly repeating personal opinions about these new trains isn't adding anything to this thread in my view - can we just wait now until the sets actually materialise in service or when people can actually physically inspect them, and when it becomes clear how the sets will be deployed?

It really does get frustrating re-reading the same speculation again and again, as opposed to actual news about the sets.

 

[greatvoyager]

I have to say that constantly repeating personal opinions about these new trains isn't adding anything to this thread in my view - can we just wait now until the sets actually materialise in service or when people can actually physically inspect them?

It really does get frustrating re-reading the same thing again and again, as opposed to actual news about the sets.

Seconded.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or as I've already said, it means using the ERTMS fitted 2 car units in multiple, during those rare periods (ie high summer) when the Cambrian needs that kind of capacity.

As I understand it 4 car units can't be used round the Coast. If they can, then reallocating more 2s that way would indeed be a fix, so you'd have 6 car formations running from Brum.

Contrary to popular belief, the people who actually make these decisions aren't complete idiots.

Complete idiots no, but I think one can be forgiven for thinking that the railway doesn't have the passenger in mind when doing this sort of thing when given the evidence of things like Virgin XC and TransPennine Express and their severe and entirely predictable overcrowding problems.

 

[craigybagel]

I have to say that constantly repeating personal opinions about these new trains isn't adding anything to this thread in my view - can we just wait now until the sets actually materialise in service or when people can actually physically inspect them, and when it becomes clear how the sets will be deployed?

It really does get frustrating re-reading the same speculation again and again, as opposed to actual news about the sets.

Seconded.

Indeed, and to those who feel I've contributed to these distractions, I can only apologise. I just feel that some of this complete nonsense needs calling out - especially when we're having people come to this thread looking for information on the new fleet and being told about supposed short comings as though they're fact with no mention of the fact that they're mere opinions, nothing more.

As I understand it 4 car units can't be used round the Coast. If they can, then reallocating more 2s that way would indeed be a fix, so you'd have 6 car formations running from Brum.

The issue with longer trains on the coast precludes the use of 3 cars, not just 4 (it's just not normally relevant as there aren't any 3 car units with ERTMS fitted anyway). AFAIK it's something that can be fixed if the need arises.

Complete idiots no, but I think one can be forgiven for thinking that the railway doesn't have the passenger in mind when doing this sort of thing when given the evidence of things like Virgin XC and TransPennine Express and their severe and entirely predictable overcrowding problems.

True, but I think those comparisons are unfair.

XC went wrong because whilst there was a timetable improvement in the core part of the network, there was very little increased capacity since 7 car trains were replaced with 4 and 5 cars, and at the fringes of the network they kept the same frequency but with smaller units.

At TFW, the Cambrian Coast is the only place where there is the possibility of a reduction in capacity. The rest of the network is seeing an increase in frequencies, and/or longer trains. Even then, the reduction in capacity is very small (in comparison to the above mentioned XC issues), and most of the trains most of the year on the Cambrian can cope just fine. And as I've said earlier, we don't know that the summer services are going to be all 2 cars.

TPE were in a difficult position of wanting extra stock but not being permitted it. TFW have been granted that extra stock - and the increase in capacity they're getting as a result is dramatically higher then what TPE got.

 

[Energy]

(it's just not normally relevant as there aren't any 3 car units with ERTMS fitted anyway)

If 3 car units are needed on the Cambrian there is an easy fix of fitting ERTMS, or swapping the middle cars if that is possible.

Fitting ETCS can be difficult in older units but the 197s are designed for it, making it a not too difficult retrofit.

 

[craigybagel]

If 3 car units are needed on the Cambrian there is an easy fix of fitting ERTMS, or swapping the middle cars if that is possible.

Fitting ETCS can be difficult in older units but the 197s are designed for it, making it a not too difficult retrofit.

Exactly, and I think that's another important thing people need to remember here. If TfW really have got their maths wrong, it's an easier fix then it ever has been in the past.

In other news, 197001 has safely made it to Crewe today. Lots of photos on social media, so I'm sure they'll be on here soon enough.

 

[greatvoyager]

If 3 car units are needed on the Cambrian there is an easy fix of fitting ERTMS, or swapping the middle cars if that is possible.

That’s one advantage over the other stock that I hadn’t considered.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The announcements were indeed very quiet regarding who the ROSCO for the 197s was - the only place I've seen an answer was a Modern Railways article which had a table of various fleets with their owners. If I recall correctly each of the new TfW fleets was to be owned by a Special Purpose Venture (single-fleet ROSCOs) - possibly Cambrian Rail Leasing Number 1, 2 and 3?

Yes, that makes a sort of sense, although whether it now does with Keolis-Amey out of the picture is anyone's guess.
It probably also means that a complicated banking consortium has put up the cash.
I think it also means that TfW will be doing its own maintenance on the CAF fleet, as I believe is the case with Northern.
It rather goes against the trend for manufacturers to do that, taking over the TOC depots in the process and taking on the long-term fleet reliability risk.
CAF, without a UK maintenance operation, don't seem to have offered that route for their trains, unlike Hitachi, Siemens and Alstom/Bombardier.
Stadler is delivering maintenance for their GA, Merseyrail and Nexus fleets, but not apparently for TfW.
It feels like there is a hugely complicated contractual structure out there to deliver the TfW fleets into service, most of which has been kept under wraps so far.
I guess it's what you hire a new MD for.

 

[craigybagel]

Yes, that makes a sort of sense, although whether it now does with Keolis-Amey out of the picture is anyone's guess.
It probably also means that a complicated banking consortium has put up the cash.
I think it also means that TfW will be doing its own maintenance on the CAF fleet, as I believe is the case with Northern.
It rather goes against the trend for manufacturers to do that, taking over the TOC depots in the process and taking on the long-term fleet reliability risk.
CAF, without a UK maintenance operation, don't seem to have offered that route for their trains, unlike Hitachi, Siemens and Alstom/Bombardier.
Stadler is delivering maintenance for their GA, Merseyrail and Nexus fleets, but not apparently for TfW.
It feels like there is a hugely complicated contractual structure out there to deliver the TfW fleets into service, most of which has been kept under wraps so far.
I guess it's what you hire a new MD for.

CAF are responsible for maintenance, and will be taking over the depots at Chester and Machynlleth.