CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[craigybagel]

I was told by control that the TfW 170s can’t couple to other BSI coupler units as anything else aside from the 175s in the fleet. I definitely remember Central Trains / London Midland coupling their 170s to 153s.

Under normal circumstances 170s can couple to any unit with a BSI coupler, so any 14x, 15x and certain 172s. They're already barred from coupling to 142s normally as it results in the fire bells sounding. TfW may have subsequently barred them from coupling to other units for some reason to - if they have done, I've not heard about it, but I don't sign them yet anyway

At least now in TfW if a set fails at Queen Street the very next train can rescue it, how long until a tram train sits down blocking the job with the next train being unsuitable coupler or software wise.

A real chance to have a standard fleet with all the economic saving scales that’s brings lost.

A train falling in Queen Street isn't a problem since they've got 2 platforms in each direction they can use.

 

[py_megapixel]

They're already barred from coupling to 142s normally as it results in the fire bells sounding.

What, because the 170 is so embarrassed to have been brought down to the level of multi working with a bus?

A train falling in Queen Street isn't a problem since they've got 2 platforms in each direction they can use.

I doubt it's actually not a problem, unless the timetable only uses half the available capacity!

 

[craigybagel]

I doubt it's actually not a problem, unless the timetable only uses half the available capacity!

Well no, obviously it's going to be a problem, but not a particularly big one. My point is that if the next train isn't compatible, the one behind it probably will be, and with 2 platforms available it won't be a problem getting that train in place to be a rescue unit.

 

[Tom Quinne]

Under normal circumstances 170s can couple to any unit with a BSI coupler, so any 14x, 15x and certain 172s. They're already barred from coupling to 142s normally as it results in the fire bells sounding. TfW may have subsequently barred them from coupling to other units for some reason to - if they have done, I've not heard about it, but I don't sign them yet anyway



A train falling in Queen Street isn't a problem since they've got 2 platforms in each direction they can use.

Not if it fails at the on p3 and the driver hasn’t stopped bang on the stopping mark as the rear car will still be occupying the axle counter section in rear blocking access to P2.

On a four car 150 formation in P3 if the driver doesn’t stop bang on the rear car is still occupying the axle counter in rear.

 

[Tom Quinne]

What, because the 170 is so embarrassed to have been brought down to the level of multi working with a bus?


I doubt it's actually not a problem, unless the timetable only uses half the available capacity!

The layout at QS is crap even now, although they are going to remodel the main direction of traffic towards the bay vice Central.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

At least now in TfW if a set fails at Queen Street the very next train can rescue it, how long until a tram train sits down blocking the job with the next train being unsuitable coupler or software wise.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that the Rhymney trains won't be capable of rescuing the Merthyr / Aberdare / Treherbert ones and vice versa? It would be extraordinary if that was the case and I find it very difficult to believe.

 

[Tom Quinne]

That’s correct yes, well my unstanding as you’ll have tramTrain and Heavy rail units - the trams look very similar to those up in Sheffield, with the heavy rail units looking very much like those over in Anglia.

 

[Eccles1983]

I was told by control that the TfW 170s can’t couple to other BSI coupler units as anything else aside from the 175s in the fleet. I definitely remember Central Trains / London Midland coupling their 170s to 153s.

I wouldn't suggest coupling a 170 to a 175.

After a loud crash you would soon realise the error.

175 can couple to 175 &180's only. An emergency loco coupling can take place but then you need the loco, and fitters.

 

[craigybagel]

Not if it fails at the on p3 and the driver hasn’t stopped bang on the stopping mark as the rear car will still be occupying the axle counter section in rear blocking access to P2.

On a four car 150 formation in P3 if the driver doesn’t stop bang on the rear car is still occupying the axle counter in rear.

That's a pretty unfortunate chain of events to be fair. And TfW have experience of incompatible fleets with the 175s and everything else so presumably they know what the risks are.

In return for that incompatibility however they get:

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that the Rhymney trains won't be capable of rescuing the Merthyr / Aberdare / Treherbert ones and vice versa? It would be extraordinary if that was the case and I find it very difficult to believe.

That’s correct yes, well my unstanding as you’ll have tramTrain and Heavy rail units - the trams look very similar to those up in Sheffield, with the heavy rail units looking very much like those over in Anglia.

Two very different fleets for what is being treated as two different routes. Rhymney Valley - Cardiff - VOG is being treated as heavy rail, and Taff Valley - Cardiff - Bay as light rail. Presumably tram trains have been deemed inappropriate for the VOG, and obviously the tramway extension in the Bay has to be light rail, so you need two different fleets.

Now many would question the point of a tiny section of light rail in the Bay when it ends up dictating the fleet used on a much larger part of the overall network, but you can blame the Welsh Assembly and their infinite wisdom for that one.

 

[Tom Quinne]

I wouldn't suggest coupling a 170 to a 175.

After a loud crash you would soon realise the error.

175 can couple to 175 &180's only. An emergency loco coupling can take place but then you need the loco, and fitters.

I wouldn’t either a PX would quickly follow lol

 

[Tom Quinne]

That's a pretty unfortunate chain of events to be fair. And TfW have experience of incompatible fleets with the 175s and everything else so presumably they know what the risks are.

In return for that incompatibility however they get:




Two very different fleets for what is being treated as two different routes. Rhymney Valley - Cardiff - VOG is being treated as heavy rail, and Taff Valley - Cardiff - Bay as light rail. Presumably tram trains have been deemed inappropriate for the VOG, and obviously the tramway extension in the Bay has to be light rail, so you need two different fleets.

Now many would question the point of a tiny section of light rail in the Bay when it ends up dictating the fleet used on a much larger part of the overall network, but you can blame the Welsh Assembly and their infinite wisdom for that one.

The four car 150 formation stopping “short“ happens quite often, with zero effect however. But it’ll happen one day, hopefully it’s not my workstation when it does happen!

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder this thread is to discuss CAF Civity for TfW

The forum has plenty of spare capacity for threads on any other topics

 

[RealTrains07]

Doing it that way can leave you with a hodge-podge of units and mini-fleets. Total fleet replacement gives you a felxible fleet of uniform vehicles which aids reliability, driver training, ease of maintenance etc.

Yeah and obliterates future job prospects for the manufactures while doing it.

Fleet replacements should only happen when the entirety of the existing fleet is at retirement age otherwise you risk bringing a product with little improvements over the last other than to make everything more convenient and beneficial for the operator.

I fear the 197s is the sort of train that is overhyped and will fall short of expectations. Hopefully they will be successful in the long run for the sake of TfW.

 

[Prestige15]

Tfw defend its trains

Transport for Wales defend new Welshpool trains

But illustration appears to show less seats, tables and toilets

www.mywelshpool.co.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tfw defend its trains

Transport for Wales defend new Welshpool trains

But illustration appears to show less seats, tables and toilets

www.mywelshpool.co.uk

Not anywhere near as nice a layout as Northern's units, and again poor window alignment (vs the 158s which have most seats aligned), with very few tables. Not to mention the move from the excellent premium Grammer IC3000 seat to the awful budget Fainsa Sophia. A definite downgrade.

Also very little floor level luggage space (I guess the green bits are racks?), though admittedly the overheads are large.

These units would be ideal for short local stopping services in and around cities, not a multi-hour regional express run with a large number of end to end passengers.

A really, really poor show.

Edit: they haven't even managed to line the seats up to the windows in First Class. Who designed this? A 5 year old?
Edit edit: also a directional imbalance in seats - far more facing one way than the other. Seriously? Did they have a brain?

These things are simply not fit for purpose. At best a vaguely acceptable replacement for a 2-car Class 150 on a local stopping service.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Not anywhere near as nice a layout as Northern's units, and again poor window alignment (vs the 158s which have most seats aligned), with very few tables. Not to mention the move from the excellent premium Grammer IC3000 seat to the awful budget Fainsa Sophia. A definite downgrade.

Also very little floor level luggage space (I guess the green bits are racks?), though admittedly the overheads are large.

These units would be ideal for short local stopping services in and around cities, not a multi-hour regional express run with a large number of end to end passengers.

A really, really poor show.

Edit: they haven't even managed to line the seats up to the windows in First Class. Who designed this? A 5 year old?
Edit edit: also a directional imbalance in seats - far more facing one way than the other. Seriously? Did they have a brain?

Do remember though that while you and I as likely taller men both find the TFW 158’s Grammars very comfortable, for shorter people they’re notoriously uncomfortable.

 

[Prestige15]

Not anywhere near as nice a layout as Northern's units, and again poor window alignment (vs the 158s which have most seats aligned), with very few tables. Not to mention the move from the excellent premium Grammer IC3000 seat to the awful budget Fainsa Sophia. A definite downgrade.

Also very little floor level luggage space (I guess the green bits are racks?), though admittedly the overheads are large.

These units would be ideal for short local stopping services in and around cities, not a multi-hour regional express run with a large number of end to end passengers.

A really, really poor show.

Edit: they haven't even managed to line the seats up to the windows in First Class. Who designed this? A 5 year old?
Edit edit: also a directional imbalance in seats - far more facing one way than the other. Seriously? Did they have a brain?

These things are simply not fit for purpose. At best a vaguely acceptable replacement for a 2-car Class 150 on a local stopping service.

Im starting to believe that they got the right train but in a wrong specification.

 

[py_megapixel]

Tfw defend its trains

Transport for Wales defend new Welshpool trains

But illustration appears to show less seats, tables and toilets

www.mywelshpool.co.uk

That's not even a proper explanation for what people actually have a problem with. It's just PR speil.

 

[py_megapixel]

Not anywhere near as nice a layout as Northern's units, and again poor window alignment (vs the 158s which have most seats aligned),

That's not saying much...

with very few tables...

Not to mention the move from the excellent premium Grammer IC3000 seat to the awful budget Fainsa Sophia. A definite downgrade.

Also very little floor level luggage space (I guess the green bits are racks?), though admittedly the overheads are large.

And guess what? Luggage blocking aisles on the Cambrian is nothing new, so I guess that problem isn't going away...

These units would be ideal for short local stopping services in and around cities, not a multi-hour regional express run with a large number of end to end passengers.

I agree. Both of the other operators who have ordered them are running them on regional stoppers with a relatively short journey time, which means that the spec is good enough (Northern) or will be excellent (WM Trains) because that's what they're designed for.

TfW have essentially ordered the same as WMT, downgraded the seating, wrecked the window alignment and bunged in a poorly configured first class section.

Unless they have something planned to surprise everybody on launch day, it's just an embarrassment to the railways and a proof of how the system of short-term franchising has lead to companies ordering entirely pointless new rolling stock just to look impressive on paper.

Edit edit: also a directional imbalance in seats - far more facing one way than the other. Seriously? Did they have a brain?

I imagine they thought "well people prefer to travel facing forwards, so let's put most of the seats facing forwards.... wait, you say these newfangled multiple unit thingies run both ways without turning? Never mind, just keep the old layout, we don't have time for passenger comfort...

 

[py_megapixel]

Im starting to believe that they got the right train but in a wrong specification.

Very, VERY wrong specification. I'm not usually one to complain about doors, but in a situation where they're running 4 hour journeys and calling at lots of exposed windswept platforms, you're really going to notice this draughts from those doors. Also that awful beeping noise they make when first released. In my opinion they should have gone for the end door version of the Civity.

 

[Along the bay]

I love how much gripe these trains are getting - and they haven't even entered service yet!

Im looking forward to them at the very least.

 

[Mollman]

There also appears to be no wheelchair space in First class, though that doesn't matter as the accessible toilet is down the other end of the train. Is this legal?

 

[py_megapixel]

There also appears to be no wheelchair space in First class, though that doesn't matter as the accessible toilet is down the other end of the train. Is this legal?

The PRM TSI only specifies minimum number of wheelchair spaces for the whole train, not for specific classes of accommodation, so unless anyone else can see a reason why not, yes it is legal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The PRM TSI only specifies minimum number of wheelchair spaces for the whole train, not for specific classes of accommodation, so unless anyone else can see a reason why not, yes it is legal.

Logic there, presumably, is that few wheelchair users would choose to pay for First Class because the primary benefit of so doing, the more comfortable, wider seat, is not going to be used if you remain in your wheelchair, and if you prefer to transfer out of it then the wheelchair can go elsewhere.

 

[Mollman]

The PRM TSI only specifies minimum number of wheelchair spaces for the whole train, not for specific classes of accommodation, so unless anyone else can see a reason why not, yes it is legal.

Fair enough, I just remember that the reason why Voyagers have so many accessible toilets is that Virgin originally planned to have three classes of travel and thus there was one for each class.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair enough, I just remember that the reason why Voyagers have so many accessible toilets is that Virgin originally planned to have three classes of travel and thus there was one for each class.

I believe that's right, and may have been because the UK RVAR (Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations) that applied at the time may have been different from PRM TSI in that respect as indeed they are in a number of other respects too.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I believe that's right, and may have been because the UK RVAR (Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations) that applied at the time may have been different from PRM TSI in that respect as indeed they are in a number of other respects too.

I don't know the details of either set of rules, but the PRM TSI (and not RVAR) would have applied to TPE's Nova fleets would it not? All three Nova fleets have wheelchair spaces in first class only and I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was done to avoid having to fit a UAT in standard (although the Nova 1 has two UATs anyway). Then again, the PRM TSI does not prevent trains running with no toilets at all (hence the rumours that Pacers and/or 153s would live into 2020 with toilets locked out of use) so perhaps (this is pure speculation on my part) the fact there is no toilet at all in the first class coach means it's allowed whereas if there was a toilet it would have to be a UAT.

 

[Mollman]

I don't know the details of either set of rules, but the PRM TSI (and not RVAR) would have applied to TPE's Nova fleets would it not? All three Nova fleets have wheelchair spaces in first class only and I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was done to avoid having to fit a UAT in standard (although the Nova 1 has two UATs anyway). Then again, the PRM TSI does not prevent trains running with no toilets at all (hence the rumours that Pacers and/or 153s would live into 2020 with toilets locked out of use) so perhaps (this is pure speculation on my part) the fact there is no toilet at all in the first class coach means it's allowed whereas if there was a toilet it would have to be a UAT.

True, although I think the arguement for TPE is that standard class wheelchair customers would be upgraded to First (although I believe they won't receive free stuff unless they have a first class ticket) where as on TfW a first class ticket holding wheelchair user will be denied the ability to use first class.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, although I think the arguement for TPE is that standard class wheelchair customers would be upgraded to First (although I believe they won't receive free stuff unless they have a first class ticket) where as on TfW a first class ticket holding wheelchair user will be denied the ability to use first class.

I can see why this is a better way to do it, but given that a wheelchair user sits in their wheelchair the main benefit of 1st isn't available to them anyway, and if they want to transfer to a seat then the lack of a space doesn't really matter provided the access is wide enough to get the chair in while they do (then whoever is assisting them can put it elsewhere and keep the space free for any wheelchair user who may need it to remain in their chair).

Though I suppose toilets could be an issue then.

 

[Meerkat]

I can see why this is a better way to do it, but given that a wheelchair user sits in their wheelchair the main benefit of 1st isn't available to them anyway

I thought the main advantage of first was to get away from the proles and have more chance of some peace?