• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't remember the 230s and 484s ever receiving the same level of hysterical vitriol the 769s have.

I don't think you were paying much attention, then! Their utter destruction of the Marston Vale timetable over a prolonged period (due to both unreliability and glacially slow door operation) has been (quite deservedly) the target of much vitriol on here.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
I don't think you were paying much attention, then! Their utter destruction of the Marston Vale timetable over a prolonged period (due to both unreliability and glacially slow door operation) has been (quite deservedly) the target of much vitriol on here.
Hyperbole alert.....
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Hyperbole alert.....

I don't think it is hyperbole at all - go delve into the 230 thread before COVID and bustitution gave them a rest (though a look at RTT shows them still unable to keep to 15x timings on the present infrequent service, with long delays common). Summer 2019 was appalling, the service was basically unusable.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
I don't think you were paying much attention, then! Their utter destruction of the Marston Vale timetable over a prolonged period (due to both unreliability and glacially slow door operation) has been (quite deservedly) the target of much vitriol on here.

I was paying attention, because I can't recall any mass hysteria because it was taking so long to build the two Class 230 prototype units, yet with the 769s, people are still complaining now despite the fact TfW's are almost all in service and Northern's are (finally, admittedly) going to be entering service very soon.

Granted they're aimed two different markets, but I have to feel somewhat smug that the 769s have sold in greater numbers than the D-Trains.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
I think 2030 is very optimistic for the 158s at this particular moment in time, to be honest.
2030 is roughly a 40-year life for them. By way of comparison TfW is the only current operator of class 150s with plans to replace them and they will be over 35 years old by that point - most other 150s will easily see 40 years in service. The 158s are of aluminium construction rather than the steel of the class 150s so if anything 158s should last longer.

With all due respect, you're typing this presumably from your own home - certainly by your own admission you've not been on a train for a year. The people telling you these units are knackered are the ones working on them day in day out. I'd like to think we're slightly better informed. You can give them as long as you want - but it doesn't change the facts.
The only other operator of 158s who had plans to replace them was EMR and it is now unclear whether they will go through with that. If the 158s are as knackered as you say (and, as you say, you know that better than me) then why are other TOCs keeping them and, more-importantly, why are there no plans to replace many of the even-older 150s?

Bi-modes are a funny thing. Even 10 years ago, they were the target of the naysayers - too heavy, won't work, etc etc etc. Then the 80x has come along and become (whatever you might think of the seats) a phenomenal success and proven the naysayers wrong (as usual), most notably transforming Paddington from a cloud of diesel fug and stink of human excrement to a much more pleasant place.
Bi-modes are still too heavy; but there's a big difference between the Cambrian (where there's no realistic prospect of electrfication, but bi-modes would support a case for wires between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury) and intercity services (which should be electrified throughout).

To be honest (and I'm hoping this can be a rare thing we actually agree on!) I think the idiocy lies with the British government in not investing in electrification. There shouldn't be a debate over bimodes because there should be enough electrified track to make it moot.
As noted above, it's not moot because the Cambrian Coast won't be electrified in any likely scenario - although I do agree that the idiocy lies (predominately) with the British government for failing to electrify. The rail industry doesn't help itself by building new DMUs which damages the business case for electrfication.

Whilst the 170s are well-known for being a bit sluggish off the mark, and hence not best-suited to stopping services, it should perhaps be noted that a good number of them were never originally ordered for such purposes even if they do so now. Some of the early operators of Turbostars were Midland Mainline and Hull Trains, which used them on limited stop regional/intercity services. In fact if you consider the other early operators (Central Trains/Anglia Railways/SWT), they were predominantly used on regional services, which is where the class is arguably most at home, and not on stopping services on the Harrogate or Robin Hood lines for example.
Agreed they weren't built for stopping services, but the wide doors at thirds are optimal for stopping services and not for the regional express work they were ordered to do.

Stakeholders on the Cambrian were quite specific about keeping the ability to walk through between units, as services can be quite crowded at the Brimingham end. Gangways let you grab a seat wherever one's available, and swap units if needed whenever you like, rather than run between them while its at a station. That wisdom seems to have been applied to the other splitting services too.
Aye; I think TOCs should avoid portion working if their stock doesn't have unit end gangways for precisely this reason. If you have to get out of one unit and run to another, surely that's little different from having to change train so you might as well have a timetabled connection. At least passengers will expect to have to get off then. The provision of unit end gangways is something that TfW got right with the 197s.

We've had this door argument over and over - and those of us who work these routes keep telling you that the wider doors really are a good thing. We're not imagining this - we've seen the queues on the platforms trying to board 158s and 175s with our own eyes!
I've seen queues on platforms too, I just don't think that is as big a problem as some of the other things. I'd rather have a queue to board and get a comfortable table seat with a clear view out of the window that have to stand in the cavernous vestibule of a unit with wide doors. On a metro service the dwell times have to be prioritised - on a regional express I think it's wrong to prioritise dwell times. Yes dwell times would be less with a 197 than a 158 or 175 but the trade-of between passenger comfort and dwell times is not satisfactory to me.

Electrification isn't going ahead. Get used to it. In 10 years time we'd just be even more desperate for more units, only now they'd cost a lot more.
If electrification isn't going ahead, then it's probably symptomatic of a continued lack of action on decarbonisation in general. In that case, in 10 years time we could have a lot more to worry about that just needing more units. I'm not sure if this link will work for you, but it suggests much of the line between Dovey Junction and Borth is projected to be below the tideline by 2030 due to sea-level rise.

Its interesting how upset some on this forum are by the 197s coming to replace old trains, especially considering that the ex-ATW fleet is overall pretty ancient and tired out.

People are treating minor problems like they mean the cancellation of the order.
If they were capable of electric operation the other issues wouldn't mean cancellation of the order - I would simply argue that they should be deployed elsewhere (to create a Swansea metro and, if any are left over after that, replace 150s elsewhere). But their door configuration renders them unsuitable for long-distance work in my view and their inability to operate off OHLE renders them unsuitable for the work they would otherwise be ideal for.
 

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
851
I don't think it is hyperbole at all - go delve into the 230 thread before COVID and bustitution gave them a rest (though a look at RTT shows them still unable to keep to 15x timings on the present infrequent service, with long delays common). Summer 2019 was appalling, the service was basically unusable.
They are actually performing quite well in keeping to timetable, if not better.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
They are actually performing quite well in keeping to timetable, if not better.

They really aren't. It's an easy timetable with hardly any passengers getting in the way, so other than staff availability 100% punctuality is a completely achievable goal, and generally the Class 150 set formerly used did manage that (the 153 less so as it was unreliable).
 

berneyarms

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
Dublin
I’m sure that the Class 230 saga is fascinating but I like most people are coming here looking for actual news of the Class 197!
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,423
But their door configuration renders them unsuitable for long-distance work in my view
Why does door position matter so much? I've never heard complaints about the 185s door position, instead I've heard that the new trains have to spend longer at busy stations due to having doors at the end. Personally I prefer doors in the middle, it makes the train feel like a long metal tube.
and their inability to operate off OHLE renders them unsuitable for the work they would otherwise be ideal for.
Does it? These trains have been ordered for regional lines which are unlikely to get electrification any time soon. If they can justify electrification then they can justify the extra expense of FLIRTs over Civitys.
If electrification isn't going ahead, then it's probably symptomatic of a continued lack of action on decarbonisation in general.
Agreed, we should electrify but there are other routes far more important than the routes the 197s will run on.
I'd rather have a queue to board and get a comfortable table seat with a clear view out of the window that have to stand in the cavernous vestibule of a unit with wide doors
At best your going to get 2 table bays (one on each side) by going with smaller doors at the end.
but the wide doors at thirds are optimal for stopping services and not for the regional express work they were ordered to do.
Why? Doors at thirds sacrifice very little seating for much quicker boarding.
Bi-modes are still too heavy;
I doubt that will change soon. Diesels are already heavy, adding the extra equipment for electric running is just going to make it worse.
The only other operator of 158s who had plans to replace them was EMR and it is now unclear whether they will go through with that. If the 158s are as knackered as you say (and, as you say, you know that better than me) then why are other TOCs keeping them and, more-importantly, why are there no plans to replace many of the even-older 150s?
The TfW franchise was awarded by the Welsh government, the other 158 operators were awarded their contract by the DfT, who aren't great fans of new diesel stock.
A lot of people seem to be the same with the 769s, despite the fact they're finally settling down into service. Yes they're massively late, but show me a class of multiple unit which has entered service on time, and without teething issues, over the last couple of decades.
They were originally promoted as a quick way for more diesels as the 319s were already in service which is why they have attracted more criticism for being so late, and they aren't particularly fast on diesel.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
Other posters have already done a great job of refuting most of the arguments made to me by Bletchleyite and Rhydgaled, so thanks for that! All I feel I can add at this time is:

158s. Whilst not every operator is planning on removing them at present, pretty much all of them have reduced their numbers and/or downgraded the kind of work they're being used on. It's more short distance regional stuff they're getting used on now. And EMR would have been replacing the entire fleet if only the government could make up their mind about what to do with Liverpool - Norwich.

Toilets. CET tanks are much less of an issue now there are more locations on the TfW network where they can be emptied. Also, the previous "hole in the floor" system wasn't without it's faults - and I'm yet to work a 150 or 153 with a non functioning toilet since the CET tanks were installed.

Cambrian Coast. I'm not sure how much I can divulge here but as I understand it the ERTMS issue prohibiting 4 car trains has been resolved, but there is another issue at present meaning they're still not possible, an issue I believe that also blocks 3 car trains. To the best of my knowledge it is fixable however.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Cambrian Coast. I'm not sure how much I can divulge here but as I understand it the ERTMS issue prohibiting 4 car trains has been resolved, but there is another issue at present meaning they're still not possible, an issue I believe that also blocks 3 car trains. To the best of my knowledge it is fixable however.

If that can be fixed, then 4 cars on the busier* summer Pwllheli trains would be more than acceptable (i.e. a 6-car formation from Brum).

* The busy ones are in my experience the one that leaves Brum "just after work" on a Friday, the Sunday afternoon through train to Brum, and the day-trip timed ones on Saturdays. The ones in the middle of the day and the late evening one are very quiet. If you work them you probably have more detailed insight than that.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
If that can be fixed, then 4 cars on the busier* summer Pwllheli trains would be more than acceptable (i.e. a 6-car formation from Brum).

* The busy ones are in my experience the one that leaves Brum "just after work" on a Friday, the Sunday afternoon through train to Brum, and the day-trip timed ones on Saturdays. The ones in the middle of the day and the late evening one are very quiet. If you work them you probably have more detailed insight than that.
I haven't worked on the Cambrian for a little while but that is indeed my understanding, and ties in with what my colleagues there have been telling me.

It also ties in to an important point with the Coast - most of the time, most of the trains up there are very quiet. It's only a small amount of trains, for a small part of the year, that get busy. Meanwhile, the commuter trains out of Manchester, Birmingham and Cardiff that these trains will work (and the smaller but still significant flows like school and college traffic along the North Wales coast and through Hereford) are busy almost all of the time. It would be wrong to have the Cambrian tail wagging the dog that is the rest of the network.

And with such a large fleet, and less need for ERTMS fitted units to venture away from where their needed, and with much more flexibility to fit more units with the equipment if necessary, the Cambrian is going to be in a much better place then it ever was with the limited fleet of 158s it had available.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
2030 is roughly a 40-year life for them. By way of comparison TfW is the only current operator of class 150s with plans to replace them and they will be over 35 years old by that point - most other 150s will easily see 40 years in service. The 158s are of aluminium construction rather than the steel of the class 150s so if anything 158s should last longer.

I simply don't think electrification will progress quickly enough to render all of the Sprinter fleets obsolete by 2030.

They were originally promoted as a quick way for more diesels as the 319s were already in service which is why they have attracted more criticism for being so late, and they aren't particularly fast on diesel.

To be fair to the 769s, the associated red tape was more of an issue than the overall concept itself, which has been proven to be perfectly sound.

I’m sure that the Class 230 saga is fascinating but I like most people are coming here looking for actual news of the Class 197!

We've tried, but I don't think someone's quite finished criticising them yet!
 
Last edited:

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
The 230 testing is still ongoing & further delayed, that's the priority with with TFW. Also TFW have huge amounts of delayed training for trainees & routes that are a priority at the present time.
Regarding the 197's there has been no announcement of any testing plans yet, but there is a specific ops team seconded to do the work. They are in post & plans are being made to get paths plus stabling of the unit, I know the fitters & depot staff are desperate to have a good look at the CAF unit.
Thank you for the update and explanation.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
I very much agree with you that The TFW fleet is old & tired, some people want to retain the present trains which I am baffled by.
I don't want TfW to retain the 150s. Of the fleets ATW were operating, it's just the 158s and 175s I really want to keep and if the new stock had been a worthy successor and reflected the need to decarbonise I might have been happy to see replacement of the 158s (though I'd probably be arguing from them to move to GWR or Northern rather than for scrap). But TfW are proposing something akin to replacement of 442s (old* but high quality long-distance stock) with 450s (new suburban stock) - and we know the fuss that caused. Yes the 197s have 2+2 seating and not the 2+3 of the 450s, but don't the 450s have the same seats as 444s wheras the 197s have the awful Sophias?

* if it were done now rather than when it was actually done
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
There's a general fleet update on TfW's fleet plans in Modern Railways (May), from interviews with WG/TfW managers.
It's all fiendishly complicated!
For 197s, testing and initial deployment will be based from Chester and Crewe (Arriva Traincare), starting with 2-car versions.
ETCS-fitted units will be the last to be deployed, from Machynlleth.
CAF will eventually take over both TfW depots.
175s won't be retained in the business, but their departure is dependent on service deployment of 197s.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
But TfW are proposing something akin to replacement of 442s (old* but high quality long-distance stock) with 450s (new suburban stock) - and we know the fuss that caused
So your opposition to the 197s draws it’s inspiration from the highly logic driven and successful “future uses for class 442” campaign. Good luck with that :)
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Also, have individual carriage numbers been confirmed?

No clear photos or videos of the number I can see, but looked an awful lot like the leading vehicle in the drag was 131001, with the second being 133001, which gives enough to interpret that it'll be:

DMSL*: 131xxx
MS: 132xxx
DMS: 133xxx

where xxx is the unit number, and obviously dependant on how they split and number the three car fleet(s)

*presumed that's the vehicle with the lavatory - had an extra grille on the bodyside, and would match the other civities


Something I noticed whilst watching some videos of the drag is that the offside cab-end camera faces away from the doors, in effect watching nothing! I don't think there's any other stock with this arrangement - no other civities seem to have it either, but then again CAF's approach to bodyside cameras does seem to be rather scattergun!
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
TfW Rail are undergoing a full fleet replacement programme, with the vast majority of these trains being either brand new (197, 231, 398, 756), heavily upcycled (230) or high quality cascades (170, Mk4 LHCS). Meanwhile in Northern land, we've had less than a third of our fleet replaced by rolling stock which fits into any of those categories. Our fleet modernisation programme is close to being completed, and we've still got over 200 ageing (and knackered, in the case of the 150s) Sprinters, with very few of them earmarked for replacement at the moment.

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

Rant over...
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
No clear photos or videos of the number I can see, but looked an awful lot like the leading vehicle in the drag was 131001, with the second being 133001, which gives enough to interpret that it'll be:

DMSL*: 131xxx
MS: 132xxx
DMS: 133xxx

where xxx is the unit number, and obviously dependant on how they split and number the three car fleet(s)

*presumed that's the vehicle with the lavatory - had an extra grille on the bodyside, and would match the other civities


Something I noticed whilst watching some videos of the drag is that the offside cab-end camera faces away from the doors, in effect watching nothing! I don't think there's any other stock with this arrangement - no other civities seem to have it either, but then again CAF's approach to bodyside cameras does seem to be rather scattergun!
The 132xxx vehicle will be missing in a 2-car unit seems consistent with the 195/196.
Any updates on how many subclasses there will be?
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
The 132xxx vehicle will be missing in a 2-car unit seems consistent with the 195/196.
Any updates on how many subclasses there will be?
It should be four:
Standard 2 car
2 car with ERTMS
Standard 3 car
3 car with 1st class

It's unknown (publicly at least) if the numbering system will reflect this however.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
It should be four:
Standard 2 car
2 car with ERTMS
Standard 3 car
3 car with 1st class

It's unknown (publicly at least) if the numbering system will reflect this however.
The car numbers suggest two subclasses.
131001-051/101-126*
132101-126
133001-051/101-126

* it appears that 197113-126 will be the units with first class.
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
It should be four:
Standard 2 car
2 car with ERTMS
Standard 3 car
3 car with 1st class

It's unknown (publicly at least) if the numbering system will reflect this however.

The car numbers suggest two subclasses.
131001-051/101-126*
132101-126
133001-051/101-126

* it appears that 197113-126 will be the units with first class.
Thanks both, much appreciated.
 

Top