CAF class 197 Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[Bletchleyite]

Are you talking about 755s or 197s there, and which route? To me, "an InterCity type service that is used by many passengers from end to end that happens to call at local stations because a separate local service is uneconomic" falls under the term 'Regional Express' (along with similar services where few passengers do the full end-to-end trip, 'regional express' covers a wide range of services in my book) or does that term mean something more-specific to you?

197s. The problem with the regional express is that it's a broad church and that means one rolling stock solution doesn't work for another setting. Clearly a Class 197 is well-suited to a regional express like Birmingham-Hereford (well, a 196) which carries most people a shortish distance. But the Cambrian is more the sort of regional express like Glasgow-Fort Bill or Inverness-Kyle, in which most people are doing most of the journey and you need a more InterCity like ambiance.

I don't that much mind where the doors are, I'm more concerned about the seats, on-board service and First Class provision. And most importantly capacity.

TfW would have been better speccing IC FLIRTs and putting 197s (or a CAF bimode) on the South Wales locals.

 

[craigybagel]

TfW would have been better speccing IC FLIRTs and putting 197s (or a CAF bimode) on the South Wales locals.

And where would the money come from to pay for this?

 

[py_megapixel]

And where would the money come from to pay for this?

I think the suggest was that the same amount of new stock would be ordered, but to a different specification.

 

[craigybagel]

I think the suggest was that the same amount of new stock would be ordered, but to a different specification.

Yes but it's hard to see how the same amount of stock could be bought for the same price if instead of being CAF DMUs it was IC Flirts that were ordered.

For the record, I would also have loved to see Bi Mode flirts ordered for longer distance services, but to do that it's either going to cost a lot more (at what is, as I keep pointing out, already one of the highest subsidised franchises going) or you'll have to cut back on the number of units ordered altogether.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think the suggest was that the same amount of new stock would be ordered, but to a different specification.

Yes but it's hard to see how the same amount of stock could be bought for the same price if instead of being CAF DMUs it was IC Flirts that were ordered.

For the record, I would also have loved to see Bi Mode flirts ordered for longer distance services, but to do that it's either going to cost a lot more (at what is, as I keep pointing out, already one of the highest subsidised franchises going) or you'll have to cut back on the number of units ordered altogether.

If it were up to me there would have been less new stock ordered (with the 158s and 175s retained) but the new stock would have been MUCH higher quality than what we actually have ended up with.

In fact I still think the best way forward is to retain the 158s and 175s and cut the 197 order right back to around 20 units. Ok the new stock will be **** rather than the high-quality new units I had hoped for, but at least if you only have 20 massively disapointing 197s you can avoid using them on 4hr plus routes by doing deploying 197s as follows:

• 14 forming 7x 4-car diagrams for Manchester-Llandudno services,
• 2 on the Conwy valley (to acheive Railfuture's aim of a service every 2hrs),
• 1 on the Crewe-Chester shuttle
• 1 on Crewe-Shrewsbury stoppers

That uses 18 units, admittedly Manchester-Llandudno is still a bit of a long journey to do on a 197 but it's a damn sight shorter than most of the other work you could find for them to do on the W&B franchise. If you split the Manchester-Milfords at Swansea (as I believe should happen) I suppose Milford/Fishguard to Swansea would be just under 2hrs, but I'd rather not have to use 197s on such services (just as I'd rather not have to use them on the Llandudnos), it would only use a handful of units and would be remote from Chester depot.

The other benefit of cutting the 197 order to around 20 units is that then is a similar size to Northern and Great Western's class 150/2 fleets. That means they could be offered elsewhere as 150 replacements at the end of the franchise, leaving the Wales & Borders routes free of new-DMU-blight and eligible for electrification (in full or, with bi-modes, in part). The full massive fleet of 197s proposed by TfWRS would appear to be too big to easily cascade, leaving the Wales & Borders franchise stuck with diesels under what wires exist. Given that GWR and Northern still have no plans to withdraw their 150s I assume they have far more of the 'wires will never reach here' branch line work where a 197 might actually be an upgrade (150s are pretty dire after all, especially the 150/1s although I see them as targets for a 195 cascade to get something more-appropriate for long-distances on Northern's long-distance services).

 

[hexagon789]

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

 

[anthony263]

My issue is that I think instead of 51 out of 77 units be 2 carriage sets it should have been 40 units being 2 carriages with the rest being 3 carriage sets especially to cater for extra traffic especially on the cambrian etc and I suspect the Cardiff to Liverpool services will be popular

 

[Jamesrob637]

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

The construction of 2-car trains will always attract criticism these days, even if 197 diagrams will very rarely be booked 2-car in reality.

 

[Energy]

The 2 car trains can always be lengthened later on to be 3 car trains. There may be more demand to allow for this from the new trains being more attractive than being stuck on a 150 for ages.

 

[py_megapixel]

The construction of 2-car trains will always attract criticism these days, even if 197 diagrams will very rarely be booked 2-car in reality.

I don't even think the length is the issue. It's the entirely unacceptable interior spec.

 

[RealTrains07]

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

Well TfW replacing the entirety of their fleet was alsways going to be controversial as the 197s arguably are not needed yet?

197s Having 2 and 3 car formations is great for diagram flexibility for sure but the internal layout may prove a problem for customers especially on the long distant routes

(fleet replacements are a bad idea in my books if iam being honest)

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

My issue is that I think instead of 51 out of 77 units be 2 carriage sets it should have been 40 units being 2 carriages with the rest being 3 carriage sets especially to cater for extra traffic especially on the cambrian etc and I suspect the Cardiff to Liverpool services will be popular

I certainly agree with that last part but I suspect the real success story may be the direct connections between Liverpool and the north Wales Coast. There was a time when Liverpool boasted of being the "capital of north Wales" and there were very strong cultural and economic connections between the two regions.

It's kind of shocking that those connections were severed in the first place and I suspect two car units are going to be unable to meet demand in the long term. As I understand the plans, the north Wales and Shrewsbury/Cardiff services will split/join at Chester so I'm not sure how much flexibility there'll be when it comes to increasing capacity.

 

[craigybagel]

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

Presumably when these people use their psychic abilities to win the lottery they won't need to worry about public transport anyways!

Being serious though, I think people are somewhat blind to the faults of the existing fleet, the 158s in particular. Arriva did a pretty good refurb so they look pretty good, but it's still a bodge job on to a train that was already a bodge job to begin with! Even when new the chairman of BR admitted they were garden shed technology, and that was 30 years ago!

In truth, they are too slow for the work being asked of them; not so much their top speed (there are few places on the TfW network where a speed greater than 90 can be sustained anyway) but their acceleration, their door cycles and the places where those doors are located. Dwell times are too long, and once complete their performance getting back up to speed again isn't that great.

The 175s are slightly better in all of those respects, and I'm hoping TfW choose to keep them for branch work rather then the planned 170s, but there are still major issues with the current fleet.

In terms of reliability, the 158s are pretty poor. Sure, most of the time they'll keep going - but how often is the air conditioning working? Or the power sockets? Or the toilets? And ERTMS was yet another bodge job added ontop, which the units struggle to cope with. Again the 175s are a bit better in this respect, but still far from perfect.

People are fixating on the supposed huge amounts of people travelling very long distances and how they're going to hate these new trains - with one poster earlier going as far as to claim it'll make passenger numbers go down. Amusing as this is to read, it's also ignoring some important facts:

1 - very few people make these journeys. Most people who will use these units will be making much shorter journeys from big cities, often on busy services, and these units have been designed accordingly. That's not to say they will be uncomfortable - I see no reason to believe these units will be any more uncomfortable than a 170, which is perfectly acceptable for that kind of journey. But for the majority of journeys, these will be an improvement. We're talking about interregional and commuter routes, not the ECML!

2 - very few people actually care. Seriously. Most passengers will be excited by a shiny new train and that's as far as it will get.

Let's not forget as well the economies of scale at play here. TfW will be getting a much better deal with a big bulk order. It will also fix the current issues with compatabilty and training as all Mainline crews will sign these units, so training will be easier, and they'll be compatible with each other so easier to rescue and easier to timetable, and the latter feature is something that the future timetable will make use of.

Finally, these units are being assembled in Wales, so there's a whole load of good PR there. And would CAF have chosen to build their factory in Wales if it was only for 20 units and not the much larger fleet they're building.

 

[samuelmorris]

Presumably when these people use their psychic abilities to win the lottery they won't need to worry about public transport anyways!

Being serious though, I think people are somewhat blind to the faults of the existing fleet, the 158s in particular. Arriva did a pretty good refurb so they look pretty good, but it's still a bodge job on to a train that was already a bodge job to begin with! Even when new the chairman of BR admitted they were garden shed technology, and that was 30 years ago!

Which says a lot about when newer units come along to replace them and offer an inferior travelling experience. As much as that may well be true as I've heard it on countless occasions, I find 158s almost as good as it gets for DMU travel and they don't go wrong more often than most other DMUs either. The A/C is a fair criticism in some fleets, but I gather some of them were actually refitted and work properly? Thus it can be done, if the will (and budget) is there.

I don't subscribe to the mentality that poorer spec rolling stock will reduce passenger numbers, it may have a slight impact, but only one that would otherwise have been absorbed by annual growth, let alone now when changes in ridership are all over the place.

What winds people up about new stock is when they could be so much better than they are with relatively little cost. Nobody expects to travel Shinkansen Gran Class style on their commute for free, but if there are multiple aspects to a new train that make you go "I wish these were like the old trains" then unless the old stock was falling to pieces, which MTIN figures suggest is not the case, then arguably, the project is a failure, they have ticked off a franchise agreement and nothing more. We haven't seen what 197s are like to ride on yet, of course, but we know what Fainsa Sophia seats are like (detested by many, including much of the general public who haven't a clue who Fainsa are - and for balance, no I don't hate them as much as a lot of other people, though I'm still not a big fan). We also know what 195s are like. They have a poor quality fit and finish, poor ride quality, which in Wales may be a real issue for passenger comfort, and with all the noise their onboard equipment makes, honestly they aren't all that nice to travel on. Would that stop me using the train if I lived in the area? Of course not, but after the excitement of new trains has worn off, if I were still presented with the offer of a 158 or a 197, I suspect there's a distinct likelihood I could still prefer the former, for all its 30 year old garden shed engineering.
No CAF unit has yet topped the MTIN performance of 158s. I'm sure some will eventually, but we don't know that for a fact. if your passengers prefer the old trains, and the new ones aren't any more reliable, genuinely what is the point? It's not as if these are bimode trains that'll greatly reduce emissions. There'll be some improvement, sure, but against the cost of procuring and building these units... I don't think that's the prime objective here.

 

[Caaardiff]

If a poorer experience and comfort is that much of a big deal, then why is Ryanair one of the biggest Airlines in the world? Crammed in, with annoying jingles, promotions and cheap plastic backed seats. People are driven by price first, convenience second with other factors down the list.
In terms of current experience, until recently the 175's have been quite shabby and well worn inside. I have always found the 158's seats more comfortable than the rest of the fleet. 175's are mainly seen on the long distance South/North & Manchester routes, but there's often 150's subbing either type. As long as people can get from A to B on time, for a reasonable price then people will still travel.
Although many services can be overcrowded, people don't suffer too much the majority of the time, as you get further from the main cities many people on board are commuters. Crewe - Manchester, Marches - Cardiff, Swansea - Cardiff (smaller stations) are all very popular commuter services. If you're travelling distance you may not get a seat on peak services at first, but eventually the bulk of commuters will get off and seats become available.
Personally i think all West Wales - Manchester services should be 3 car, as well as North Wales - Manchester.
The Cambrian - Birmingham services work as 2x 2 car units as it means flexibility within the fleet to ammend capacity along the route but also fit in the stations required. A number of stations along the Pwllheli line can only take 2 car due to crossing overlaps. 4 cars is generally sufficient for Birmingham - Machynlleth. Start adding 2 & 3 car mixes with a split at Machynlleth then it gets complicated if things need to swap around. Generally it's the Shrewsbury - Birmingham bit that required 6 car which is started to become a regular thing on peak services, even with the WMT increases to Shrewsbury.
There will also be an increase in frequency on many routes, so capacity will be more spread out which should means trains should be less busy with the footfall spread out over more trains. Hopefully it will attract more passengers as well.
Everyone loved the 125's GWRs had on Wales - London service. Standard was comfortable and First was exceptional in comparison to the new trains, but people will still travel if they need to.

 

[samuelmorris]

Because flights can be outrageously expensive and offering cheaper alternatives get people to travel who otherwise couldn't. On the railway, no such 'no frills low cost' option exist - if you want to go somewhere, in most cases you're stuck with a given TOC.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The 2 car trains can always be lengthened later on to be 3 car trains. There may be more demand to allow for this from the new trains being more attractive than being stuck on a 150 for ages.

More attractive than being stuck on a 150 for ages maybe, but there are (at least in normal times) a lot more 158s and 175s on TfW's long-distance services than 150s. In fact on the Cambrian there are zero 150s, or anything except 158s which are way more attractive than either a 150 or a 197.

Being serious though, I think people are somewhat blind to the faults of the existing fleet, the 158s in particular. Arriva did a pretty good refurb so they look pretty good, but it's still a bodge job on to a train that was already a bodge job to begin with! Even when new the chairman of BR admitted they were garden shed technology, and that was 30 years ago!

The chairman of BR may have said they were garden shed technology, but at least one ex-BR rolling stock engineer has said they (158s) are quite possibly the best DMU ever.

In truth, they are too slow for the work being asked of them; not so much their top speed (there are few places on the TfW network where a speed greater than 90 can be sustained anyway) but their acceleration, their door cycles and the places where those doors are located. Dwell times are too long, and once complete their performance getting back up to speed again isn't that great.

Surely their relatively lightweight design and 90mph (rather than 100mph) gearing means their acceleration shouldn't be too shaby at least compared to a 170? The door mechanisms on a 158 are a bit antiquated I'll grant you, which does impact dwell times although the location of the doors is probably better than a 175. Since you don't have to walk past the toilet on a 158 the distance from seat to exit is reduced; not as much as doors-at-thirds admittedly but with doors-at-thirds you have to have 'pervert seats' (seats with a view into the toilets) unless you don't fit toilets. So yes the dwell times are a bit long, but too long? Can't be much worse than a Pendolino making the same calls at Stockport and Wilmslow. The 158s do have two other flaws that I'm aware of, the unreliability of the air conditioning system and the relatively tight seat pitch (though still better than a 150 probably) which cannot be sorted without giving passengers views of window pillars due to the size of the windows.

The 175s are slightly better in all of those respects, and I'm hoping TfW choose to keep them for branch work rather then the planned 170s, but there are still major issues with the current fleet.

In terms of reliability, the 158s are pretty poor. Sure, most of the time they'll keep going - but how often is the air conditioning working? Or the power sockets? Or the toilets? And ERTMS was yet another bodge job added ontop, which the units struggle to cope with. Again the 175s are a bit better in this respect, but still far from perfect.

I don't think there's much chance of TfW keeping 175s instead of 170s as the lease on the 170s appears to be guaranteed by the Welsh Government beyond the end of the current franchise (the only fleet that is) although there were rumours that a Swansea-Bristol service might happen which would require additional units hence keeping some 175s to allow that. My hope is that they will retain 175s to allow them to reduce the number of 197s ordered. As for reliability, how often is the one toilet working on a 195? If the reliability of the current toilets is as bad as you say then the new toilets will need to be MUCH better to compensate for their being fewer toilets. This isn't just a few forumities warning against the planned reduction in toilets, the Rail Delivery Group's Key Train Requirements (KTR) document warns against having only 1 toilet on any toilet-fitted unit and recomends a maximum number of seats per toilet for different types of service. The class 197 DOES NOT MEET the KTR best practice for seat:toilet ratio on long-distance services (the 2-car unit only just meets the recomendation for short-distance services). And how much is reliability down to the duties the train has to cover and the maintenance staff/facilities available anyway? Salisbury-based 158s and 159s are in a different league to other DMUs after all.

if your passengers prefer the old trains, and the new ones aren't any more reliable, genuinely what is the point? It's not as if these are bimode trains that'll greatly reduce emissions. There'll be some improvement, sure, but against the cost of procuring and building these units... I don't think that's the prime objective here.

The point is there is no point. Let me explain; there is no point building a new train that is worse than the old one so everyone assumes that a new train must be better and therefore the rail company (and Welsh Government in this case) get some good press. That is the point, make the public think that they are improving the rail service. From a rail industry point of view, the clean sweep fleet replacement has some benefits of standardisation (largely because nobody has had the sense the standardise on couplings on new trains) but other that the 'new trains = good news story' seems to be the only point to this madness as I see it. If I recall correctly the fuel economy of a 195 isn't much better than a 158 (and may even be worse, I forget the exact figures but I have seen them) and if the no-diesel-only-by-2040 plan goes ahead any fuel savings are likely to be outweighed by the emissions of constructing new trains for such a short life time when the 158s could have lasted until 2030 while wires went up around them allowing replacement by bi-modes that would themeselves run at least another 30 years to 2060 (hopefully with diesel engines removed from 2050). The 158 does have pretty awful NOx and particulate emmissions, but with Northern and GWR keeping most of the 150s going getting rid of 158s doesn't seem like a priority to me.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

My hope is that they will retain 175s to allow them to reduce the number of 197s ordered.

This is going to sound silly but where is the money coming from? There will be huge financial penalties for any reduction in the number ordered, especially as they have been actually ordered, and contracts placed with suppliers etc. There is simply no way any thing will change there, its much too late to

 

[Bletchleyite]

The construction of 2-car trains will always attract criticism these days, even if 197 diagrams will very rarely be booked 2-car in reality.

...other than every other Cambrian service (the ones without a Pwllheli portion) plus the Pwllheli portion itself (which is too busy for 2-car at many times of day in busy periods) past Mach/Dyfi.

The Cambrian really seems to be getting a very raw deal in this, caused mainly by the idiotic installation of ETCS which limits what can run there, so you can't send longer units down from elsewhere when the bucket and spade services get busier and the commuter services get quieter.

 

[Energy]

...other than every other Cambrian service (the ones without a Pwllheli portion) plus the Pwllheli portion itself (which is too busy for 2-car at many times of day in busy periods) past Mach/Dyfi.

The Cambrian really seems to be getting a very raw deal in this, caused mainly by the idiotic installation of ETCS which limits what can run there, so you can't send longer units down from elsewhere when the bucket and spade services get busier and the commuter services get quieter.

ETCS' problem is that there is very limited installations in the UK. The Cambrian install made sense at the time as it was very self contained so was a good test bed.

 

[hexagon789]

Presumably when these people use their psychic abilities to win the lottery they won't need to worry about public transport anyways!

Being serious though, I think people are somewhat blind to the faults of the existing fleet, the 158s in particular. Arriva did a pretty good refurb so they look pretty good, but it's still a bodge job on to a train that was already a bodge job to begin with! Even when new the chairman of BR admitted they were garden shed technology, and that was 30 years ago!

In truth, they are too slow for the work being asked of them; not so much their top speed (there are few places on the TfW network where a speed greater than 90 can be sustained anyway) but their acceleration, their door cycles and the places where those doors are located. Dwell times are too long, and once complete their performance getting back up to speed again isn't that great.

The 175s are slightly better in all of those respects, and I'm hoping TfW choose to keep them for branch work rather then the planned 170s, but there are still major issues with the current fleet.

In terms of reliability, the 158s are pretty poor. Sure, most of the time they'll keep going - but how often is the air conditioning working? Or the power sockets? Or the toilets? And ERTMS was yet another bodge job added ontop, which the units struggle to cope with. Again the 175s are a bit better in this respect, but still far from perfect.

People are fixating on the supposed huge amounts of people travelling very long distances and how they're going to hate these new trains - with one poster earlier going as far as to claim it'll make passenger numbers go down. Amusing as this is to read, it's also ignoring some important facts:

1 - very few people make these journeys. Most people who will use these units will be making much shorter journeys from big cities, often on busy services, and these units have been designed accordingly. That's not to say they will be uncomfortable - I see no reason to believe these units will be any more uncomfortable than a 170, which is perfectly acceptable for that kind of journey. But for the majority of journeys, these will be an improvement. We're talking about interregional and commuter routes, not the ECML!

2 - very few people actually care. Seriously. Most passengers will be excited by a shiny new train and that's as far as it will get.

Let's not forget as well the economies of scale at play here. TfW will be getting a much better deal with a big bulk order. It will also fix the current issues with compatabilty and training as all Mainline crews will sign these units, so training will be easier, and they'll be compatible with each other so easier to rescue and easier to timetable, and the latter feature is something that the future timetable will make use of.

Finally, these units are being assembled in Wales, so there's a whole load of good PR there. And would CAF have chosen to build their factory in Wales if it was only for 20 units and not the much larger fleet they're building.

Exactly, it's very easy to find only the negatives and to overlook everything else. Personally I've no idea how the public will take to them, but I do think judgement by ourselves should only be passed after the things have actually been in service!

 

[hexagon789]

The construction of 2-car trains will always attract criticism these days, even if 197 diagrams will very rarely be booked 2-car in reality.

I don't dispute that, but that's no the fault of the train design but rather the order specifying two-car sets. I would've ordered a higher % of three-car.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I certainly agree with that last part but I suspect the real success story may be the direct connections between Liverpool and the north Wales Coast. There was a time when Liverpool boasted of being the "capital of north Wales" and there were very strong cultural and economic connections between the two regions.

It's kind of shocking that those connections were severed in the first place and I suspect two car units are going to be unable to meet demand in the long term. As I understand the plans, the north Wales and Shrewsbury/Cardiff services will split/join at Chester so I'm not sure how much flexibility there'll be when it comes to increasing capacity.

I wouldn't overdo the Liverpool-North Wales direct connection demand.
Trains were sparsely used in the pre-Covid world.
Merseyrail's 4tph are a hard act to follow.
There's a reason the through trains go to Manchester - it's where the jobs and main regional airport are.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I wouldn't overdo the Liverpool-North Wales direct connection demand.
Trains were sparsely used in the pre-Covid world.
Merseyrail's 4tph are a hard act to follow.
There's a reason the through trains go to Manchester - it's where the jobs and main regional airport are.

No one can know, of course, and time will tell.

I think you underestimate though the number of Merseysiders with family connections or holiday properties, mobile homes etc in north Wales. It's also possible that people opt for Manchester over Liverpool for shopping trips etc precisely because there's a direct train service. We have no way of knowing, but we shall see.

It's also the case that tickets in north Wales were shockingly overpriced by ATW, something whch TfW have partially but not completely adressed.

 

[craigybagel]

Surely their relatively lightweight design and 90mph (rather than 100mph) gearing means their acceleration shouldn't be too shaby at least compared to a 170? The door mechanisms on a 158 are a bit antiquated I'll grant you, which does impact dwell times although the location of the doors is probably better than a 175. Since you don't have to walk past the toilet on a 158 the distance from seat to exit is reduced; not as much as doors-at-thirds admittedly but with doors-at-thirds you have to have 'pervert seats' (seats with a view into the toilets) unless you don't fit toilets. So yes the dwell times are a bit long, but too long? Can't be much worse than a Pendolino making the same calls at Stockport and Wilmslow. The 158s do have two other flaws that I'm aware of, the unreliability of the air conditioning system and the relatively tight seat pitch (though still better than a 150 probably) which cannot be sorted without giving passengers views of window pillars due to the size of the windows.

The TFW 158s are all of the Perkins engined variety, so no, the performance really isn't very good. And being comparable to a 170 is not a good thing - look at how those struggled to keep to time on the Maesteg services when first introduced! 170 performance is pretty abysmal, but at least they have big doors at ⅓ and ⅔ to speed up dwell times. No, it's not any worse then a pendolino at Stockport or Wilmslow but once that pendolino gets to Crewe, it's then non stop to London. The 158 is many stops down to Wales, or wherever it's going. It's not an InterCity route.

I don't think there's much chance of TfW keeping 175s instead of 170s as THE lease on the 170s appears to be guaranteed by the Welsh Government beyond the end of the current franchise (the only fleet that is) although there were rumours that a Swansea-Bristol service might happen which would require additional units hence keeping some 175s to allow that.

No, I don't think they'll keep the 175s over 170s either - but in the same way you don't want the 197s to takeover the longer routes, I don't want the 170s on the shorter routes. At the end of the day though our opinions are irrelevant.

. From a rail industry point of view, the clean sweep fleet replacement has some benefits of standardisation (largely because nobody has had the sense the standardise on couplings on new trains) but other that the 'new trains = good news story' seems to be the only point to this madness as I see it.

There's much more to compatibility then just the couplers. However, even aside from that there are also all the economies of scale in training, in acquiring spare parts and other maintenance issues. The fewer fleets the better!

[/QUOTE]
If I recall correctly the fuel economy of a 195 isn't much better than a 158 (and may even be worse, I forget the exact figures but I have seen them)
[/QUOTE]

I don't have the figures but I'd be amazed if that's true. The 6 speed transmission should be a lot more efficient then the one fitted to BR Sprinters. From what I've heard, the experimental 4 speed transmission fitted to 158834 achieved some very impressive savings.

This is going to sound silly but where is the money coming from? There will be huge financial penalties for any reduction in the number ordered, especially as they have been actually ordered, and contracts placed with suppliers etc. There is simply no way any thing will change there, its much too late to

Indeed, none of this is going to happen. People can moan all they like - or indeed, praise TFW for their vision all they like - but it's all irrelevant. The 197s are coming whether people like them or not.

...other than every other Cambrian service (the ones without a Pwllheli portion) plus the Pwllheli portion itself (which is too busy for 2-car at many times of day in busy periods) past Mach/Dyfi.

The Cambrian really seems to be getting a very raw deal in this, caused mainly by the idiotic installation of ETCS which limits what can run there, so you can't send longer units down from elsewhere when the bucket and spade services get busier and the commuter services get quieter.

And which less "idiotic" line would you have picked for the trial instead?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And which less "idiotic" line would you have picked for the trial instead?

One for another thread, but I wouldn't have trialled it at all, interoperability stuff is in practice totally irrelevant to our railway which is in actual practical fact self contained from that on the mainland. Lack of interoperability of stock has proven a big issue over the years on the Cambrian. Though they could mitigate that by fitting ETCS to all the 197s, but they're going cheap and installing it on only some 2-car units, so the Cambrian remains stuck in a capacity bubble. If RETB was needing retirement, I would go for a cheaper, simpler UK-only replacement - indeed, hasn't that actually happened in Scotland?

 

[Doveymain158]

One for another thread, but I wouldn't have trialled it at all, interoperability stuff is in practice totally irrelevant to our railway which is in actual practical fact self contained from that on the mainland. Lack of interoperability of stock has proven a big issue over the years on the Cambrian. Though they could mitigate that by fitting ETCS to all the 197s, but tcheap and installing it on only some 2-car units, so the Cambrian remains stuck in a capacity bubble. If RETB was needing retirement, I would go for a cheaper, simpler UK-only replacement - indeed, hasn't that actually happened in Scotland?
[/

 

[Envoy]

No one can know, of course, and time will tell.

I think you underestimate though the number of Merseysiders with family connections or holiday properties, mobile homes etc in north Wales. It's also possible that people opt for Manchester over Liverpool for shopping trips etc precisely because there's a direct train service. We have no way of knowing, but we shall see.

It's also the case that tickets in north Wales were shockingly overpriced by ATW, something whch TfW have partially but not completely adressed.

Once the new service coming up The Marches direct to Liverpool is up and running, it will surely attract new customers - along with direct services to/from North Wales. With the new rolling stock and increased capacity, this hopefully will allow TfW to reduce prices which will also induce more people to travel by train.

I see that Don Coffey has uploaded one of his excellent videos of a cab ride from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street via Halton curve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to say im looking forward to the New fleet. All though 158s & 175s have served us well. A well maintained 158 & 175 you wont get anything better but practicality on some routes they not very practical. Even though the network has a long distance routes not many travel end to end like Carmarthen-Manchester many do short to medium hops. When it comes to dwell times try boarding or alighting a 4- car 158 between Shrewsbury & Bham Intl. Its painful if a train off the Cambrian is late door opening/closing so slow plus accelerating away from stations. Wait and see after introduction and then judge them.

Give or take the never-ending seat debate, I'm sure the actual units will be very nice. The problem is that they are not, for the Cambrian, a capacity uplift - they are actually a reduction. What is needed on the Cambrian is pairs of 3 car units with two toilets.

(Anyone who thinks the hourly service will solve this needs a whack round the head with a 4-car Voyager - and of course there's no service increase to Pwllheli...)

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Give or take the never-ending seat debate, I'm sure the actual units will be very nice. The problem is that they are not, for the Cambrian, a capacity uplift - they are actually a reduction. What is needed on the Cambrian is pairs of 3 car units with two toilets.

(Anyone who thinks the hourly service will solve this needs a whack round the head with a 4-car Voyager - and of course there's no service increase to Pwllheli...)

How do those three cars stop at some of the stations to Pwllheli? IIRC Three cars would foul several level crossings on the route, it's essentially a no go without a massive infrastructure program, which for obvious reasons, would be ridiculous