CAF MK5 Rough Riding

[railfan100]

Having been on the sleeper recently from Euston all the way to Inverness was taken back with the ride quality. They seem to have a jiggy jiggy firm and harsh ride. Very harsh in fact and the setup to be frank feels like it is not a polished or quality product.

After the trip getting on 158712 all the way to Wick for another 4.5 hours was a big step up in ride quality in my view. Even over rough track that is seriously dated bullhead rail on the far North Route it felt much smoother than the CAF MK5 over the high quality WCML portion of the first trip.

The CAF coaches seem to have a nice new light interior but for me the ride quality is bad and I mean really bad. Other niggles were for me personally the seats are far too firm but ride quality is hard to ignore.

 

[hexagon789]

Having been on the sleeper recently from Euston all the way to Inverness was taken back with the ride quality. They seem to have a jiggy jiggy firm and harsh ride. Very harsh in fact and the setup to be frank feels like it is not a polished or quality product.

After the trip getting on 158712 all the way to Wick for another 4.5 hours was a big step up in ride quality in my view. Even over rough track that is seriously dated bullhead rail on the far North Route it felt much smoother than the CAF MK5 over the high quality WCML portion of the first trip.

The CAF coaches seem to have a nice new light interior but for me the ride quality is bad and I mean really bad. Other niggles were for me personally the seats are far too firm but ride quality is hard to ignore.

158s are known for good ride quality even on indifferent track, most modern trains constructed abroad generally ride quite roughly on anything less than perfect British track.

 

[Llama]

CAF stuff rides terribly. It's just badly designed, other recent stock rides far better, how anybody could think that sleeper stock would be acceptable with that kind of ride is just beyond me.

 

[507 001]

Very harsh in fact and the setup to be frank feels like it is not a polished or quality product.

That’ll be because it isn’t a polished or quality product. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[47271]

The wheels are too small apparently, and jiggle on poor quality or curving track. They can ride well in better rail conditions, which is why the rattling comes and goes.

How they could've built a fleet of sleepers with rattly wheels is a question that I'm sure we'd like the answer to.

I think that it might be a bit of a CAF problem. I was on a 331 the other day and it was making exactly the same noises and movements on and off.

 

[Llama]

The wheels are no smaller than other stock, the pneumatic secondary suspension is the cause of the poor ride.

 

[railfan100]

How can they be accepted in to traffic though with them riding as they do? Someone must have signed this off. Even on the WCML the ride really is bad, NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) is atrocious it really is a shameful ride quality. They need to be modified by CAF at their own expensive to make it reassemble a modern train. A 30 year Class 158 is vastly superior to the point that if you closed your eyes you would think that was the new stock and the MK5 some dated relic from the past.

 

[hexagon789]

CAF stuff rides terribly. It's just badly designed, other recent stock rides far better, how anybody could think that sleeper stock would be acceptable with that kind of ride is just beyond me.

We kept getting told it's iffy British track and foreign-built trains are designed for better quality European track - how true is that actually? Seems a least a bit dubious

 

[Llama]

It's utter nonsense. Other stock rides perfectly well on the same track.

 

[47271]

The wheels are no smaller than other stock, the pneumatic secondary suspension is the cause of the poor ride.

Fair enough, but that's what a member of CS said when a regular passenger commented on the atrocious ride, and as his whisky sloshed out of its glass on good track around Greenloaning.

If it is the suspension then it's surely easier to fix than the wheels being the wrong size.

CAF builds trains with rubbish air suspension seems to be the conclusion.

 

[superkev]

Speaking for Northerns CAF stock which also has a poor ride it almost seems like on track imperfections they are hitting the bogie bump stops which is not good.
Let's hope the suspension can be tuned to improve things bit like happened with the MK4 coaches which had ride problems when new.
K

 

[Ash Bridge]

We kept getting told it's iffy British track and foreign-built trains are designed for better quality European track - how true is that actually? Seems a least a bit dubious

Surely out of all European countries Britain can't have anywhere close to the worst quality track in comparison to some other countries systems?

 

[bastien]

Surely out of all European countries Britain can't have anywhere close to the worst quality track in comparison to some other countries systems?

Yeah but the places with really bad track tootle along at 50km/h

I think the real problem is all the different manufacturers using their own bogie designs for relatively short production runs. There's obviously no chance for continuous improvement, and setting everything up correctly takes years.

Maybe the Bombardier B5000 series is the exception here?

 

[hexagon789]

It's utter nonsense. Other stock rides perfectly well on the same track.

It sounded more like an excuse than anything really

 

[hexagon789]

Surely out of all European countries Britain can't have anywhere close to the worst quality track in comparison to some other countries systems?

That's what I would've thought, but reasons for Siemens, CAF and Hitachi stock riding roughly on British track have repeatedly been said to be down to the higher track quality in those respective countries being higher than ours and while it's maybe not as high as it was or could be is it really that much poorer than Germany or Spain?

 

[Neptune]

CAF got it right 20 years ago with the 333’s. One of the best riding of the post-privatisation trains. Shame they’ve gone backwards since then.

 

[37057]

CAF got it right 20 years ago with the 333’s. One of the best riding of the post-privatisation trains. Shame they’ve gone backwards since then.

Cl.332 bogies come to Ardwick for tyre turning so I see them up and close every now and then. They certainly look well-built, especially the motor bogies which use quill drives.

Nowadays it seems the lightweight bogie is the preferred method, possibly to reduce track damage...

 

[Llama]

172s have similar bogies and are similar units but no problems with ride quality.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Yeah but the places with really bad track tootle along at 50km/h

I think the real problem is all the different manufacturers using their own bogie designs for relatively short production runs. There's obviously no chance for continuous improvement, and setting everything up correctly takes years.

Maybe the Bombardier B5000 series is the exception here?

Yes, some fair points you mention there.

That's what I would've thought, but reasons for Siemens, CAF and Hitachi stock riding roughly on British track have repeatedly been said to be down to the higher track quality in those respective countries being higher than ours and while it's maybe not as high as it was or could be is it really that much poorer than Germany or Spain?

Just a thought, but I wonder if a bogie originally designed for the Iberian gauge lines of Spain and Portugal would have an inferior ride quality when/if adapted for use under vehicles on standard gauge networks? Of course I don't have a clue if this is the case with those used on the new CAF mk5 coaches...

 

[Clansman]

To be fair if the Mk3 suspension wasn't so suited to Sleeper travel (where you feel like you're floating!) then the Mk5s wouldn't be perceived as that bad, would they?

They're not a step up from the Mk3s on ride quality or berth ambience, but the Mk5s aren't that bad?

To anyone with a better grasp of mechanical engineering, what is it about the Mk3 suspension that makes it feel as if you're floating / bounciness? At 125mph they're a nightmare but at 80mph on a sleeper they're the best you'll ever get. Mk5s just feel too rigid, which for a sleeper train isn't ideal.

 

[Clansman]

-double post please remove-

 

[Clansman]

-triple post please delete-

 

[hexagon789]

Just a thought, but I wonder if a bogie originally designed for the Iberian gauge lines of Spain and Portugal would have an inferior ride quality when/if adapted for use under vehicles on standard gauge networks? Of course I don't have a clue if this is the case with those used on the new CAF mk5 coaches...

It's possible, but surely all that altered significantly is the dimensions of the bogie frame and the wheelsets? And it doesn't explain issues with Siemens products.

 

[hurricanemk1c]

All these issues sound familiar from when the Irish Rail Mark 4s (built by CAF) were introduced in 2006. Secobdary suspension air bags are smaller than ideal, resulting in a higher pressure and rougher ride. One of the many many things wrong with the things.

Yet to sample a Mark 5 (Sleeper introduction was pushed back and the TPE ones keep having issues either on train or on track)

 

[cactustwirly]

That's what I would've thought, but reasons for Siemens, CAF and Hitachi stock riding roughly on British track have repeatedly been said to be down to the higher track quality in those respective countries being higher than ours and while it's maybe not as high as it was or could be is it really that much poorer than Germany or Spain?

Bombardier stock rides the poorest of the lot tbh, especially the Electrostars.
I think the Desiros ride pretty smoothly tbh, as do the 800s kind of (they're good at absorbing impacts like junctions, but have a bit of a jiggly ride over smooth track)

 

[XC90]

397005 from Glasgow - Carlisle was noticeably poor. Coming back on a pendolino really highlighted this.

 

[railfan100]

Have been on virtually all of the stock throughout the country and the MK5 is for sure the worst riding. You have to try it to believe it. The train manager onboard the service had nothing good to say about them but also mentioned he is not aware of any plans to address the harsh ride. Makes no sense how something can be accepted to traffic in such a state. Under BR a Traction Inspector never would have signed it off.

 

[hexagon789]

Bombardier stock rides the poorest of the lot tbh, especially the Electrostars.
I think the Desiros ride pretty smoothly tbh, as do the 800s kind of (they're good at absorbing impacts like junctions, but have a bit of a jiggly ride over smooth track)

The only Bombardier stock we have as such are the 170s and they ride fairly well but you can feel the "bumps", the 158s really show them up.

Going back to CAF, it's definitely a manufacturer thing, I remembered about my experience of a CAF EMU in Spain and it exhibited some ride issues as well.

 

[cactustwirly]

The only Bombardier stock we have as such are the 170s and they ride fairly well but you can feel the "bumps", the 158s really show them up.

Going back to CAF, it's definitely a manufacturer thing, I remembered about my experience of a CAF EMU in Spain and it exhibited some ride issues as well.

The 387s ride pretty terribly tbh, they have a lot of sideways movement when travelling across junctions.

 

[hexagon789]

The 387s ride pretty terribly tbh, they have a lot of sideways movement when travelling across junctions.

380s have a bit of a tail waggle even on plain rail

 

[Jamesrob637]

It was rough ish on Chat Moss last week (19:56 Liverpool to Scarbados - terminated at Picc though - handy for me!) but no worse than most other types. Chat Moss does have swaying track in places maybe due to the peat-boggy nature of the topography.