TfW Long-Distance Fleet Replacement

[Topological]

After a quick glance:

The fastest current Manchester - Parkway at 2h 55 plus 31 min Parkway to Cardiff giving 3h 26.

The current fastest Manchester - Cardiff I could see was 3h 12 so I guess around 3h 00 could be achieved through stoping patterns and timetabling??

Its going to need an 8 figure sum to knock around 25 minutes off of the timings on the Birmingham route just to match that, let alone better it. And then how many years to deliver it??

Maybe I misunderstood. You appeared to be advocating for an express service on the Marches.

The 197s perform better than the Mk4s and face less speed restrictions. The 197s have shorter dwells. IF the idea is to get times down then dropping stops from the 197s is the way to do it, but then you are cutting off important services at those intermediate stations.

To get the Mk4 to 3 hours you will need some quite significant investment and then that investment only serves a limited flow. Someone will know what the signalling costs would be, but there are definitely infrastructure interventions required.

Speeding up the South Wales Mainline and the Bristol Parkway to Birmingham (ideally Curzon Street) would deliver benefits to many more flows.

Either way, the pragmatic answer is just order a few more 197s and then get the Abergavenny to Cardiff local running.

 

[cle]

I think a second pattern would help, if demand was there. Ideally Swansea/Cardiff-Crewe. This would enable the Manchester to run a much faster pattern, and still maintain a lot of the connections throughout the route.

Some places would lose a direct Manchester service, but they would have Liverpool/Scotland/N Wales and Manchester still, via Crewe. There is platform capacity there also.

Worth saying that the Liverpool-Cardiff, if it ever eventuated, could do a lot of this - but not for the Shrewsbury-Crewe section, which of course should be non-stop for Manchester services.

Notably there are Crewe locals already, and always talk of Cardiff-Aber/Hereford extras, so this wouldn't be such a big travails to stitch together, and then upgrade the Manchester service.

And then one of them could go beyond Cardiff, knowing the need to not terminate more there.

 

[Rhydgaled]

@Caaardiff @Philip @Rhydgaled

Your proposals require fleet enhancement, rather than mere fleet replacement, which is unaffordable. I'm not convinced that more than 2 tph is needed between Abergavenny and Crewe, and even that is more than current provision and much more than historical provision. Shropshire (excluding Telford) and Herefordshire have a low population density and higher frequency services for local traffic aren't warranted.

My proposal did not exceed 2tph between Crewe and Shrewsbury. It was 2tph (+ 3 per day) between Hereford and Craven Arms - the only parts of the route where I proposed more than that were south of Hereford (4tph +3 per day) and between Craven Arms and Shrewsbury (2.5tph +irregulars).

I would like to see a local service from Abergavenny to Cardiff, that would allow better use of things like the Pontypool and New Inn Car Park.

However, I am perfectly ok with Manchester trains [From at least Swansea] stopping at Cardiff Central, Newport, Cwmbran, Pontypool and New Inn*, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms*, Church Stretton*, Shrewsbury, Whitchurch^, Wem^, Nantwich^, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly

* These would be the calls of 1tp2h ^ These would be the calls in the other hours. All trains have 15 stops Cardiff to Manchester inclusive.

Where Craven Arms and Church Stretton are missed by the Manchester in a given hour, I would call that hours Cardiff-Chester there. Like others, I think the core pattern is Cardiff -Chester with some trains going to Holyhead and others to Liverpool.

One problem with having stops such as Craven Arms in the Manchester every two hours and in the Chester service in the other hours is that it disrupts the regularity of the service. Assuming that the stations served by both the Cardiff-Chester and Swansea-Manchester (eg. Ludlow) are provided with a clockface departure every 30 minutes, and that Manchester and Swansea each have roughly clockface hourly departures, Craven Arms etc. would have two trains 30 minutes apart then nothing for an hour and a half. In contrast, my proposed pattern gives Craven Arms and Church Stretton an hourly service between Cardiff and Chester, while still retaining a through train to Crewe every two hours (that's why my proposed 0.5tph semi-fast (Nantwich, Whitchurch and Wem) from Crewe extends beyond Shrewsbury). While alternating 2-hourly calls in two different hourly services can give a wider choice of through destinations (no changes), it can also have the opposite effect (eg. if Craven Arms and Church Stretton were served by different trains it would no longer be possible to travel between them by train without changing train (I note that you avoided this particular example) which is a good reason to provide some all-stations services).

Seeing these grand plans is good in a speculative section, but it only serves to make me believe that trains designed for quicker dwells can make more stops. With more stops in services, there is no need for additional "stoppers". The proposed calling pattern would be faster operated with a 197 than a Mk4 (which I believe holds even if more stops are taken out).

Yes my proposals are not "Intercity", and they are not designed for Mk4s. Sorry to Mk4 fans out there. IF the Mk4s have to be used then they would be on the Cardiff to Holyheads.

Remember this thread is supposed to be about what happens from around 2030-2033 after the mark 4s are life-expired and the 197s (hopefully) lease-expired. The only services designed specifically as an InterCity style service for something like the mark 4s in my proposal are the 3 per day (each way) expresses between Holyhead and Cardiff (although I would like to be able to use them on the Swansea-Manchester trains as well, I understand this is not possible with the class 67s as things stand due to the fuel range). I would have the Swansea-Manchester and Cardiff-Chester/Liverpool be operated by something similar to a class 175 but bi-mode, end-gangways and in longer formations (despite the latter service calling at every station between Cardiff and Crewe (excluding any that don't exist yet like 'Cardiff Parkway' and Caerleon)). Yes, a 197 can cope better with more stops but that doesn't mean a long-distance unit (like a 175) cannot be used on such services - ATW used both 158s and 175s on such services all the time.

I would be interested to see what the performance of a Class 231 would be on these routes, as I don't think they have run out to Manchester.

Assuming the FLIRT is as modular as its Stadler heritage would suggest, something along those lines could potentially combine a suitable interior with enough performance to merge a "stopper" into a long distance train without too much issue. FLIRTs also have the potent advantage of actual level boarding.

A class 755 would be closer to the mark, given that they only have 1 door per side on each coach rather than 2 on some vehicles in the case of the 231s. Even so, the coaches are a fair bit shorter than something like a 175, so the proportion of furnishable space would be impacted, and there are no unit-end gangways. Perhaps Stadler's reputation for building whatever the customer wants could save the day there however; the class 777 cab with its emergency exit door is probably not too far off providing unit-end gangways. As for the furnishable space, making each carriage significantly longer and/or reducing the door width to single-leaf (staying at one door per side in both cases) should solve that. In a previous forum discussion, I have been shown pictures of FLIRTs in mainland Europe (Poland I think it was) with single-leaf doors so that at least should be possible.

One thing you could do with the flexibility of a FLIRT is have some vehicles with a low floor and 2 doors for quick boarding/alighting and accessibility, and other vehicles with a high floor and one door for longer distance passengers.

TfW already have done some of that with the class 231s and 756s, and even these are for relatively short routes. Two double-width doors per side on such short vehicles would be a huge amount of standing room. As I said, the class 755s come much closer to being a long-distance FLIRT, and even they are not quite there.

The loco-hauled Mk4 trains are only suitable for true express services, for which there is not much need on the North-and-West line; the only service that might justify their continued use is the morning Holyhead-Cardiff and evening return.

Remember that TfW decided to prioritise the Cardiff-Manchester route over Cardiff-Holyhead for mark 4s, even going so far as to reduce the latter from three mark 4 services each-way daily to one in favour of the Manchesters. I don't agree with keeping just the one loco-hauled Cardiff-Holyhead; either there should be three premier express services each way or I don't really see the point of them at all.

I would also not serve Pontypool and New Inn only by alternate trains on an hourly service. For the SE Wales Metro, there should be a service every 30 minutes from Cardiff to Abergavenny calling at all existing stations plus a re-opened Caerleon, with 1 of these 2 tph extending to Shrewsbury and beyond.

Any service beyond Abergavenny/Hereford (I really think that Hereford is a more-logical terminus given the potential to change onto WMR and GWR services there) would in my view require long-distance rather than Metro rolling stock. Unless it is overtaken somewhere suitable, it would still be the service that passengers doing something like Cardiff to Crewe or Newport to Liverpool end up using.

the fastest and most direct link between the Welsh capital and England’s second city.

I thought Birmingham England's second city? If so, not sure why trains between there and Cardiff have been mentioned on a TfW topic, since Cardiff-Birmingham is not a route operated by TfW. I suppose it does raise the question of whether the Cardiff-Nottingham service (the Welsh capital's current direct* service to Birmingham) should be diverted to Manchester instead of Nottingham and extended to Swansea at the other end, with the current Swansea-Manchester cut back to Cardiff-Crewe.

* according to Railmiles, this is actually the shortest rail route, despite the straight line I drew on Google Maps 'as the crow flies' actually seeming to come much closer to the Hereford-Ledbury-Worcester route.

If there is a long term ambition for a faster route then the answer is upgrading to Bristol Parkway and then via Birmingham. That is the only way the sums to bring the difference in journey times between South Wales and Manchester stack up (by improving other aspects of South Wales too).

Why via Bristol Parkway and not via Chepstow? As well as being a less-direct route, the long block section through the Severn Tunnel constrains the number of trains that can be sent that way.

Either way, the pragmatic answer is just order a few more 197s and then get the Abergavenny to Cardiff local running.

That rather depends on whether you believe a net-zero carbon GB rail network to be a 'theoretical consideration'. If we serious about electrification in the timescales necessary to help with the net-zero 2050 target than ordering any 197s in the first place was never a pragmatic answer to anything. If we are to make the business case for electrification as attractive as possible then we need to be cutting back on diesel-under-the-wires. More trains benefiting from electrification adds to the benefit side of the cost-benefit equation, meaning that everything new build needs to be a straight EMU or bi-mode or come with a clean plan already in place for conversion to such. Going back to the title of this topic (long-distance cfleet replacement), I would start by getting some brand new end-gangwayed-175-like bi-modes onto the Cambrian. The 21 ETCS-fitted class 197s ordered for the Cambrian would then become the prototypes for a major rebuild* of the 197s into bi-modes of some sort (prefrably IPEMU rather than diesel bi-modes, but I'm not sure if the batteries would have sufficient range). These ex-197 bi-modes would then be used on the new local services between Hereford and Cardiff/EbbwValley etc. Further new bi-modes would then replace the mark 4s and release 197s from long-distance routes.

* which I expect to be not at all practical and therefore not pragmatic, but unavoidable if we are to eliminate diesel (at least under the wires) by 2050 due to the decision to order the damn things in the first place.

And then one of them could go beyond Cardiff, knowing the need to not terminate more there.

Cardiff is a very difficult position. On the one hand, it isn't really designed for large numbers of terminating services (no bay platforms, for example). On the other hand, it is where the 4-track GWML reduces to just a double track route through to Bridgend and Swansea (not counting the route via Barry), so capacity reduces so frequency has to reduce too meaning more terminating services.

 

[185]

I'd rebuild / extend a number of 197s into 4 car units. Mini buffet in end vehicle in place of the 300 pointless fridges. Same vehicle, a 1st class area, contained to small section between last door vestibule and the cab, 2+1 seats / 9 seats total is adequate for the low demand. One collapsible 1st Class seat for 1st Class DDA access. Three toilets total.

A bit more work on the suspension & these CAF units might finally be fit for purpose.

 

[Topological]

I span the discussion of routes for the fastest Cardiff to Manchester trains off: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cardiff-to-manchester-fast-service.274585/

I'd rebuild / extend a number of 197s into 4 car units. Mini buffet in end vehicle in place of the 300 pointless fridges. Same vehicle, a 1st class area, contained to small section between last door vestibule and the cab, 2+1 seats / 9 seats total is adequate for the low demand. One collapsible 1st Class seat for 1st Class DDA access. Three toilets total.

A bit more work on the suspension & these CAF units might finally be fit for purpose.

This seems like a very sensible solution. Three toilets on a four-car would be great. The current balance always makes me worry it will be a 2-car with 1 toilet that has locked itself out in the evening.

Maybe I am strange, but whilst the 175s were wonderful trains, I am perfectly OK with doors at thirds. The 197s seem to be able to dwell for less time than the 175s used to.

 

[popeter45]

one thing i feel TfW would do well from is difernetial branding so has a clear Welsh Intercity Operation (using a dedicated Long range FLIRT fleet) vs Regional (using 197's) or Metro

somthing like a 745 but with either 2 Power Packs or a extra large one at one end like a 210 (almost like a permantly attached loco)

routes for the Intercity sub brand could be Carmarthen/Swansea/Cardiff to Manchester/Holyhead/birmingham fasts and maybe even the return of Waterloo services?

core Cardiff-Newport 2tph split across the following services

4tpd Carmarthen-Birmingham via either Hereford or Gloucester
4tpd Swansea-Manchester Via Hereford and Shewsbury
4tpd Swansea-Waterloo via Bristol, Bath and Sailsbury
8tpd Cardiff-Holyhead Via Hereford and Wrexham

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt the 197s can rebuilt into electrodiesels in an economic fashion.
You would have to throw away a large part of the expensive parts of the hardware in order to do that.

It'd almost certainly be cheaper to just build new trains and send the 197s somewhere else to replace Sprinters or such.

 

[Krokodil]

I would start by getting some brand new end-gangwayed-175-like bi-modes onto the Cambrian.

Why on earth would you prioritise the Cambrian for bimode units? There's all of 25 miles or so of wiring, and 150 miles of unwired route.

A route like Manchester - North Wales or Manchester - South Wales has a far better ratio, especially if Swansea is next on the list for wires.

 

[Harpo]

I thought Birmingham England's second city?

In folklore only. I was referring to Manchester as I believe it to be the real ‘second city’ these days and that Leeds might even edge sad tired Brum for third.

Apologies for the confusion.

However, I do believe that TfW replacing XC on Cardiff to Birmingham could bring real improvement (especially reliability), but thats not for here.

 

[Topological]

In folklore only. I was referring to Manchester as I believe it to be the real ‘second city’ these days and that Leeds might even edge sad tired Brum for third.

Apologies for the confusion.

However, I do believe that TfW replacing XC on Cardiff to Birmingham could bring real improvement (especially reliability), but thats not for here.

I have a Manchester bias, but I suspect most people now agree on the second city issue.

I did make a thread for the TfW long distance service routes here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cardiff-to-manchester-fast-service.274585/

 

[Rhydgaled]

Maybe I am strange, but whilst the 175s were wonderful trains, I am perfectly OK with doors at thirds. The 197s seem to be able to dwell for less time than the 175s used to.

Yes, a 197 will dwell for less time than a 175 at a busy stop, but the 175s are much nicer if doing a long trip. More legroom, more luggage space, more toilets, more tables etc. I'm perfectly ok with the door layout on 158s (where the toilets and bike spaces are beyond the doors, so the doors are not actually right at the end) and (in theory at least) I'd also be ok with a door layout similar to a class 444 (one door near the end with the toilet beyond, like a 158, the other about a third of way in from the other end). The reasons I put 'in theory' for the 444 is that I'm not very familar with them and I believe they are missing some of the interior doors between saloon and vestibule.

I doubt the 197s can rebuilt into electrodiesels in an economic fashion.
You would have to throw away a large part of the expensive parts of the hardware in order to do that.

It'd almost certainly be cheaper to just build new trains

Agreed; that's why it was such a stupid idea to build them (and the 195s) in the first place. However, scrapping the bodyshells would be rather wasteful given the amount of energy necessary to get metal from the ore - it is primarily for this reason that I think they should be rebuilt as electrodiesels or IPEMUs. Send them back to the CAF works at Llanwern, reverse the assembly process (probably need to go all the way back to the bare bodyshells that they were when they first arrived there for assembly), modify the bodyshells as necessary (eg. add pantograph wells) and reassemble as new end-gangwayed class 331 subclasses.

and send the 197s somewhere else to replace Sprinters or such.

The trouble with that is, if we are to be anywhere near where we should be aiming for in terms of electrification by 2050, lots of new wires would be seeing very little use if there are still 161 CAF Civity DMUs running around the network. They would be destroying the business case for electrification by burning diesel under the wires. Also, the previous UK Government seemed to be pushing for battery and hydrogen to completely replace diesel by 2050. Assuming that remains the case, the least-challanging conversion option for the CAF DMUs would appear to be a fast-charge battery system similar to what GWR planning to trial with 230s on the Greenford branch (ie. charging in stations only, not on the move). The potential for that technology appears largely limited to GWR's various branch shuttles. Assuming they are not expecting to keep the 230s long-term (after all, the bodyshells will be 50 years old by 2030), GWR would probably be able to make use of the class 196 fleet converted to fast-charge battery operation (since that is only 26 units), but that still leaves a total of 135 Civities (195s plus 197s) to deal with.

(Short version: TfW have far too many 197s for sending them elsewhere as straight DMUs to be a solution).

Why on earth would you prioritise the Cambrian for bimode units? There's all of 25 miles or so of wiring, and 150 miles of unwired route.

A route like Manchester - North Wales or Manchester - South Wales has a far better ratio, especially if Swansea is next on the list for wires.

I do have a number of reasons, but before I get to that I would like to clarify that my Cambrian-first policy for bi-modes was not intended to be a seperate order. A single large order would be placed for new bi-modes which would include units for Manchester-Swansea, Cardiff-Chester/Liverpool etc. as well as the Cambrian (all long-distance services operated by 197s). I would just have the sets for the Cambrian delivered first, for the following reasons:

• the Cambrian is expected to suffer the most as a result of the introduction of 197s (assuming it happens) - most of the other routes will see longer trains (whether that be single 153s replaced by 2-car 197s, 2-car 175s replaced by 3-car 197s or 3-car 175s replaced by 5-car 197s) and/or a slight improvement in the passenger environment (which pretty much only applies to where 197s replace 150s) but the Cambrian doesn't get anything like that, so should be released from the blight of 197s ASAP
• since the Cambrian has (so-far) escaped the downgrade to 197s I still have a (now extremely faint) hope that 197s will not be imposed there and the 158s will be retained instead, in which case they (along with the mark 4s) would be the oldest trains being replaced
• TfW services into Birmingham are (or should be) a minimum of 4-cars with some potentially being 6-cars and there are now two WMR services per hour between Shrewsbury and Birmingham. The latter could be EMUs but for want of under 30 miles of OHLE. We're talking around 10 DMU carriages per hour in each direction between Shrewsbury and Birmingham New Street. That's not much different from Cardiff-Swansea if you only look at GWR (which it would be if TfW hold onto all the 197s and don't convert them to bi-mode), and Cardiff-Swansea is further than Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury(SHR). Wolves-SHR should therefore be reasonably high up the list for wires, and once done the ratio of wired to underwired for Aberystwyth(AYW) to Birmingham would look rather better than the 25:150 you gave for the Cambrian (SHR-AYW is under 85 miles).

 

[Topological]

In the time versus door location, we must agree to disagree. Some people, like me, are perfectly happy with the 195s/196s/197s/170s on long journeys, others not. Most would appreciate the time saving on dwells because it reduces the overall journey time.

Issues such as legroom are about the internal specification of the train. I am short so never really notice (except on some 150s). In theory, seats can be moved on the 197s to create more legroom.

 

[Bletchleyite]

175s categorically don't have more luggage space than 197s. The CAF overheads are massive and swallow my 105l rucksack with ease. Plus there are floor level racks too.

The 175 is one of the very worst trains for luggage space, probably even worse than a Voyager.

 

[Krokodil]

I'm perfectly ok with the door layout on 158s

I'm not. I've signed every kind of rolling stock used by TfW in the north (so everything bar Stadlers, Pacers and Mk2s). 158s are a pain in the backside. The narrow doorways and cramped vestibules take ages to load during summer and it's often impossible to fit the masses of prams and pushchairs in.

I think they should be rebuilt as electrodiesels or IPEMUs. Send them back to the CAF works at Llanwern, reverse the assembly process (probably need to go all the way back to the bare bodyshells that they were when they first arrived there for assembly), modify the bodyshells as necessary (eg. add pantograph wells) and reassemble as new end-gangwayed class 331 subclasses.

It would be cheaper to buy brand new units.

Also, the previous UK Government seemed to be pushing for battery and hydrogen to completely replace diesel by 2050

By 2050 the 19x fleet are likely to be virtually life-expired. It's not like 150s which would survive a nuclear winter, these aren't built to last.

175s categorically don't have more luggage space than 197s. The CAF overheads are massive and swallow my 105l rucksack with ease. Plus there are floor level racks too.

The 175 is one of the very worst trains for luggage space, probably even worse than a Voyager.

Most passengers don't use rucksacks, they use suitcases. Overhead racks are only as good as the passenger's ability to lift their luggage onto them. 75x50x30 cases are really common these days and 197s can't cope with the summer holiday luggage, nor with traffic to/from Manchester Airport. Even if it was physically possible to lift a large hard-shell case onto the rack, do you really want one poised above your head in the event of an accident? A blow from one of those would probably be fatal.

Of all the vehicle types I've signed, nothing has beaten the Mk3s. 70 seats apiece (almost all of which were arranged around tables), gargantuan luggage racks, space between seat backs, two toilets (which almost never failed) and excess of wheelchair spaces which meant that you could park buggies in a few of them without risk of needing them for actual wheelchairs. Then there was the DVT which allowed me to easily accommodate large numbers of bikes and even the odd tandem (though I accept that this vehicle could lose half of its space to seats without compromising utility).

 

[Rhydgaled]

In the time versus door location, we must agree to disagree. Some people, like me, are perfectly happy with the 195s/196s/197s/170s on long journeys, others not.

Yes, some passengrs are happy to make a long trip on a suburban unit. However the fact that, as you accept, others are not happy with them indicates that something like a class 175 is a nicer travelling environment, would you agree? Otherwise, why would BR have built the 158s rather than going for something along the lines of more 166s? I accept that the enhanced level of comfort provided by something like a class 175 isn't necessary for everyone, but I'm a perfectionist and I believe in making public transport use as pleasant, comfortable and enjoyable as possible. I also agree completely that the double-width doors-at-thirds arangment provides faster dwell times (particularly at busy stations, but the minor intermediate stations left-out of long-distance fast services don't tend to be that busy) - I just don't think it is worth the sacrifices that have to be made.

Issues such as legroom are about the internal specification of the train. I am short so never really notice (except on some 150s). In theory, seats can be moved on the 197s to create more legroom.

Indeed, you could move seats on the 197s to match the spacing on a 175 for better legroom, but then a class 197 would also have less seats than a 175 as well as fewer tables etc. The fact is there is less furnishable space on a suburban unit because of the wider doors, so all else being equal what you are effectively doing by having wider doors is reducing dwell times at a cost of increasing the risk of not being able to find a seat. I just don't think that is acceptable on any service where the following apply the end-to-end journey time is over 1 hour (or between any stops over 15 minutes apart) and no other (hourly or better) service is available to do the journey by rail.

175s categorically don't have more luggage space than 197s. The CAF overheads are massive and swallow my 105l rucksack with ease. Plus there are floor level racks too.

The 175 is one of the very worst trains for luggage space, probably even worse than a Voyager.

I take your point about the overhead racks, but they do not take up floor space. According to the seat plan, provision of floor-level luggage racks on the class 197s is as follows:

• 2-car units - two racks (one 650mm and the other 844mm)
• 3-car units - three racks (two 650mm and one 844mm)
• 3-car units (with first class) - four racks (two 650mm in standard class and two 494mm in first class)

In comparison, the class 175 seat plan I have (much less detailed than the 197 one, and I'm not entirely sure of it's accuracy) shows three luggage racks in coach C alone.

Overhead racks are only as good as the passenger's ability to lift their luggage onto them.

This. I'm fine with using overhead racks, but I doubt my short, frail, grandmother would stand a chance.

75x50x30 cases are really common these days and 197s can't cope with the summer holiday luggage, nor with traffic to/from Manchester Airport. Even if it was physically possible to lift a large hard-shell case onto the rack, do you really want one poised above your head in the event of an accident? A blow from one of those would probably be fatal.

Of all the vehicle types I've signed, nothing has beaten the Mk3s. 70 seats apiece (almost all of which were arranged around tables), gargantuan luggage racks, space between seat backs, two toilets (which almost never failed) and excess of wheelchair spaces which meant that you could park buggies in a few of them without risk of needing them for actual wheelchairs.

I agree, the mark 3s were rather good. Legroom not as good as the class 175s if I recall correctly, but the key point remains: narrowish doorways not the huge space-grabbing double-width things on a 197.

It would be cheaper to buy brand new units.

By 2050 the 19x fleet are likely to be virtually life-expired. It's not like 150s which would survive a nuclear winter, these aren't built to last.

According to Wikipedia, the first class 195 was built in 2017 with a projected lifespan of 35 years. Some 197s are still to enter service. Using the 35 years figure, and assuming the remaining 197s all enter service in 2025, that gives a range of 2052 for the first 195 to 2060 for the last 197. Increasing the lifespan to 40 years (some class 230s seem likely to last at least 50 if we include their life as London Underground EMUs) gives 2057-2065. Given the bodyshells are aluminum, the 19x DMUs may not suffer from corrosion as much as the 150s have. Thus, reusing the bodyshells for EMUs or bi-modes (even if the rest of the 19x unit is life-expired) would be the ecologically sound approach.

 

[Topological]

Would be interesting to know what people prefer really.

1) A 197* with stops at all Marches stations
2) A Mk4* with stops removed to compensate for time lost in dwells
3) A 197* with stops removed and hence faster than 1) or 2)

Given the number of stops, the margins and impacts of 2) and 3) over 1 are not insignificant. My preference is absolutely 1.

* All stock marked as the one people might know about. The comparison would ideally be made between optimised layouts on the 197 and a replacement for the Mk4 but with the "Intercity" layout of doors at ends.

 

[HSTEd]

According to Wikipedia, the first class 195 was built in 2017 with a projected lifespan of 35 years. Some 197s are still to enter service. Using the 35 years figure, and assuming the remaining 197s all enter service in 2025, that gives a range of 2052 for the first 195 to 2060 for the last 197. Increasing the lifespan to 40 years (some class 230s seem likely to last at least 50 if we include their life as London Underground EMUs) gives 2057-2065. Given the bodyshells are aluminum, the 19x DMUs may not suffer from corrosion as much as the 150s have. Thus, reusing the bodyshells for EMUs or bi-modes (even if the rest of the 19x unit is life-expired) would be the ecologically sound approach.

25 years is hardly a catastrophic service life.

That is assuming the 2050 decarbonisation target is going to be met.
It is highly unlikely to be met.

It would be far cheaper to accept a loss of ten years and send them to recycling early than attempt to dismantle and rebuild them for a handful more years.
The bulk of the embodied carbon in the metal will be recovered through recycling, and dismantling and reconstruction would take people away from jobs that might actually contribute to decarbonisation in the mean time.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Would be interesting to know what people prefer really.

1) A 197* with stops at all Marches stations
2) A Mk4* with stops removed to compensate for time lost in dwells
3) A 197* with stops removed and hence faster than 1) or 2)

Well, in my case (at least for the Cardiff-Chester route) the answer is none of the above since my proposal is something like a 175 (but bi-mode and with end gangways and more coaches if necessary) calling at all the stations which currently exist (but not at new ones to be provided as part of the SE Wales Metro). Simplified to fit your format this would be most-similar to:

4) A Mk4* with stops at all Marches stations

Please don't try to claim that this would extend journey times compared to now, because it is no different to what we had with the 175s under ATW anyway (I don't think the dwell time savings brought by the 197s have actually been built into the current timetable - they are presumably still running on 158/175 timings).

The result of removing stops from 197-operated services (your option 3) is unlikely to actually be much faster than your option 2. This is because the stops removed would, in both cases, be those with fewer passengers and therefore shorter dwell times anyway. Unless the train is overcrowded, getting just 2 or 3 passengers on and off isn't going to take a vast amount of time even on a mark 4 operated service. It might take 1min with a mark 4 and 40 seconds with a 197 (note these figures are made up) - yes the 197 is a bit quicker but not significantly so except at the busy stations like Newport (Casnewydd) which the mark 4 will be calling at anyway.

25 years is hardly a catastrophic service life.

That is assuming the 2050 decarbonisation target is going to be met.
It is highly unlikely to be met.

To get 25 years for the whole fleet you're assuming not only that the (legally binding if we're talking the national target rather than rail-specific) decarbonisation target is going to be missed but that the rail sector is going to make little or no progress towards meeting it. You're also condemning a good number of non-electrified routes to using stock with double-width doors at thirds. Are there that many non-electrified routes with lots of stops and an end-to-end journey time of under 1 hour?

My proposal in this thread is to get the 197s off TfW's long-distance routes when the current lease expires (which, as far as I know, is October 2033) and bring in bi-modes to replace them. That is only 9 years away, not 25. Even assuming the new stock is late entering service, the majority of the 197s should be gone from TfW by 2035 (11 years away) unless they are used to extend the outer reaches of the SE Wales Metro (eg. Swanline, Hereford, Bristol and Cheltenham) which either means killing the case for wires to Swansea (and possibly harming that to Bristol) or rebuilding them to make use of OHLE.

It would be far cheaper to accept a loss of ten years and send them to recycling early than attempt to dismantle and rebuild them for a handful more years.
The bulk of the embodied carbon in the metal will be recovered through recycling, and dismantling and reconstruction would take people away from jobs that might actually contribute to decarbonisation in the mean time.

The recyling process would also take people away from jobs wouldn't it? Also, if the contracts for new bi-modes go to other firms, CAF are likely to play 'kittens' with the works at Llanwern - in the absence of new orders rebuilding the 19x fleet would be a good way to keep the jobs at Llanwern.

 

[HSTEd]

To get 25 years for the whole fleet you're assuming not only that the (legally binding if we're talking the national target rather than rail-specific) decarbonisation target is going to be missed but that the rail sector is going to make little or no progress towards meeting it.

You said your baseline assumption is that the rest of the 197s would enter service in 2025.
So 25 years from then would be 2050 - which is the supposed deadline.

The Class 197 fleet represents something like 180 out of the ~2,900 diesel passenger vehicles on the system.
Additionally, there have been comparatively few pure diesel vehicles ordered in recent times (I don't think the 231s really count since they are ultimately FLIRTs).

The diesel fleet could shrink by something like 80% and still not leave the 19x fleet out of use.
The 197s are likely to be some of the last diesel stock on the system in any case.

You're also condemning a good number of non-electrified routes to using stock with double-width doors at thirds. Are there that many non-electrified routes with lots of stops and an end-to-end journey time of under 1 hour?

That seems a rather short and arbitrary requirement, since huge numbers of electric trains with that configuration are in service on journeys much longer than that.
But in any case, yes, there are many.
Just look at Manchester and Leeds suburban operations!

My proposal in this thread is to get the 197s off TfW's long-distance routes when the current lease expires (which, as far as I know, is October 2033) and bring in bi-modes to replace them. That is only 9 years away, not 25. Even assuming the new stock is late entering service, the majority of the 197s should be gone from TfW by 2035 (11 years away) unless they are used to extend the outer reaches of the SE Wales Metro (eg. Swanline, Hereford, Bristol and Cheltenham) which either means killing the case for wires to Swansea (and possibly harming that to Bristol) or rebuilding them to make use of OHLE.

The case for electrification to Swansea and Bristol isn't going to be killed by that, because it is almost certainly already dead.
The ballooning costs for the 25kV programme have seen to that.

The recyling process would also take people away from jobs wouldn't it? Also, if the contracts for new bi-modes go to other firms, CAF are likely to play 'kittens' with the works at Llanwern - in the absence of new orders rebuilding the 19x fleet would be a good way to keep the jobs at Llanwern.

Recycling the trains will require far less labour than painstakingly dismantling them and rebuilding them would.
It's quite easy to dismantle something when you don't expect it to go back together again!
And if we can't find enough business to keep the plants open, its economically insane to play games to keep them nominally operational.

 

[Krokodil]

with a projected lifespan of 35 years

Given the way that they have performed today, I highly doubt that they will manage that.

It's quite easy to dismantle something when you don't expect it to go back together again!

Especially if that shredder at Newport is involved.

 

[Topological]

Well, in my case (at least for the Cardiff-Chester route) the answer is none of the above since my proposal is something like a 175 (but bi-mode and with end gangways and more coaches if necessary) calling at all the stations which currently exist (but not at new ones to be provided as part of the SE Wales Metro). Simplified to fit your format this would be most-similar to:

4) A Mk4* with stops at all Marches stations

Please don't try to claim that this would extend journey times compared to now, because it is no different to what we had with the 175s under ATW anyway (I don't think the dwell time savings brought by the 197s have actually been built into the current timetable - they are presumably still running on 158/175 timings).

The result of removing stops from 197-operated services (your option 3) is unlikely to actually be much faster than your option 2. This is because the stops removed would, in both cases, be those with fewer passengers and therefore shorter dwell times anyway. Unless the train is overcrowded, getting just 2 or 3 passengers on and off isn't going to take a vast amount of time even on a mark 4 operated service. It might take 1min with a mark 4 and 40 seconds with a 197 (note these figures are made up) - yes the 197 is a bit quicker but not significantly so except at the busy stations like Newport (Casnewydd) which the mark 4 will be calling at anyway.

To get 25 years for the whole fleet you're assuming not only that the (legally binding if we're talking the national target rather than rail-specific) decarbonisation target is going to be missed but that the rail sector is going to make little or no progress towards meeting it. You're also condemning a good number of non-electrified routes to using stock with double-width doors at thirds. Are there that many non-electrified routes with lots of stops and an end-to-end journey time of under 1 hour?

My proposal in this thread is to get the 197s off TfW's long-distance routes when the current lease expires (which, as far as I know, is October 2033) and bring in bi-modes to replace them. That is only 9 years away, not 25. Even assuming the new stock is late entering service, the majority of the 197s should be gone from TfW by 2035 (11 years away) unless they are used to extend the outer reaches of the SE Wales Metro (eg. Swanline, Hereford, Bristol and Cheltenham) which either means killing the case for wires to Swansea (and possibly harming that to Bristol) or rebuilding them to make use of OHLE.

The recyling process would also take people away from jobs wouldn't it? Also, if the contracts for new bi-modes go to other firms, CAF are likely to play 'kittens' with the works at Llanwern - in the absence of new orders rebuilding the 19x fleet would be a good way to keep the jobs at Llanwern.

I used * because the Mk4 was representing a train with end doors etc., the 197 a train optimised for quick dwells.

No matter how you try, you cannot deny that the 197s can load and unload passengers quicker than the Mk4. The same will always apply to doors at 3rds versus the end door style.

Removing stops always speeds up trains. They can go through the station at a higher speed and therefore have less braking and acceleration (as well as the difference between a 0, 1 or 2 minute dwell).

Arguing that the times have not been updated yet versus the 175 is a bit of a diversion too. The times are updated in December. Having the option to take advantage of the 197s superior acceleration and reduced dwells versus the Mk4 is open to TfW/Network Rail* and so since this thread is about stock my argument is better to have that further argument in place than not.

Essentially you are a doors at ends person. That is fine, but the data consistently says that thirds offer reduced dwells. All else equal, every minute saved on dwells is a minute saved on the journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said there is categorically not more luggage space on a 175, they are the worst DMU for luggage space out of the post privatisation units and this is demonstrated every year on the Coast. I'd understand if you were idolising the 158, but the 175 is only better on comfort, and then only slightly.

 

[Krokodil]

As I said there is categorically not more luggage space on a 175, they are the worst DMU for luggage space out of the post privatisation units and this is demonstrated every year on the Coast. I'd understand if you were idolising the 158, but the 175 is only better on comfort, and then only slightly.

The centre car of a three car 175 was very good at mopping up excess cases. There was also a handy empty area behind the last row of seats that could accommodate a couple of prams. With 197s I find myself reduced to parking excess cases in the vestibules, making use of the extra width there. You or I might be able to stow bags overhead (I use an old MoD deployment bag) but most suitcases can't be safely stowed up there.

 

[Anonymous10]

The centre car of a three car 175 was very good at mopping up excess cases. There was also a handy empty area behind the last row of seats that could accommodate a couple of prams. With 197s I find myself reduced to parking excess cases in the vestibules, making use of the extra width there. You or I might be able to stow bags overhead (I use an old MoD deployment bag) but most suitcases can't be safely stowed up there.

I've also found issues with hiking rucksacks in the luggage racks on a 197. Fortunately today I was able to get it up as it weighs less this weekend, and my tent was in a dry bag and separately packed.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You said your baseline assumption is that the rest of the 197s would enter service in 2025.
So 25 years from then would be 2050 - which is the supposed deadline.

Yes, that gives 25 years for the 197s but, if all the 197s are to remain until 2050, that means no progress on electrification on 197-operated routes until 2050.

The case for electrification to Swansea and Bristol isn't going to be killed by that, because it is almost certainly already dead.
The ballooning costs for the 25kV programme have seen to that.

In other words, you are saying that the rail sector is going to make little or no progress towards net-zero by 2050. If we were to take that as the baseline assumption, then I would agree there is no need to rebuild the Civity DMUs as bi-modes or anything like that.

The 197s are likely to be some of the last diesel stock on the system in any case.

Agreed, if electrification isn't as dead as you suggest. If progress is made with electrification, then whichever routes are at the back of the queue for electrification will therefore end up with the 197s. That means places like the Cambrian Coast Line being stuck with them.

That seems a rather short and arbitrary requirement, since huge numbers of electric trains with that configuration are in service on journeys much longer than that.

The 1 hour 'requirement' is based on the length of time that I can just about put up with a 150 (or most buses). If it's longer than that, it's therefore a longish journey in my book. While outer-suburban EMUs are seen on longer trips (the most-obvious examples I can think of being 350s on London-Birmingham), they are typically acting as the local stopping service on a route which is also served by frequent long-distance express services. Any passenger making a long trip therefore has a choice of using the long-distance train instead, and is unlikely to be on the local stopper for longer than an hour even if said stopper's end-to-end journey time is much longer than that. Any route that is busy enough to have a mix of services like that is not going to be at the back of the queue for electrification.

But in any case, yes, there are many.
Just look at Manchester and Leeds suburban operations!

How many of the Leeds and Manchester suburban operations are unelectrified and near the back of the queue for wires? Enough to need more DMUs than Northern's existing fleet of 195s?

Recycling the trains will require far less labour than painstakingly dismantling them and rebuilding them would.
It's quite easy to dismantle something when you don't expect it to go back together again!
And if we can't find enough business to keep the plants open, its economically insane to play games to keep them nominally operational.

Fair points. Doesn't help my concern about energy use (embodied carbon in the metal) much though.

No matter how you try, you cannot deny that the 197s can load and unload passengers quicker than the Mk4. The same will always apply to doors at 3rds versus the end door style.

I wasn't trying to deny that. Even my made-up dwell time figures assumed a 197 would be 20sec faster than a mark 4.

Removing stops always speeds up trains. They can go through the station at a higher speed and therefore have less braking and acceleration

Agreed. The point I was trying to make was that the time saving from missing out a stop will be similar (not identical) regardless of whether the service is timed for a 197 or an end-doored version of it (with the same acceleration and braking characteristics etc.)*. A suburban unit will actually save slightly less time per stop removed than an express equivilent.

*unless you miss out busy stops like Cardiff Central, where the difference in dwell times is much more-likely to be measured in minutes rather than seconds.

Essentially you are a doors at ends person. That is fine, but the data consistently says that thirds offer reduced dwells. All else equal, every minute saved on dwells is a minute saved on the journey.

Agreed on the assumption that your point about the data refers to double-width doors at thirds. Those certainly offer reduced dwells compared to something like a class 158, 175, 5WES or mark 4, that I accept. This is why I sometimes talk about compromise layouts, such as the class 444 and class 395 units. These have narrower doors, so my main argument (furnishable space) is much diminished. However, I doubt there is much data on the effect such 'compromise layouts' have on dwell times given there are relatively few examples.

On your other point, while a minute saved on dwell time with a suburban unit would theoretically be available to reduce the overall journey time, at many stops the saving (and, again, I completely agree that there will be a saving) will be measured in seconds not minutes. Since the timetable (the public one at least) is timed to the minute, not the second, these smaller savings will not necessarily be possible to take into account in the timetable. What you get here is an extra chance to slightly recover from delays, rather than a timetabled journey time saving.

As I said there is categorically not more luggage space on a 175, they are the worst DMU for luggage space out of the post privatisation units and this is demonstrated every year on the Coast.

Is it the overhead racks you're talking about there? The only train I've been on in ages is a TfW 158, so I cannot remember what the overhead racks on the 175s are like so I'll take your word for it if the 175 overhead racks are pathetic. However, the overhead racks have very little to do with the amount of furnishable floor space which is my main argument against double-width doors-at-thirds. What I do know about floor-mounted luggage racks on a class 175/0 (because I once went through one taking measurements and writing a few notes) is that I found two racks in coach A and two in coach C (though this doesn't tie up with the seat plan I have, so an accurate scale drawing such as the one I have for the 197s would be much appreciated) and that those in coach C were 65cm long (plus or minus 3cm). If I assume that a 175/0 does indeed have four racks, and that all four are 62cm long, this is a total of 248cm. This is categorically more floor space devoted to luggage than the 149.4cm of racks on a 197/0.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've also found issues with hiking rucksacks in the luggage racks on a 197. Fortunately today I was able to get it up as it weighs less this weekend, and my tent was in a dry bag and separately packed.

Just stick it in the overhead. All common sizes will easily fit.

The overheads of 175s are tiny, even an IATA carry on won't fit.

 

[Anonymous10]

Just stick it in the overhead. All common sizes will easily fit.

The overheads of 175s are tiny, even an IATA carry on won't fit.

You say just stick it in however once ur carrying 4 or 5 days clothing food gas tent ect its actually too heavy to lift into the overhead.

But that's a issue I get on most trains.

 

[Krokodil]

What I do know about floor-mounted luggage racks on a class 175/0 (because I once went through one taking measurements and writing a few notes) is that I found two racks in coach A and two in coach C (though this doesn't tie up with the seat plan I have

From what I remember they had two luggage racks at the cab ends of the driving coaches - which doesn't really help passengers who board at the gangway end. But they also had a couple of freestanding bins (one was opposite the bike rack, just after the toilet I think) which could have cases stacked on top.

I'm struggling to remember the layout of the centre cars but I think that there were two racks stood side-by-side opposite the box containing the toilet. At the A end of the carriage was an empty space behind the last row of seats which was brilliant for parking pushchairs. I've a feeling that there might have been a luggage rack at this end too, but it's been some time since I last worked a 175.

I'd just like to speak up in favour of the much-maligned 153s. Dogboxes have one or two redeeming features. That parcel shelf above the bike space is a brilliant use of what is usually wasted vertical space on a train. It also stops people sitting in the bike space which is a pain in the backside on 197s. Having the little nook where the old toilet used to be is also a useful place to put parents with prams, without them monopolising the wheelchair spaces.

 

[Anonymous10]

From what I remember they had two luggage racks at the cab ends of the driving coaches - which doesn't really help passengers who board at the gangway end. But they also had a couple of freestanding bins (one was opposite the bike rack, just after the toilet I think) which could have cases stacked on top.

I'm struggling to remember the layout of the centre cars but I think that there were two racks stood side-by-side opposite the box containing the toilet. At the A end of the carriage was an empty space behind the last row of seats which was brilliant for parking pushchairs. I've a feeling that there might have been a luggage rack at this end too, but it's been some time since I last worked a 175.

I'd just like to speak up in favour of the much-maligned 153s. Dogboxes have one or two redeeming features. That parcel shelf above the bike space is a brilliant use of what is usually wasted vertical space on a train. It also stops people sitting in the bike space which is a pain in the backside on 197s. Having the little nook where the old toilet used to be is also a useful place to put parents with prams, without them monopolising the wheelchair spaces.

I do like 153s for that and that shelf is the perfect height for me to just slot on and off My bag without needing "swing space".

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do like 153s for that and that shelf is the perfect height for me to just slot on and off My bag without needing "swing space".

It's a very good setup. First North Western fitted something similar to all their 142 and 15x, and the converted shop on XC Voyagers is similar (but not as bike space).