WMR Class 196 Build and Implementation

[Wyrleybart]

"Superkev" you need to do a little research old fruit. "Steam age" links says more about your lack of understanding than it does for the process. But just in case you don't know traction training involves a mix of "classroom" and practical training followed by handling then passing out with an assessor or Driver Manager.

So here is a question for you, based on links traditionally being divisible by eight, how many weeks or months do you reckon it would take to traction train a link of 32 drivers, and pass each one out with an assessor or DTM fit to drive the new class in pax service ?

Don't forget that you are also running a 7 day a week passenger service with that same link of 32 drivers - including Sunday work.

 

[newtownmgr]

The point I was making, perhaps rather badly, was if you introduce new trains on a route it would be quicker to train drivers if they were dedicated to that route rather than a whole link which often emcompasses many routes.
Off topic but do TOCs still use the link system where seniority often gain longer/more desirable routes.
K

Many TOC’s use a link system. As Regards restricting drivers to a single route, that actually causes more problems as you bring in issues of fatigue management. Constantly driving over the same route usually means driving hours are more restricted & more drivers are required.

Another issue is on the north Warwickshire line have request stops.
Such as wood end. On the Stratford upon avon line.
Apparently 196 cannot do these on this line due to issues with the infrastructure.
Also have been told especially this line via various local sources and wmr staff I know issues have also emerged with the operation off the door deselect system on the train especially identical to the caf system on the train.
So 196 will appear first on the Shrewsbury as mentioned.
Also there has been issues with cab doors.

196’s are unlikely to work on the Snow Hill lines. Neither Leamington or Snow Hill depots are being trained on them. Reason for 196’s going onto the Shrewsbury’s first is to allow more 170’s to be released to EMR quicker. Nothing to do with SDO.
if 196’s were to work Snow Hill services it would be on trains from Worcester with Worcester crews which either terminate at Dorridge or Whitlocks End in the current timetable. Worcester only has 3 Stratford jobs anyway.

 

[43102EMR]

Many TOC’s use a link system. As Regards restricting drivers to a single route, that actually causes more problems as you bring in issues of fatigue management. Constantly driving over the same route usually means driving hours are more restricted & more drivers are required.

196’s are unlikely to work on the Snow Hill lines. Neither Leamington or Snow Hill depots are being trained on them. Reason for 196’s going onto the Shrewsbury’s first is to allow more 170’s to be released to EMR quicker. Nothing to do with SDO.
if 196’s were to work Snow Hill services it would be on trains from Worcester with Worcester crews which either terminate at Dorridge or Whitlocks End in the current timetable. Worcester only has 3 Stratford jobs anyway.

I think a few 196s were to work some peak hour SHL services (as the 170s used to do), but if the 172/1s end up staying (highly likely) then there will be no need for this

 

[newtownmgr]

They do, but I'd guess if you were going to go with Kev's idea, the bulk of Worcester Drivers would need to sign them regardless, as New Street/Hereford work is exclusively theirs anyway. If you could do it, you'd need a Link that just signs New Street to Hereford and a Link who just sign the Snow Hill lines, which would have its own issues beyond the short term solution to introducing new stock to just one route.

Every driver at Worcester will be learning the 196’s. Currently one large link at Worcester with a couple of part time links plus a seperate depot drivers link. Some diagrams contain a mix of Dark side & New St/Hereford work. Work starting on Worcester LMD in the new year to extend the fuel road & other work to accommodate the 196 with driver training starting early spring. Shrewsbury/Wolves start training in the new year. Obviously this may change as it’s relying on CAF having the units ready.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Glad I dont have to wait 2 years to use my new comfy, reliable car. What a shambles the uk rail industry is.

Not really a fair comparision. How many years' development and testing did Ford, VW or whoever put into that model before it was launched?

 

[HSTEd]

Not really a fair comparision. How many years' development and testing did Ford, VW or whoever put into that model before it was launched?

Which just demonstrates the insanity of building bespoke trains.

 

[Speed43125]

Which just demonstrates the insanity of building bespoke trains.

How much development of a car goes on before you can purchase it?
it's not as if you have to wait two years to ride on the trains after you've bought your ticket!

 

[43096]

Not really a fair comparision. How many years' development and testing did Ford, VW or whoever put into that model before it was launched?

It is a fair comparison, as the 196s are based on the same platform as the Northern 195s, so they have had some time to get this right. The 196s and 197s are essentially run-on orders from the 195s so there's no real excuse if they don't work out of the box.

 

[birchesgreen]

How much development of a car goes on before you can purchase it?
it's not as if you have to wait two years to ride on the trains after you've bought your ticket!

A lot. Designing a new car costs billions, even companies as big as Ford have to team up with other manufacturers to share a lot of the design/costs.

Kinda apples and oranges comparing cars and trains to be honest.

 

[adc82140]

Motor manufacturers don't release their vehicles for sale until development is complete though. In the BR era, there were prototypes on the rails: the PEPs, the 151s etc. Problems were ironed out at the prototype stage, or entire projects scrapped, before the final production.

 

[TRAX]

Motor manufacturers don't release their vehicles for sale until development is complete though. In the BR era, there were prototypes on the rails: the PEPs, the 151s etc. Problems were ironed out at the prototype stage, or entire projects scrapped, before the final production.

You just simply can’t test railway vehicles in real-world situations without selling any.

Car manufacturers have enough financial leeway (and private and public road availability) to build and test multiple prototype vehicles.
You can’t ask a railway rolling stock manufacturer to build three train prototypes (knowing trains can cost anywhere between 2 and 30 million quid) to test them without a guarantee they will sell some to compensate for the related development and construction costs.

Plus, trains are purpose-built (even when they share a platform with existing trains), so you’ll need to have sold some in a given specification to actually test said spec.

The BREL prototype example isn’t valid, as they knew they would sell some trains anyway (derived from a prototype or not) because British Rail almost wouldn’t buy trains from any other manufacturer, if at all.

Finally, I don’t get why we should compare a car and a train in the first place.
One is a mass-produced vehicle, costing most of the time less than 60 000 quid and lasting most of the time less than 15 years. The other is a purpose-built industrial vehicle, costing up to 30 million quid for a high-speed-train, which can last up to 40 years, often more, equipped with a lot more equipment to go wrong, and used much more intensively for millions and millions of miles.

In an industry where so much public and investor money is involved, you have to understand why there is such an emphasis on testing trains. Reputation is very fragile for train manufacturers, and a lack of orders can make a company go bust very quickly.

In any case, I don’t see why this is becoming a problem. Long testing periods and teething issues aren’t anything new for trains, and in the end the trains do end up in service sooner or later, and do become sufficiently or very reliable with time, most of the time.

 

[wobman]

It is a fair comparison, as the 196s are based on the same platform as the Northern 195s, so they have had some time to get this right. The 196s and 197s are essentially run-on orders from the 195s so there's no real excuse if they don't work out of the box.

There's a major difference though between a 195 and a 196 or 197, the gangway doors that 195's don't have.
I know there's been lots of software problems that need resolving and the 196 and 197 are fitted with a very different coupler set up.

Caf are learning during the testing with the 196 and 197 no testing on routes, I don't the made in Spain the assembled in Newport then taken apart to go by road then reasessembled at Donnington helps matters to be honest.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You just simply can’t test railway vehicles in real-world situations without selling any.

Car manufacturers have enough financial leeway (and private and public road availability) to build and test multiple prototype vehicles.
You can’t ask a railway rolling stock manufacturer to build three train prototypes (knowing trains can cost anywhere between 2 and 30 million quid) to test them without a guarantee they will sell some to compensate for the related development and construction costs.

Plus, trains are purpose-built (even when they share a platform with existing trains), so you’ll need to have sold some in a given specification to actually test said spec.

The BREL prototype example isn’t valid, as they knew they would sell some trains anyway (derived from a prototype or not) because British Rail almost wouldn’t buy trains from any other manufacturer, if at all.

When did the BREL monopoly end? The mark 4s and 156s were Metro-Cammell rather than BREL weren't they, and the 155s British Leyland, while I understand that the class 91s were a collaboration between BREL and GEC-Alstom (I'm guessing designed and built by BREL with GEC-Alstom traction motors and related componets)?

I ask this because, with the class 89, which isn't all that much older, BREL only sold one (the prototype).

Finally, I don’t get why we should compare a car and a train in the first place.
One is a mass-produced vehicle, costing most of the time less than 60 000 quid and lasting most of the time less than 15 years. The other is a purpose-built industrial vehicle, costing up to 30 million quid for a high-speed-train, which can last up to 40 years, often more, equipped with a lot more equipment to go wrong, and used much more intensively for millions and millions of miles.

You have a valid point that cars are mass-produced to a degree that trains aren't, but I don't see how £30m for a high-speed train is a valid argument. A car is a single vehicle, so cost-wise you should compare a single rail vehicle (which if I recall correctly range in cost from about £800k for a trailer coach to about £2m for a locomotive). Still, that's probably enough of a difference in price to support the argument that rail vehicles and road vehicles aren't really all that comparable.

 

[43096]

There's a major difference though between a 195 and a 196 or 197, the gangway doors that 195's don't have.
I know there's been lots of software problems that need resolving and the 196 and 197 are fitted with a very different coupler set up.

But in the grand scheme of things a gangway is just a change to the cabs, it's not a fundamental change to the base design. Similarly with the couplers: if the electrical connections are above or below is just a positioning thing; it's not a major change to the electrical design. If CAF really can't get this right, then it rather reinforces the view of their capabilities.

 

[43096]

When did the BREL monopoly end? The mark 4s and 156s were Metro-Cammell rather than BREL weren't they, and the 155s British Leyland, while I understand that the class 91s were a collaboration between BREL and GEC-Alstom (I'm guessing designed and built by BREL with GEC-Alstom traction motors and related componets)?

Class 91 was a GEC-Alsthom design and they were the prime contractor. GEC-Alsthom sub-contracted assembly to BREL Crewe.

I ask this because, with the class 89, which isn't all that much older, BREL only sold one (the prototype).

BREL didn't sell any 89s, as it was a Brush design. As with the 91s, construction was sub-contracted to BREL.

 

[Wyrleybart]

You just simply can’t test railway vehicles in real-world situations without selling any.

Car manufacturers have enough financial leeway (and private and public road availability) to build and test multiple prototype vehicles.
You can’t ask a railway rolling stock manufacturer to build three train prototypes (knowing trains can cost anywhere between 2 and 30 million quid) to test them without a guarantee they will sell some to compensate for the related development and construction costs.

The BREL prototype example isn’t valid, as they knew they would sell some trains anyway (derived from a prototype or not) because British Rail almost wouldn’t buy trains from any other manufacturer, if at all.

Finally, I don’t get why we should compare a car and a train in the first place.
One is a mass-produced vehicle, costing most of the time less than 60 000 quid and lasting most of the time less than 15 years. The other is a purpose-built industrial vehicle, costing up to 30 million quid for a high-speed-train, which can last up to 40 years, often more, equipped with a lot more equipment to go wrong, and used much more intensively for millions and millions of miles.

In an industry where so much public and investor money is involved, you have to understand why there is such an emphasis on testing trains. Reputation is very fragile for train manufacturers, and a lack of orders can make a company go bust very quickly.

In any case, I don’t see why this is becoming a problem. Long testing periods and teething issues aren’t anything new for trains, and in the end the trains do end up in service sooner or later, and do become sufficiently or very reliable with time, most of the time.

There have been numerous examples of protoypes being built DB were particularly good at it, producing a handful of examples before honing the design for the production batch. The DB class 120 electrics were a classic case of five prototype class 120.0s

Here in the UK 210001 and 210002 were prototypes each wit ha different power unit. The PEPs as mentioned. but a generation earlier several diesel shunting locos including one preserved on the K&WVR which with it's sister were built to compare electric and hydraulic transmissions.

 

[TRAX]

There have been numerous examples of protoypes being built DB were particularly good at it, producing a handful of examples before honing the design for the production batch. The DB class 120 electrics were a classic case of five prototype class 120.0s

Here in the UK 210001 and 210002 were prototypes each wit ha different power unit. The PEPs as mentioned. but a generation earlier several diesel shunting locos including one preserved on the K&WVR which with it's sister were built to compare electric and hydraulic transmissions.

The EuroSprinter and Octeon/TRAXX prototypes were other great examples of prototypes (often multiple versions) becoming successful serial designs.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Be interesting to see if any of the units handed over to WMT have had their door panels fitted yet.

Since moving depots I haven't had the same level of information on these units, last tidbits were from the company agreeing to work trains as they do with 170/172s. Certainly didn't arrive with panels that's for sure!

No point training drivers to drive trains they can't operate eh...

 

[LowLevel]

Be interesting to see if any of the units handed over to WMT have had their door panels fitted yet.

Since moving depots I haven't had the same level of information on these units, last tidbits were from the company agreeing to work trains as they do with 170/172s. Certainly didn't arrive with panels that's for sure!

No point training drivers to drive trains they can't operate eh...

The last update I saw was a formal memo from WMR to say the 196s would run with conventional guard operation, not even the driver door release as agreed, owing to the impracticalities of making any of the necessary changes in time with the massive delays and the imperative being to get the trains in traffic. That was in the last month or two.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

The last update I saw was a formal memo from WMR to say the 196s would run with conventional guard operation, not even the driver door release as agreed, owing to the impracticalities of making any of the necessary changes in time with the massive delays and the imperative being to get the trains in traffic. That was in the last month or two.

The driver door release had never been agreed anyway. Don't believe h&s reps have finished the station visits to work on the methodology of dco.

But that was probably the same document I was referring to. Good news all round really, I miss working 172s!

 

[Chris172]

How many of these trains are built? According to wikipedia which I know isn't the best source to obtain info states that all were built 2019-2020?

 

[Liam L]

How many of these trains are built? According to wikipedia which I know isn't the best source to obtain info states that all were built 2019-2020?

I think all of them have been built now, Still a few I believe which need to come from the Newport Docks.
There 7 at Donnington Rail freight terminal (near telford) 3 or 4 down at Bletchley (For storage) and the rest are at Tyseley for the ones which have been delivered.

 

[wobman]

It is a fair comparison, as the 196s are based on the same platform as the Northern 195s, so they have had some time to get this right. The 196s and 197s are essentially run-on orders from the 195s so there's no real excuse if they don't work out of the box.

Arent the 196 and 197 fitted with gangway doors and the couplers are of different configuration?
The cab environment is completely different to the 195 as a result and the software is very different as a result.

I think all of them have been built now, Still a few I believe which need to come from the Newport Docks.
There 7 at Donnington Rail freight terminal (near telford) 3 or 4 down at Bletchley (For storage) and the rest are at Tyseley for the ones which have been delivered.

So after the 196s have all arrived its just going to be busy with a further 70 197 units for tfw ? Thanks

 

[Class172]

Arent the 196 and 197 fitted with gangway doors and the couplers are of different configuration?

Yes, both 196 and 197s are fitted with gangways. I believe the difference relating to the coupler is that the electrical pins for these two classes are in a different location to the 195s, presumably a result of the gangway door. Another difference is that 196s have a different window arrangement to the other classes.

 

[Domh245]

The cab environment is completely different to the 195 as a result and the software is very different as a result.

Unless they've completely changed what equipment is in the cab (eg a totally different number of screens, or different buttons with different functions), I struggle to see why the software should be an issue?

 

[wobman]

Unless they've completely changed what equipment is in the cab (eg a totally different number of screens, or different buttons with different functions), I struggle to see why the software should be an issue?

The 197/196 cabs are very different in configuration than a 195, there's a movable wall with cab equipment fitted due to the huge gangway doors.
Speaking to the Northern drivers the 195's are still not problem free, so maybe software issues are ongoing with all caf units.

 

[Domh245]

The 197/196 cabs are very different in configuration than a 195, there's a movable wall with cab equipment fitted due to the huge gangway doors.
Speaking to the Northern drivers the 195's are still not problem free, so maybe software issues are ongoing with all caf units.

I get that, but that shouldn't result in significant changes to software? A screen is a screen and a button a button, regardless of if it's on a desk, the dashboard, a wall or the roof! Having to combine buttons to save space I can understand, but again that shouldn't have to hugely change software, just tweaks to change the inputs the software looks at (and outputs), which shouldn't be any sort of stumbling block.

On the latter point, that's not a surprise but it then becomes a question of why Northern are happy to accept it but WMR aren't? Are we seeing similar to SWR where "new train issues" are being used to mask poor industrial relations?

 

[wobman]

I get that, but that shouldn't result in significant changes to software? A screen is a screen and a button a button, regardless of if it's on a desk, the dashboard, a wall or the roof! Having to combine buttons to save space I can understand, but again that shouldn't have to hugely change software, just tweaks to change the inputs the software looks at (and outputs), which shouldn't be any sort of stumbling block.

On the latter point, that's not a surprise but it then becomes a question of why Northern are happy to accept it but WMR aren't? Are we seeing similar to SWR where "new train issues" are being used to mask poor industrial relations?

I think caf have only handed over 1 unit to tfw so far, there are now 7 x 197s that have been delivered. So caf are sorting out the software bugs and it's nothing to do with the tfw team yet, all new units have problems and it just takes time for mileage accumulation and testing of each unit once delivered. The rog drivers are used by caf for testing etc

 

[norbitonflyer]

The BREL prototype example isn’t valid, as they knew they would sell some trains anyway (derived from a prototype or not) because British Rail almost wouldn’t buy trains from any other manufacturer, if at all.

They did, though. In large numbers. With mixed success.

Looking only at the diesel/electric era up to privatisation, locomotive classes not built by BR
01, 02, 04-07,14-17,20-23, 26-31,33,35,37, 40, 41 (D600 class), 43 (Warship), 48, 50, 53, 55, 59, 60, 81-84, and some of classes 47 and 86,

DMUs - 100-106, 109-113, 117-122, 128, 129, 143, 155, 156, 250, 251 (classes 141, 142 and 144 were built by private companies on BREL underframes)

EMUs (including units built for, but not by, the "Big Four" pre-nationalisation companies):- AM1, 303, 306, 311, 323, 373, 465/2, 466, 483, 485, 486, 487, 505, 506. (Note 482 is absent from this list because the entire 1992 Tube stock fleet was built by BREL)

Mark 1 hauled stock was built by several companies as well as by BR workshops - notably Metro-Cammell (who also built the entire Mark 4 fleet), Birmingham RC&W, Gloucester RC&W, Cravens, Pressed Steel, and Charles Roberts

 

[Liam L]

A few changes today:

196008 / 012 moved from Tyseley LMD to Donnington Rail Freight terminal
196112 moved from Donnington Rail Freight terminal to Tyseley LMD.