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

[anamyd]

First bodyshell has come off the production line in Spain. Pics seen but not for me to share

Many thanks for that! Gutted I can't see it This is big news as it means that production of TfW's brand new trains has started! I'm guessing that Stadler will start production not too long from now...? Maybe that could do with its own thread

 

[Rhydgaled]

First bodyshell has come off the production line in Spain. Pics seen but not for me to share

Are you 100% sure this is the real steel train? There was talk of a mock-up being made to show off the design (presumably before final sign-off on said design), and if I recall correctly the first unit isn't due in service until late next year. So, could it have been the mock-up that you've seen pictures of?

 

[6Gtraincrew]

Are you 100% sure this is the real steel train? There was talk of a mock-up being made to show off the design (presumably before final sign-off on said design), and if I recall correctly the first unit isn't due in service until late next year. So, could it have been the mock-up that you've seen pictures of?

No. Deffo real one.

Mock-up wise, I saw pics of the stadler tram train a few weeks ago. Maybe that is the mock-up you have heard about.

 

[Rhydgaled]

No. Deffo real one.

Mock-up wise, I saw pics of the stadler tram train a few weeks ago. Maybe that is the mock-up you have heard about.

Thanks for the reply. I've not heard anything about a mock-up of the tram train - are you able to share those pics (and info on where the mock-up is and whether the public will get to see it)?

Here's a quote:

“The mock-ups for new Class 197 trains will be arriving in Wales within the next few months and we’ll be using feedback from our passengers to shape our services. We look forward to introducing these exciting new trains to passenger groups who will have the opportunity to share their views on the choice of seating.”

from this article about the choice of seats on the 197s. A bit late for passenger groups to have their say if the real bodyshells are already under construction.

One of SARPA's (Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth Rail Passengers Association) concerns is the reduced number of toilets planned - only one on a 2-car unit compared to 2 on a 158. Toilet provision is pretty much locked in stone if the trains are under construction, so the best long-distance passengers can hope for is the order to be reduced in number so that the new fleet can be kept on the shorter routes.

Even then, Manchester - Llandundo/Bangor (the shortest of the Civity routes I can think of other than stuff like Conwy valley which won't use many units) is over 2 hours. Would I be correct in saying that Manchester - Llandudno/Bangor (including the current peak extras between Manchester and Chester extended back to Llandudno) is about 7 diagrams?

 

[Goldfish62]

Indeed, trials were made but it was never solved, I understand it was considered worse than even the Cravens at their 75mph maximum! I expect these trains won't ride especially well either, rough over crossings and points and on worn plain line, seems to be the norm with CAF products though it's not particular to just them.

I've ridden on plenty of CAF trains in Spain and have never noticed a ride quality issue. However, the difference is the UK track quality, which is generally not to the same standard as many other European countries, and use of inside frame bogies, which no manufacturer has yet managed to refine to provide an acceptable ride quality.

I travelled on an IET through Devon yesterday sat above the bogie and the ride quality was absolutely appalling. Not satisfied with making seats as uncomfortable as possible, the DfT and rail industry have now set about ride quality.

 

[krus_aragon]

Would I be correct in saying that Manchester - Llandudno/Bangor (including the current peak extras between Manchester and Chester extended back to Llandudno) is about 7 diagrams?

Manchester Piccadilly to Llandudno is two hours either way, and there's an hour turnaround at each end (during which the units shuttle to the Junction at one end, and run to the Airport or sit in a siding at the other). That makes for a basic six diagrams, excluding peak extras, so I think you're pretty much on the money, there. Naturally, having the MkIII rake in the middle of it mucks the diagramming up a bit for the time being.

 

[S-Bahn]

Do the CAF Civities have any advantages over the existing 175's?

 

[hexagon789]

Do the CAF Civities have any advantages over the existing 175's?

Acceleration and I believe fuel economy.

 

[hexagon789]

I've ridden on plenty of CAF trains in Spain and have never noticed a ride quality issue. However, the difference is the UK track quality, which is generally not to the same standard as many other European countries, and use of inside frame bogies, which no manufacturer has yet managed to refine to provide an acceptable ride quality.

I travelled on an IET through Devon yesterday sat above the bogie and the ride quality was absolutely appalling. Not satisfied with making seats as uncomfortable as possible, the DfT and rail industry have now set about ride quality.

I'm not convinced it's purely track quality. Every CAF train I rode in Spain rode equally as abysmally as their British offspring

 

[Bletchleyite]

Acceleration and I believe fuel economy.

And doors at thirds for faster loading and unloading, most notably at Manchester Piccadilly P13/14.

 

[hexagon789]

And doors at thirds for faster loading and unloading, most notably at Manchester Piccadilly P13/14.

That too, suburban door layout. Rather a sort of updated Turbostar-like design in that respect. 100mph capable and usable on suburban and regional services.

 

[samuelmorris]

That too, suburban door layout. Rather a sort of updated Turbostar-like design in that respect. 100mph capable and usable on suburban and regional services.

Or, just a turbostar. Really 197s will just be a different iteration of 172s. Pretty much the same traction gear, doors at 2/3, gangways and vehicle length very similar. They may very well have been 172s if Bombardier still produced them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That too, suburban door layout. Rather a sort of updated Turbostar-like design in that respect. 100mph capable and usable on suburban and regional services.

From my experience of them, other than a few nice features like the large overhead luggage racks, "poor man's Turbostar" is a better description. I don't mind them, having done a fair few hundred miles on them now, but they are not really a worthy successor to the Turbostar, and will be even less so when TfW put Fainsa Sophia seats in them; they are more a Turbostar on the cheap.

 

[hexagon789]

Or, just a turbostar. Really 197s will just be a different iteration of 172s. Pretty much the same traction gear, doors at 2/3, gangways and vehicle length very similar. They may very well have been 172s if Bombardier still produced them.

Funnily enough, they do remind me of 172s in more ways than one.

 

[hexagon789]

From my experience of them, other than a few nice features like the large overhead luggage racks, "poor man's Turbostar" is a better description. I don't mind them, having done a fair few hundred miles on them now, but they are not really a worthy successor to the Turbostar, and will be even less so when TfW put Fainsa Sophia seats in them; they are more a Turbostar on the cheap.

While they aren't perfect, apart from the door positions letting in draughts, 170s on ScotRail were always comfortable, if they'd updated that design but with the newer more powerful traction package, I think they'd have had a winner.

As such the CAF units two greatest downfalls appear to be seats and bogies, closely followed by toilet provision for the longer journeys.

All rectifiable, but for what cost...

 

[Goldfish62]

I'm not convinced it's purely track quality. Every CAF train I rode in Spain rode equally as abysmally as their British offspring

I didn't actually say it was purely track quality. The common denominator between all manufacturers is the lightweight inside frame bogie. None of them, be it Siemens, Bombardier, CAF or Hitachi have been able to make ride quality come anywhere near that of traditional outside frame bogies.

 

[Richard Scott]

I've ridden on plenty of CAF trains in Spain and have never noticed a ride quality issue. However, the difference is the UK track quality, which is generally not to the same standard as many other European countries, and use of inside frame bogies, which no manufacturer has yet managed to refine to provide an acceptable ride quality.

I travelled on an IET through Devon yesterday sat above the bogie and the ride quality was absolutely appalling. Not satisfied with making seats as uncomfortable as possible, the DfT and rail industry have now set about ride quality.

Ridden on some atrocious quality track in Europe - I would say ours is as good, if not better, than a number of European countries. If want truly appalling ride quality a French AGC unit on any track will take some beating - these things bottom out at the drop of a hat.

 

[Bob Price]

Couple of pictures here
https://twitter.com/tfwrail/status/1227593919476772865?s=19

 

[Bletchleyite]

Couple of pictures here
https://twitter.com/tfwrail/status/1227593919476772865?s=19

4 window bays in the middle - so I assume misaligned bays as per Northern, then?

 

[anamyd]

Couple of pictures here
https://twitter.com/tfwrail/status/1227593919476772865?s=19

So good to see the start of the building of the brand new TfW trains!

 

[anamyd]

Forgot to say, looking at the shape of the light recesses, they do seem to be closer to the 196 design than in the 2018 mockups where they looked more like 380 ones.

 

[krus_aragon]

4 window bays in the middle - so I assume misaligned bays as per Northern, then?

That's what was indicated in the internal renders that were floating around in 2018:

(from https://www.dailypost.co.uk/business/business-news/new-trains-serve-north-wales-15094921)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Poor. I do understand the "we need the same bodyshell for 1st and Standard" thing, but most of these units will be Standard only so, as CAF does offer a different window layout as WMT have ordered (where a window is Standard-bay-sized), this is sheer laziness/penny-pinching/incompetence.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Manchester Piccadilly to Llandudno is two hours either way, and there's an hour turnaround at each end (during which the units shuttle to the Junction at one end, and run to the Airport or sit in a siding at the other). That makes for a basic six diagrams, excluding peak extras, so I think you're pretty much on the money, there. Naturally, having the MkIII rake in the middle of it mucks the diagramming up a bit for the time being.

Thanks; 20 class 197 units is probably about right then (7x 4-car diagrams = 14 units plus Conwy Valley and the Crewe-Chester shuttle makes 16 in service with four spare / in for maintainance; suppose you could put one on Crewe-Shrewsbury too). Anymore than 20 built and these 'Turbostars on the cheap' will have to work 3hr journeys (or longer), and that's assuming they make the N.Wales-Manchesters 4-car (a big assumption to make given how tight their proposed Cambrian fleet is).

Do the CAF Civities have any advantages over the existing 175's?

Unit end gangways and air quality (reduced NOX and particulates from the exhaust). Very little else; TfW claim a 30% fuel saving too but I can't see how with the additional exhast cleaning systems.

As such the CAF units two greatest downfalls appear to be seats and bogies, closely followed by toilet provision for the longer journeys.

And a total inability to make use of OHLE where available, thus killing any case for electrification stone dead for the next 30 years.

Regarding the toilets, do TfW's 3-car 170s have three toilets? The XC seat plan shows only two toilets, but the TfW franchise document says a 3-car 170 has 3 toilets.

4 window bays in the middle - so I assume misaligned bays as per Northern, then?

Northern's 195 windows are 129.5cm x 76.5cm with deadspace of 48cm between them I think. Think that aligns to a bay seat pitch of 177.5cm (129.5+48) and TfW told me that the bay pitch on 197 is 180cm so 2.5cm out.

Poor. I do understand the "we need the same bodyshell for 1st and Standard" thing, but most of these units will be Standard only so, as CAF does offer a different window layout as WMT have ordered (where a window is Standard-bay-sized), this is sheer laziness/penny-pinching/incompetence.

Since these are replacing 175s and the population is getting taller on average it should really be done to the class 175's seat pitch which is probably equivalent to 1st class spacing anyway. Plus the WMT approach doesn't work here since the bay seat pitch is GREATER than the size of the 195's windows, meaning we need larger windows not smaller ones like WMT. Unless of course TfW got the pitch wrong when they told me; they got the toilet count wrong (they told me it was 2 loos on every unit, not only the 3-car ones).

 

[Llama]

I'm not convinced it's purely track quality. Every CAF train I rode in Spain rode equally as abysmally as their British offspring

It's not track quality, they ride badly on perfect track. The problem is the tiny volume of air suspension. A 15x unit rides better than CAF stock even with the suspension deflated on the 15x.

 

[krus_aragon]

Anymore than 20 built and these 'Turbostars on the cheap' will have to work 3hr journeys (or longer), and that's assuming they make the N.Wales-Manchesters 4-car (a big assumption to make given how tight their proposed Cambrian fleet is).

The longest diagrams they'll be on is Manchester to Milford Haven, which is six hours.

 

[hexagon789]

And a total inability to make use of OHLE where available, thus killing any case for electrification stone dead for the next 30 years.

Regarding the toilets, do TfW's 3-car 170s have three toilets? The XC seat plan shows only two toilets, but the TfW franchise document says a 3-car 170 has 3 toilets.

That's a fault of being specced as diesel and not bi-mode, rather than a fault of CAF themselves.

Afaik XC 170s are all two toilets irrespective of length, the ex-GA ones are two in the 2-car and three in the 3-car presumably because of the original specifications for their 3-car units effectively as InterCity trains rather than regional/commuter as with some operators.

 

[hexagon789]

It's not track quality, they ride badly on perfect track. The problem is the tiny volume of air suspension. A 15x unit rides better than CAF stock even with the suspension deflated on the 15x.

Well that's what I was getting at, CAF products seem to ride poorly irrespective of track quality, it's just more pronounced on poorer track than good track.

 

[Rhydgaled]

That's a fault of being specced as diesel and not bi-mode, rather than a fault of CAF themselves.

Isn't the limited toilet provision (and probably the seats, unless someone along the line signed an exclusive with Fainsa) also a case of poor specification? If so, only the bogies could really be described as CAF's fault.

Afaik XC 170s are all two toilets irrespective of length, the ex-GA ones are two in the 2-car and three in the 3-car presumably because of the original specifications for their 3-car units effectively as InterCity trains rather than regional/commuter as with some operators.

Thanks for confirming that the ex-GA (now TfW) 170s do have three toilets in the 3-car sets; apart from the lack of unit-end gangways they're probably far better suited for the long distance work than the 197s.

 

[Goldfish62]

It's not track quality, they ride badly on perfect track. The problem is the tiny volume of air suspension. A 15x unit rides better than CAF stock even with the suspension deflated on the 15x.

Don't you think that the inside frame bogies have an adverse impact on ride quality? Ian Walmsley certainly thinks so and my experience of rolling stock fitted with such bogies suggests this is the case.