I don't think very much about them is acceptable for that route, to be honest. It's really an InterCity type service that is used by many passengers from end to end that happens to call at local stations because a separate local service is uneconomic.
Are you talking about 755s or 197s there, and which route? To me, "an InterCity type service that is used by many passengers from end to end that happens to call at local stations because a separate local service is uneconomic" falls under the term 'Regional Express' (along with similar services where few passengers do the full end-to-end trip, 'regional express' covers a wide range of services in my book) or does that term mean something more-specific to you?
The Cambrian Coast causes a bit of conflict here, though. What would be nice is something properly InterCity like an 80x or a 68 and a fleet of Mk5 coaches, ideally with a buffet and the likes. The trouble is that people won't accept the Coast becoming a connection, so you're stuck with splitting and joining DMUs, and for that to be fair CAFs are better than FLIRTs because they're at least gangwayed.
I agree, the gangways are the one thing TfW has got right about the 197s. However, even if there wasn't portion working you still don't have any high speed sections that justify the pointy noses and the associated loss of space. TfW's rather feeble excuse for reducing toilets on the 197s is that they wanted to maximise seating capacity given that they are now required to have a PRM toilet (which overlooks the facts that 175s have a PRM toilet, a better seat pitch and basiclly the same seating capacity). Clearly, something very space-inefficient exists with the 197s, I can only see three things that could be to blame:
- door width
- door position
- a dedicated space to park the trolley (I don't think either 158s or 175s have one but I may be mistaken)
I still find it slightly worrying that they ever so much as considered ironing boards suitable for 5 hour journeys...
'They' in this case I believe are the private company running the trains - at a guess it would have been in their interests to choose the cheapest seat possible in order to put in a bid that stood a good chance of winning the franchise (by being a cheaper bid than the other 3 bidders) and the Welsh Government presumably didn't think to check until too late although that's guesswork on my part. I think I read somewhere that the Welsh Government spec just said something like 'must be comfortable for a 3 hour journey' with no way of enforcing that.
They will be owned by TfW (which in itself is owned by the Welsh Government).
They will be used by TfW Rail (currently operates by Keolis Amey)
Modern Railways' July 2020 issue was the first time I heard who will own the new TfW fleets, it is
NOT the Welsh Government. There is a special-purpose vehicle ROSCO involved. The details of said ROSCO have already been posted by somebody else.
I wonder whether the 2 car 197’s - which will operate west of Swansea once they have been split from the other 3 coaches - will have enough capacity to meet demand? Of course, much depends upon the frequency of service also provided by the 170’s between Swansea and Pembroke Dock/ Fishguard.
No frequency improvements for Pembrokeshire were included in the franchise annoucements as far as I can recall so it seems likely that the service will be much the same as now with 3-car 170s (I'm guessing the Heart Of Wales will consume all the 2-car ones) replacing the 150s/Pacers/the-odd-158 on Fishguard and Pembroke services and 2-car 197s replacing the current mix of 2-car 175s (much the same seating capacity) and 3-car 175s on the Manchesters.
A good benchmark for both of these is probably when a 158 is substituted onto one of these services. I'm not sure what the situation is like then but I'm sure someone on here is.
The seating capacity of a 158 is actually quite a bit more than a 2-car 175 (inferior seat pitch and smaller wheelchair toilet on a 158) and not all the Milford Haven services are 3-car so in some cases 158 vice 175 is actually an increase in capacity.
"Upgrade"
Ironing board for me any day.
To be fair, the Sophia with the contoured version of the ironing board base would be a nice seat.
There are two versions of the ironing board. The one in the 700 and Southern Electrostars has a totally flat and quite thin and hard base. Northern, ScotRail and (originally) TfW use a thicker, softer, contoured base which is massively more comfortable.
Given that the
Sophia is not the 'ironing board' and the press like to latch on to soundbites like the latter, I propose comendeering a phrase from one of Ian Walmsley's columns and nicknaming the Sophias 'interrogation centre seats'. Do we know that TfW were origninally planning to use the Northern-style 'ironing board', they may have been planning to use the Thameslink version? I've been on a 195 once and a GWR 80x two or three times and I wouldn't consider either seat suitable for a long journey.
It's not that hard to convert them to something else if needs be. You just need something that provides rotation at the specified torque and speed range to the input on the bogie, that can be anything you like, including something that hasn't been invented yet. It's sort of equivalent, really, to changing a house's heating system from wood to heat pump, say.
You could even just shove a loco on the end and adapt the control mechanism to control it if you wanted. Lots of options.
Lots of options maybe, but none (apart from the loco suggestion perhaps) that seem particularly straightforward compared to if these were DEMUs with traction motors. Similarly, the lack of traction motors mean that there is no easy option that would enable Cambrian services to make use of the wires through Birmingham New Street, and extension of electrification from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury seems likely if the government decides to invest in rail decarbonisation (I
think the midlands combined rail authority whatsit have called for electrification of that route and David Shirres' map of electrification schemes has it as 'definite'). With wires from Birmingham International through to Shrewsbury, the Cambrian would be a perfect case for 90/100mph bi-modes (with unit end gangways).
One of the selling points of the Civity, at least to Northern, was that loads of traction options are available for effectively the same train, which theoretically makes conversion, modification, and driver training more flexible. IIRC the other bid was Bombardier, who offered to build Turbostars and Aventras, which Northern rejected because they didn't want the burden of training drivers on two completely different classes at once.
I still maintain that CAF was not a fundementally bad choice, for Northern or for TfW, and it irritates me when people blame CAF for various things which were obviously chosen by the TOC. I've even seen posts on this forum implyiing it is CAF's fault that the units have too few carriages!
It's just that they have both done a frankly shambolic job of the specification (to the extent with Northern of picking what they themselves have proven to be the least favourite available seat among passengers!) making the units entirely unsuitable for what they were ordered for. I'd pick a 158 any day, on either the Cambrian or the Calder Valley, over a 195/197.
I agree; prior to the annoucement my hope was that CAF would get an order for new long-distance trains for Wales (to
supplement the 158s & 175s) as they had self-power capability (diesel) and seemed to be offering everything in their Civity family that I wanted to see on the new fleet:
- OHLE capability (class 397)
- Single-width doors (class 397)
- Doors positioned at or near vehicle ends (class 397)
- Unit end gangways (class 196)
Until the annoucement I had not seen any other manufactuer offering all these features. The one thing we haven't seen from the Civity platform in the UK is bi-mode but I think it is advertised on their website (though isn't clear whether that applies to the UK loading guage version). I have since seen an artist's impression of the bi-mode Aventra which had narrow doors at the vehicle ends so Bombardier could in fact also have offered everything but in either case it was the specification that killed it not the choice of manufacturer. That applies both to KeolisAmey's specification (which asked for this junk) and to the Welsh Government's specification for the franchise (for not mandating better).
Could that possibly be because a contract had already been signed with Fainsa to provide seats, which the weren't able to cancel at that point, but which they were able to upgrade?
That was my thought, but the explanation I've seen from TfW (or was it TfWRS?) stated that the Sophia was the highest specification seat available which would not require a redesign. A redesign they said would delay introduction of the new fleet (and possibly add further cost, but I can't remember if they said that bit). Perhaps it's a bit of both (redesign required AND existing contract with Fainsa) and they aren't telling us the full story.
What is Bombardier's current diesel product then?
I seem to remember reading when the Aventra was first introduced that Bombardier no longer had a diesel product, so when they announced the bi-mode Aventra they were reintroducing diesel engines to their product line. I have not seen anything to suggest that they have reintroduced a straight DMU so I think the bi-mode Aventra remains their only diesel product.
TfW (WG) might well have offered usage guarantees for a fixed period (similar to a Section 54 DfT guarantee).
I think they have for the class 170s (in
this (PDF) table on the TfW site the lease end date is given as "16/10/2033 + [REDACTED]" but for the Civities the lease end date is given as just "16/10/2033". That doesn't necessarily mean that is no usage guarantee on the 197s (I have spotted some errors on those tables), but it does suggest that they might only be stuck to us like super-super-glue for 11 years (still far, far too long and still a waste of resources constructing them).
