Indeed. But it's a subjective opinion, not an objective look at the units. I'm not claiming a monopoly - I'm simply assessing the units from a balanced position. For instance, you can't disagree that the Civity is lighter than a Desiro. Thus, it costs less to operate and helps to reduce cost to the end user/tax payer. It's an objective assessment rather than subjective to your personal opinions/preferences.
So a balanced view would be to take a Civity and compare it with a similar aged competitor, i.e. the Desiro City. Well there's no Desiro City DMU so lets compare the EMUs, both modern lightweight designs:
Well the CAF has a specific weight of 1.66t/m length for the 4-car unit and 1.75t/m length for the 3-car unit. The Desiro City has a specific weight of 1.69t/m length for the 12-car unit and 1.72t/m length for the 8-car unit. So as I would expect, both units are of similar weight commensurate with modern construction practice. Thay makes it even more significant that CAF have provided a suspension design that looks just like it's competitors, but doesn't compare in performance. As for costs, well, with the problems experienced with the Civities, I'm not sure that the cost of ownership is necessarily any better than the Desiro Citys. Buy cheap, pay later.
But on what basis or comparison? What about them, aside from a firm ride, do you dislike? Of those opinions, is anything genuinely inferior to other traction types (again, to be objective about it). Is it just that the firm ride is such a bug bear for you, you can't look past it? (No criticism of your opinion implied here, I'm just curious).
I have only criticised them on the issue surrounding their suspension as experienced by me and others. That is not a 'firm ride' issue, it is an unstable jitter that smacks of poor damping setup. It is significant that it hasn't been fixed yet so maybe it is a fundamental design failing. Then there's the failure of the yaw damper bracket detachment. Both serious issues, not some nit-picking aesthetic whinge.
Except that's simply not true. 170s are the only DMU in that age range. If you want to replace a sprinter, it's a cascaded 170 or new build. You only have to look to Scotrails early withdrawl (or phased withdrawl) to see that 170s are not short of issues.
The 170s have been in service for up to 24 years, and along with their sibling class 168, are well into the second half of their service life. Some may be nearing withdrawl or major refurbishment, but they remain in revenue service on a number of lines.
From a customer perspective (and in my opinion), the Chapman seated units are superb. Unfortunately, though, the units are not operationally desirable - not especially reliable, performance is lacklustre and they don't really belong on any flow in the UK now - infact, they're probably best suited to Scottish long distance from which they're being retired.
That's your opinion, yet that are still in use on various services and passengers are quite happy with them.
What would you rather have happened? Waited years for electrification and kept the Pacers going? Why order bi-mode units when the bulk of work is not on electrified infrastructure? Despite the units being "greenwashed" as bi-mode, you'd be spending thousands, paying an inflated diesel bill and pumping out more pollution to lug around unnecessary electric traction equipment for decades.
At their time of introduction they are operating on a number of services that include running under wires, and consequently sitting in urban stations churning out CO2 and pollutants. Electrification is spreading and that will increase considerably. As for your assertion that DEMUs are less efficient than DMUs, where are you getting that information from. A DEMU runs it's engine at its most efficient speed compatible with the power required. A DMU has to run at a speed fast enough to rotate the wheels throughthe torque converter. That's why the Voyagers/Meridians have such well matched power curves and acceptable acceleration. Even the 769s, despite there reliabilioty issues, run quieter, and are more fuel efficient thann the 150s that some of them replace. What you call unnecessary traction equipment comprises a transformer, probably less than 2% of the total weight, which will enable the diesel engines to be turned off for at least part of their journeys.
Care to evidence any viable alternative within a 10 year time frame?
Not sure what you mean there.
So, you make a green arguement against the 195s, but the gas guzzling, overweight 185s are fine. We ignore the reduced electric consumption and mass of the 331. The super PIS is disregared. The far superior internal layout for standing passengers and absorbing crowds of the Civity is a convenient objective factor to turn a blind eye to. The list really does go on but I won't labor the point.
How many more times do I need to remind you that the 185s are not normal utility DMUs, - they were designed for a specific route with many gradients to operate a pseudo inter-city service. The trains themselves are powerful and heavy, such that they are only cleared for a limited number of routes and often then their speeds are limited as well. The difficulties in cascading them are evidence of their 'special status'. They are also considerable older than the 'latest technology' Civities.
The green argument against the DMU civities is that they are diesel-only trains and are stuch that way for the rest of their lives. The class 196 and 197 are also stuck in the polluting past, so their purchasers have also missed an opportunity to reduce the
net level of pollution they will contribute in their lives.
As I said earlier - I'm genuinely interested in what you see the flaws as. Is it just the suspension? Because that aside, pretty much every niggle in a Civity - those little things that could have been better - is shared with other units (which, pretty universally, have their own list of niggles), but there's nothing major from where I'm standing that makes the Civity a shabby offering for the 21st century.
My criticism of the Civities, explained more than once before in this thread are that:
1) They have a poor ride even on good well-laid track that excites severe vertical oscillation, not just the 331s which I first travelled on, but also the 195s and even the 125mph 397s. All thre of thos classes share a common bogie design that looks just like a Siemens SG7000 of Bombardier Flexx-Eco type but certainly doesn't ride like one. That to me is a design shortfall and unless fixed will dog the units for the rest of their operational life.
2) There has been a structural failure in teh body design such that several units had cracks where the yaw damper bracket was attached, and on bracket actually detached completely. This is a severe design or materials failure and under certain circumstances, could have resulted in a majoy brakdown or even a derailment.
I have not commented about the seats, table, window alignment, PIS, lighting or decor, - that is all cosmetics, it's the fundamental safe running of rolling stock that concerns me. Other units that I have compared them with - both of the same age or older do not share faults of this type.
