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

[krus_aragon]

The MKIV announcements are torturous and enough alone to motivate me to deliberately choose a 175 on a long journey over one of the hauled sets.

I'm the opposite: while I also like quiet journeys, the lack of underfloor engines on the MkIVs leaves me favouring them over 175s. From my brief glance at 197004, I'll probably continue that practice with them, too. (I'll be happy enough with a 197 on local routes, though.)

 

[The_Train]

I am sure this has been covered before, but do we know which will be the main depot the 197s are going to be allocated to?

 

[berneyarms]

I am sure this has been covered before, but do we know which will be the main depot the 197s are going to be allocated to?

Chester!

 

[The_Train]

Chester!

Thank you

 

[Sheridan]

The train lost time on all legs today, which is hard to understand.
It can obviously get to the low line speeds involved (45/50mph) quite easily.
The time must have been lost in station overtime, including a couple of wheelchairs. Rail conditions weren't great (drizzle, big leaf fall).

I don’t think there will be a huge difference on the Conwy Valley between 197s and 150s in terms of how quickly they can get up to linespeed. All the training is taking place on the 75/90mph mainline so maybe drivers will take some time to get used to handling them on the steep gradients and low speeds of the branch.

 

[L401CJF]

I would expect station dwell times, crew changeovers and so on to cost a bit of time for the phased introduction period.

Guards will take a while to get used to working with ASDO, new ramp operation and so on. Drivers will take a while to get used to new rates of acceleration and deceleration, getting used to the cab layout, aswell as setting up the cab when they take over or change ends. Once everybody gets used to it things should flow a bit smoother

 

[Dai Corner]

I would expect station dwell times, crew changeovers and so on to cost a bit of time for the phased introduction period.

Guards will take a while to get used to working with ASDO, new ramp operation and so on. Drivers will take a while to get used to new rates of acceleration and deceleration, getting used to the cab layout, aswell as setting up the cab when they take over or change ends. Once everybody gets used to it things should flow a bit smoother

Indeed.

For example, timekeeping was poor on the Severn Beach branch when Turbos were first introduced but they soon got used to the new trains.

 

[warwickshire]

I would expect station dwell times, crew changeovers and so on to cost a bit of time for the phased introduction period.

Guards will take a while to get used to working with ASDO, new ramp operation and so on. Drivers will take a while to get used to new rates of acceleration and deceleration, getting used to the cab layout, aswell as setting up the cab when they take over or change ends. Once everybody gets used to it things should flow a bit smoother

Also same situation but with SDO on the 175 when new 22 years ago. Same areas to begin with and same maintenance depot. Chester.
Only difference was first services was Lllandudo to Manchester. But quite famously in history like the 175. 197s also share Lllandudo services as the first entry into service. However Lllandudo once again has a clame to fame. With another class first into service. With the same base at Chester for the depot.

 

[185143]

I'm pretty sure I've heard it spoken recently too, possibly on a MkIV rake.

Possibly on an Avanti Voyager?

Oh dear. That sounds horribly like Elin, that you’ll hear on MK4s. Don’t get me wrong, the Welsh accent is lovely, but Elin’s voice is grating.

It is, though the announcements aren't nearly as tortuous as the Mk4s.

The main thing I had concerns about is the provision of toilet facilities, or rather, the lack of them compared to the 175s given the routes they'll be operating. I boarded the 197 at Llandudno Junction last night for the final round trip to Blaenau Ffestiniog... and guess what? Toilet out of order! No water.

If a day running on a (normally, at least) fairly lightly used branch line is too much for the loo, that does not bode well for the future!

Mixed thoughts on them really. They do feel like a slightly nicer 195 really. The window/seat alignment has been sorted out. The food storage area seems to take up a LOT of space, and one fairly small luggage stack per carriage seems woefully inadequate too. The conductor mentioned about not only the ramps being awkward with two separate parts, as mentioned upthread, they're in two separate cupboards!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The window/seat alignment has been sorted out.

No, it hasn't, there are plenty of misaligned seats, it just isn't as obvious as unlike the 195 it's not all tables. The 196 does sort it out, though.

The food storage area seems to take up a LOT of space

Yes, this seems a very poor design. There's basically only half a coach of seats in one coach of the 2-car set. You could have a full buffet counter and a couple of standing tables in the space they've wasted on that!

and one fairly small luggage stack per carriage seems woefully inadequate too.

The overheads are huge on CAF stock, but yes, this is a concern for a TOC that carries a LOT of holidaymakers.

The conductor mentioned about not only the ramps being awkward with two separate parts, as mentioned upthread, they're in two separate cupboards!

How bizarre. Are other 19x ramps in two parts? I don't think the entrance step differs between them?

 

[sefyllian]

The window/seat alignment has been sorted out.

No, it hasn't, there are plenty of misaligned seats, it just isn't as obvious as unlike the 195 it's not all tables. The 196 does sort it out, though.

The 196s have “sorted it out” by making the windows smaller and ramming in an extra row of seats, though, so there’s less light and less leg room. Not sure why that’s considered a good thing.

The windows on 195s and 197s are reasonably sized for their seating – as can be seen in the end sections of each carriage, where the 6 rows of seats and windows are aligned well.

The difference is that while a 196 has 10 rows in the central section (i.e. between the doors), a 197 has 9 rows and a 195 has 7 (plus tip up seats at either end for more circulation space around the doors).

You just cannot have an odd number of rows of seating aligned perfectly, no matter what size windows you have. (Well, unless one window is half the width of the others, which would look ridiculous.)

Seems to me that Northern and TfW have made perfectly acceptable choices based on the intended use. The seat alignment is fine. I’d much, much, much rather have more leg room (that is, more comfort and ease of use) than worry about a pillar being slightly out of line, and I’d guess most passengers would say the same.

(I’ve never understood the obsession with seat alignment anyway, I often head straight for a seat without a window if I can – easier to work on a laptop without the sunlight, and easier to sleep with your head on a wall instead of the glass!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 196s have “sorted it out” by making the windows smaller and ramming in an extra row of seats, though, so there’s less light and less leg room. Not sure why that’s considered a good thing.

The windows are slightly smaller, but the table seat legroom is fine for me (and I'm very tall) - my knees are roughly at the centreline of the table. If thinner backed seats such as the ironing board or Sophia* had been used, there'd be plenty of airline seat legroom too.

* I know, I don't like the Sophia, but the FISA LEAN is a thick backed seat - with a Sophia you do get about an inch or so more legroom, which is the upside of it in e.g. the Class 80x, where I fit all seats.

The difference is that while a 196 has 10 rows in the central section (i.e. between the doors), a 197 has 9 rows and a 195 has 7 (plus tip up seats at either end for more circulation space around the doors).

The central section of the 196 is longer and the doors further apart. They haven't just crammed a row in. The spacing is very similar to the 195 or 197, they have just used their brain.

The 196 is a train where serious effort has gone into the design. The 195 is just CAF's cheapest option painted blue, and the 197 is barely better by the look of things. I was properly impressed with the 196.

 

[Wyrleybart]

As I've pointed out many times, there's plenty of space for growth if it turns out TfW have got their maths wrong. Unlike with the current fleet, converting more 197s to be ETCS capable is a fairly simple process. If they need to shuffle units round to make more available for the Cambrian, it can be done.

The problems up till now with capacity on the Cambrian have been that there were no further 158s available for conversion, and that to convert any other DMU would require both a bespoke design, and the training up of Cambrian traincrew - not that there were any more DMUs available anyway. 197s have been designed from the outset to be compatible with ETCS, and once converted no further training is required.

My understanding with Pwllheli is that the work is indeed due to take place (if it hasn't already) to allow 4 car services to run. Bear in mind though that for most of the year and for most services a 2 car 197 will provide more than enough capacity. Tying yourself to 3 or 4 cars would just be a waste of diesel.

I would disagree. The whole point of DMUs is you couple them together.
Back in 1978 we coupled 3 two car sets together for the "Coast mail" 0655 Machynlleth-Pwllheli. IIRC the train split at Barmouth and the trailing set worked back to Mach' as a school train, whilst the four cars continued to Pwllheli serving schools in the northbound direction.

 

[sefyllian]

The central section of the 196 is longer and the doors further apart. They haven't just crammed a row in.

They’re the same overall length as the 195 and 197s. Makes no difference where you stick the doors – if there’s an extra row of seats, then there’s less room between them. If pillars bother you, you can just sit in the end sections.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They’re the same overall length as the 195 and 197s. Makes no difference where you stick the doors – if there’s an extra row of seats, then there’s less room between them. If pillars bother you, you can just sit in the end sections.

You were saying that there are 10 rows in the central section against 9 in the 197. That's because the central section is longer, not because an extra row has been crammed in.

It's harder to apply "count the rows" to the whole unit as the proportions of e.g. tables are different. I'd need to know the actual measured seat pitch for a given seat type to know if anything has been "crammed in".

Either way, I remain of the view that the 196 has been very well thought through as a design for its intended purpose, while Classes 195 and 197 were cobbled together on the cheap and are thus inferior. I prefer a design where all rows are equally desirable, so the process of getting a seat is less stressful.

And yes, I'd rather have a half-window if that allowed alignment. I care about comfort, not what the outside looks like. They're not all the same size anyway - the very end window in the end section is smaller.

 

[6Gtraincrew]

You were saying that there are 10 rows in the central section against 9 in the 197. That's because the central section is longer, not because an extra row has been crammed in.

It's harder to apply "count the rows" to the whole unit as the proportions of e.g. tables are different. I'd need to know the actual measured seat pitch for a given seat type to know if anything has been "crammed in".

Either way, I remain of the view that the 196 has been very well thought through as a design for its intended purpose, while Classes 195 and 197 were cobbled together on the cheap and are thus inferior. I prefer a design where all rows are equally desirable, so the process of getting a seat is less stressful.

And yes, I'd rather have a half-window if that allowed alignment. I care about comfort, not what the outside looks like. They're not all the same size anyway - the very end window in the end section is smaller.

Just curious, but have you actually been on a 197? A quick yes or no will be fine

 

[craigybagel]

I would disagree. The whole point of DMUs is you couple them together.
Back in 1978 we coupled 3 two car sets together for the "Coast mail" 0655 Machynlleth-Pwllheli. IIRC the train split at Barmouth and the trailing set worked back to Mach' as a school train, whilst the four cars continued to Pwllheli serving schools in the northbound direction.

I'm confused, what part of my post do you disagree with? If it's the part about needing more than 2 cars for most of the year then I would respectfully point out that its not 1978 any more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just curious, but have you actually been on a 197? A quick yes or no will be fine

Not yet, no, but I've watched several of the review videos. I will be going on one on the Conwy Valley as soon as I reasonably can though.

I have however been on a 196, and it impressed me as to how well thought out it was, and am simply taking issue with what the poster I was replying to was saying about them. I've also been on a 195 and sat in a Fainsa Sophia, which gives me most of the rest of the experience.

 

[6Gtraincrew]

Not yet, no, but I've watched several of the review videos. I will be going on one on the Conwy Valley as soon as I reasonably can though.

I have however been on a 196, and it impressed me as to how well thought out it was, and am simply taking issue with what the poster I was replying to was saying about them.

But I assume you've been on a 195 and 196?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But I assume you've been on a 195 and 196?

I have indeed. 195s lots, 196 only once but it was enough to impress me compared to the 195.

 

[6Gtraincrew]

I have indeed. 195s lots, 196 only once but it was enough to impress me compared to the 195.

May I suggest that you travel on a 197 with an open mind rather than a negative one. You're currently comparing a train you've only been on once to a train you've never been on at all. Come along, enjoy the views on one of the most picturesque railway lines in the UK and then form your opinion after that.

(I'm not saying they're prefect by any stretch btw)

 

[sefyllian]

You were saying that there are 10 rows in the central section against 9 in the 197. That's because the central section is longer, not because an extra row has been crammed in.

If the central section is longer then the end sections are shorter, obviously. And the end sections in all of them have 6 rows. A coach with 21 rows overall has more legroom than the same length coach with 22 rows. Where they’ve put the doors doesn’t change that.

I care about comfort

I find that hard to believe if you’re prioritising pretty window layouts over better legroom!

Anyway, two very minor observations (about as important as window placement) – all these new trains have the old web address on the sides (tfwrail.wales instead of tfw.wales). Of course it redirects, but if the purpose of sticking the URL everywhere is to make people remember it, it’s better to be consistent. And also, clearly no-one has proof-read the Welsh on the information screens have they. Minor mistakes, but they’ve had enough time to get stuff like that right surely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A coach with 21 rows overall has more legroom than the same length coach with 22 rows.

There's more to it than that. The seat design, for instance, can give you up to 2-3" more or less legroom (compare an original interior 158 with a Northern "ironing board" one which has the same seating layout but gallons of legroom). Or where equipment cabinets go etc.

On the other hand, if WMT can specify a window layout they can align their seats to, so could have TfW. Clearly the Civity platform allows the customer to specify the window and door layouts and sizes, unlike most other platforms, as WMT have done so.

 

[sefyllian]

if WMT can specify a window layout they can align their seats to, so could have TfW.

Only by adding (or removing) an extra row of seats. This has got nothing to do with CAF or the Civity platform or design choices made by the operators, it’s a matter of very basic maths. You physically cannot align an odd number of rows with windows designed to span two rows each.

I’m glad TfW didn’t squash in the extra row, they made the right decision, and I will happily enjoy my extra legroom on the 197s while you stare out the oh-so-perfectly aligned (but smaller) windows on the more cramped 196s. We’ll leave it at that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only by adding (or removing) an extra row of seats. This has got nothing to do with CAF or the Civity platform or design choices made by the operators, it’s a matter of very basic maths. You physically cannot align an odd number of rows with windows designed to span two rows each.

Then you specify the window at the end to span one row. Plenty of trains have single-row windows, e.g. most Electrostars. I'm sure CAF would have done it.

 

[Caaardiff]

Ultimately the majority of the travelling public won't have this obsession with seat alignment to windows. TfW bought and designed the interior of the units to what they needed. The capacity increase on the majority of the network will mean most of the time people will have a better choice on where to sit and can quite simply choose or move to another seat if they don't get the view they wanted. I don't understand why it's being made such a big deal, most won't care.
What they did mess up on is that ridiculous catering area that could have fitted a few more much needed seats in.

As for everything else, rather than repetitive opinions on this site, i'll wait to read some actual feedback from people who have experienced the trains, or until i can manage to get on one myself. I note that on the video posted, a comment was made about the armrests, but nothing about the comfort of the seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're Sophias, probably everyone on here has sat in one by now.

I agree that catering area is a silly waste of space, far too big for the need.

WMT clearly thought window alignment important...

 

[6Gtraincrew]

197004 having a rest, so baton handed over to 197011 today

 

[anamyd]

197004 having a rest, so baton handed over to 197011 today

Any particular reason I wonder, or just trying another unit?

 

[craigybagel]

. I note that on the video posted, a comment was made about the armrests, but nothing about the comfort of the seats.

I've sat in them. I found them to be firm but supportive, and leg room is sufficient (and I'm 6 feet tall and struggle on a lot of the current fleet). Much better than I expected.