CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[stuu]

It's only in the last two or three years that all of a sudden the powers that be have decided that diesel is evil. The reality is that rail transport only contributes a tiny fraction of carbon emissions, and all this self-flaggelation from within the industry and from public transport advocates will be pounced upon by the road lobby. The rush to remove diesels without a suitable alternative will only hurt the railway in the long term, and battery technology is not at a level where it can be used for a distance as long as Wolverhampton to Pwllheli, and without a huge leap forward in the technology it never will be. Research coming out of Germany suggests that hydrogen is also a dead end.

That ignores the reality that if road transport is electrified before rail, some of the environmental arguments in favour of rail go out the window. It will seem as backward as it did with steam in the 1960s

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That ignores the reality that if road transport is electrified before rail, some of the environmental arguments in favour of rail go out the window. It will seem as backward as it did with steam in the 1960s

Okay. Wake me up when the Tesla Semi becomes something more than a thinly-veiled scam... I'll wait.

 

[Dai Corner]

Okay. Wake me up when the Tesla Semi becomes something more than a thinly-veiled scam... I'll wait.

It'll happen while the programme of electrifying the freight-only lines is in progress...

 

[stuu]

Okay. Wake me up when the Tesla Semi becomes something more than a thinly-veiled scam... I'll wait.

Not relevant. People don't travel by lorry

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not relevant. People don't travel by lorry

Fair point, noted.

But there is an issue that battery EV advocates continuously ignore, regardless of whether the battery is inside a truck, a coach, a car or a train: namely the emissions and other environmental costs of the rare-earth metals required to create the batteries. Not to mention the limited lifespan of said batteries, and the issues with disposal/recycling.

I know it'll be an unpopular opinion on here, but current battery tech is inherently efficient. It just happens to have very good PR behind it at the moment, and advocates are happy to ignore the inconvenient downsides because nobody is challenging them on it. The best and most efficient way to decarbonise the railway is the same as it's been since the mid-20th century (when low-carbon power generation really took off): stringing up overhead wires.

 

[HSTEd]

Okay. Wake me up when the Tesla Semi becomes something more than a thinly-veiled scam... I'll wait.

There are other electric vehicle manufacturers than Tesla.....

In addition, eHighway does not require fully electric vehicles to deploy and obtain very large reductions in fuel use and resultant carbon emissions.

A few thousand lane-km of road electrification would get you something like two-thirds of all HGV fuel use even with no batteries......

Even lane-km vs track-km it is far better than remaining railway electrification possibilities......

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There are other electric vehicle manufacturers than Tesla.....

In addition, eHighway does not require fully electric vehicles to deploy and obtain very large reductions in fuel use and resultant carbon emissions.

A few thousand lane-km of road electrification would get you something like two-thirds of all HGV fuel use even with no batteries......

Even lane-km vs track-km it is far better than remaining railway electrification possibilities......

I'll believe that once it progresses beyond the handful of pilot schemes in Europe which are thus far little more than proof of concept. We moan about the lack of strategic planning in the railway industry, but the road haulage industry is even more fragmented.

If more than a few experimental km of road catenary appears over a British motorway before 2040, I'll eat my hat and post a video of myself eating said hat.


All this of course has little to do with TfW's Civity units, so I'll offer my sincere apologies to the mods for the topic diversion, and leave it there.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It's only in the last two or three years that all of a sudden the powers that be have decided that diesel is evil. The reality is that rail transport only contributes a tiny fraction of carbon emissions, and all this self-flaggelation from within the industry and from public transport advocates will be pounced upon by the road lobby. The rush to remove diesels without a suitable alternative will only hurt the railway in the long term, and battery technology is not at a level where it can be used for a distance as long as Wolverhampton to Pwllheli, and without a huge leap forward in the technology it never will be. Research coming out of Germany suggests that hydrogen is also a dead end.

Two or three years? We've known that burning fossil fuels is 'evil' for much longer than that - the 'powers' have just been ignoring this fact. The United Nations Climate Change Conferences have been going on since 1995. Something drastic needs to be done. Yes, we shouldn't rush into unsuitable 'alternative traction' and rail's diesel emissions are relatively small but we need all GHG emissions to be accounted for by 2050. Thus, we don't need to worry too much about rushing to replace Sprinters and Turbostars (I believe Ian Walmsley in the latest Modern Railways suggests that DMUs can be stretched out to 50 year lives) - the issue is that we need to be moving towards an electrified railway and the Civity DMUs leave us up the creek without a pantograph.

That ignores the reality that if road transport is electrified before rail, some of the environmental arguments in favour of rail go out the window. It will seem as backward as it did with steam in the 1960s

Annoyingly I can't find the reference now, but I'm pretty sure at least one transport accidemic has made a comment along the lines of being worried about what happens when people own an electric car and say "I've done my bit by buying an electric car, why should I use a diesel train" to a Senedd committee.

Fair point, noted.

But there is an issue that battery EV advocates continuously ignore, regardless of whether the battery is inside a truck, a coach, a car or a train: namely the emissions and other environmental costs of the rare-earth metals required to create the batteries. Not to mention the limited lifespan of said batteries, and the issues with disposal/recycling.

I know it'll be an unpopular opinion on here, but current battery tech is inherently efficient. It just happens to have very good PR behind it at the moment, and advocates are happy to ignore the inconvenient downsides because nobody is challenging them on it. The best and most efficient way to decarbonise the railway is the same as it's been since the mid-20th century (when low-carbon power generation really took off): stringing up overhead wires.

Yes, batteries are inefficient and dirty too, but we know fossil fuels are killing us. How can we restore our climate? I completely agree - OHLE (or in some cases 3rd rail) is the way to go, that's why we cannot afford to have all these pantograph-less Civity DMUs running about delaying electrification.

 

[Jez]

The first unit only entered service on 14th Nov 2022 didn't it? Since then, the nearest I've been to the routes they've been working is probably Shrewsbury (ie. I haven't had the opportunity to get on one).


Not just a second toilet but, on the 3-car sets, they also need a third toilet. In other words, 1 toilet per carriage or whatever the Key Train Requirements says (think it was one toilet for every 85 seats). As for the wasted space, the small toilet is slightly bigger than the galley, so even if those two corrections were made there would still be fewer bays than 158s and 175s, tighter seat pitch than 175s and fewer seats than a 158. In other words, it isn't just the galley that is wasting space.


Even without having been on a 197, I agree that they are better than the 195s - unlike 195s the 197s have end-gangways and the 3-car units have a second toilet. 'Better' in this case though is really 'less bad'.

Regarding your other point, if by 'Coast' you mean the north Wales coast, then the all-stops service between Llandudno and Chester (and in future Liverpool) is somewhere units with the suburban door layout might feel appropriate, provided something more like the 175s and/or mark 4s was provided on the faster services along there.


The only Fainsa 'ironing board' I can recall sitting on recently was on a 195 from York to Leeds (although I forget whether the Crossrail units have ironing boards - all I know is that I wasn't on it for long) - and it was awful. Which version of the ironing board was that?


3-4 hours on a Fainsa seat? Sounds like torture.

Addmittedly legroom (and sometimes aircon) did rather let the 158s down, particularly when they had the (otherwise really comfy) original BR seats. The Grammer ones improved legroom a bit by being thiner, but the class 197s do actually have the 'airline-style' seats spaced further apart than the 158s. So you are correct - that is a benefit of the 197s over the 158s. However, in actual fact the 'airline-style' spacing on the class 175s is better still - I think it is about 80cm on a 158 and 84cm on a 175. Since the spacing is 82cm on a 197, if the same seats were used on all three types*, the 197s would in fact slap-bang in the middle in terms of legroom between the 175s and 158s. If the 197s really do have the same legroom as the 175s, that means the new Sophia seats would have to be at least 2cm thiner (and therefore even firmer) than the 175's seats.

I've had the same issue that I'm based at the wrong end of Wales so haven't tried a 197 yet. I am hoping to correct that and do a trip to Liverpool in February all being well. Unfortunately my last weekend away in Manchester was just before the 197s started appearing on the Manchester to Llandudno diagrams. They were only on the Conwy Valley branch at that point.

I have travelled on a northern rail 195 a few times and I liked them but only did a maximum journey of about 2 hours between Leeds and Nottingham last summer. Overall I was impressed with the 195 so hopefully I will like the 197s.

It's a shame TFW didn't just keep.the 175s for Manchester to South Wales (apart from.the ones that will be MK4) and double up a many sets as they could. The 175s have had an excellent refurbishment and it seems awful to me that they will be gone in less than 12 months with some units only a couple of years in service since the refurbishment. However as much as I like.the 175s I will not let that cloud my judgement on the 197s which I'm sure will be equally as good for the long distance services.

Less toilets could be an issue if one is out of service and that just leaves 1 toilet on a 3 car 197. I've seen that happening on a 3 car 175 when one toilet is out of service and can cause problems especially when the train is overcrowded.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Less toilets could be an issue if one is out of service and that just leaves 1 toilet on a 3 car 197. I've seen that happening on a 3 car 175 when one toilet is out of service and can cause problems especially when the train is overcrowded.

That is understandable though because the toilets are in the small vestibules at the carriage ends.

It's a shame TFW didn't just keep.the 175s for Manchester to South Wales (apart from.the ones that will be MK4) and double up a many sets as they could. The 175s have had an excellent refurbishment and it seems awful to me that they will be gone in less than 12 months with some units only a couple of years in service since the refurbishment. However as much as I like.the 175s I will not let that cloud my judgement on the 197s which I'm sure will be equally as good for the long distance services.

I do feel exactly the same, as I very much like the 175s and they’re the only former Arriva stock I will miss, but I also agree that from the videos and images I’ve seen the 197s look fairly nice (excluding the announcements)

I wonder if when LNER eventually surrender their IC225s, Transport for Wales may receive the eight MK4 sets (shortened to 5 coaches of course) which would allow all Cardiff Holyhead services to be MK4 operated, and more or all Manchesters, although you would need to split the service at Cardiff or Swansea for the remaining through trains like has been done for the current MK4 diagrams. Even if that was not possible, some on Manchester Bangor could potentially work.

Either way, they free up 197s to get rid of the ageing 153s and makeshift 230s, as well as providing more “InterCity-esque” services on the long distance routes for those that resent the doors at thirds, Fainsa Sophias, and much over-exaggerated toilet drama.

 

[Anonymous10]

That is understandable though because the toilets are in the small vestibules at the carriage ends.


I do feel exactly the same, as I very much like the 175s and they’re the only former Arriva stock I will miss, but I also agree that from the videos and images I’ve seen the 197s look fairly nice (excluding the announcements)

I wonder if when LNER eventually surrender their IC225s, Transport for Wales may receive the eight MK4 sets (shortened to 5 coaches of course) which would allow all Cardiff Holyhead services to be MK4 operated, and more or all Manchesters, although you would need to split the service at Cardiff or Swansea for the remaining through trains like has been done for the current MK4 diagrams. Even if that was not possible, some on Manchester Bangor could potentially work.

Either way, they free up 197s to get rid of the ageing 153s and makeshift 230s, as well as providing more “InterCity-esque” services on the long distance routes for those that resent the doors at thirds, Fainsa Sophias, and much over-exaggerated toilet drama.

Who knows that could yet be their logic

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the end of the day, neither of us are party to the planning decisions that were made, so I think it's unfair to criticise anyone for a lack of thought.

I don't. Premium classes require serious attention to detail, not just whacking a load of seats in, because people are paying often a considerable sum more for that quality and forethought. And I did, do and will continue criticise people for such slapdash design in Standard!

If you design a premium class based on how many seats you squash in, then you're Doing It Wrong (tm).

Plus because these are gangwayed units usually in multiple there was no specific reason to put 1st at the end. It could have been a whole middle section of the middle coach, for instance, with three window-aligned bays of six, one row of airlines and a pair of racks, which would have the upside of making the unit near enough symmetrical* thus less of a concern which way round it was, because the nature of TfW's operations mean they won't be able to be kept one way round.

When I tried these units I thought they were better than expected, but I certainly wouldn't pay extra for such a slapdash First Class design.

* Bar wheelchair and bike space, which isn't really solvable unless you had two of each which would waste too much space.

 

[craigybagel]

I don't. Premium classes require serious attention to detail, not just whacking a load of seats in, because people are paying often a considerable sum more for that quality and forethought. And I did, do and will continue criticise people for such slapdash design in Standard!

If you design a premium class based on how many seats you squash in, then you're Doing It Wrong (tm).

Plus because these are gangwayed units usually in multiple there was no specific reason to put 1st at the end. It could have been a whole middle section of the middle coach, for instance, with three window-aligned bays of six, one row of airlines and a pair of racks, which would have the upside of making the unit near enough symmetrical* thus less of a concern which way round it was, because the nature of TfW's operations mean they won't be able to be kept one way round.

When I tried these units I thought they were better than expected, but I certainly wouldn't pay extra for such a slapdash First Class design.

* Bar wheelchair and bike space, which isn't really solvable unless you had two of each which would waste too much space.

But unless you have some secret CAF or TFW career you've kept secret from us you're not privy to the design process - so it may well be that there was plenty of thought that went on and that there are many reasons why 1st class was placed where and how it was. It took me all of 30 seconds to come up with a plausible reason why your idea to swap 1st round wouldn't work, and I'm not part of the design team either.

It's easy to criticise - but harder to actually do the job.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But unless you have some secret CAF or TFW career you've kept secret from us you're not privy to the design process - so it may well be that there was plenty of thought that went on and that there are many reasons why 1st class was placed where and how it was. It took me all of 30 seconds to come up with a plausible reason why your idea to swap 1st round wouldn't work, and I'm not part of the design team either.

It's a hobby of this forum to come up with reasons something wouldn't work. Very often those reasons are spurious because the thing suggested has already been done somewhere or simply isn't an issue. I could fill a thread with pages upon pages of this. My favourite one is when I proposed a system of barcoded e-tickets which was heartily rubbished on the grounds of being allegedly insecure, but then very, very similar to the one that was implemented (indeed my proposal was MORE secure than the one that was implemented for a few reasons).

I can't recall a unit with the luggage rack in the way of the cab door (and there aren't many interior photos online showing that bit of a unit), though certainly 158s have it at the cab end of the saloon which would allow the driver/guard to get into the vestibule but no further. Similarly Pendolinos have an unofficial luggage space behind the seats in the first row of Coach A (which is very often in use), and Voyager luggage racks are at the vehicle ends too though I don't recall if they're at the cab end or not, I think they are on one side.

Plus I'm fairly sure the 197 has a sliding cab to saloon door which wouldn't be prevented from opening by misplaced luggage.

But either way, premium classes require attention to detail. This is not attention to detail.

(I accept there are designs where a lot of thought has gone in that I still dislike - the Class 777 is the perfect example, I just found it a bit "meh" for all the shouting, but at least the TOC has rationalised decent reasons for what they did despite me not liking some aspects)

 

[Jez]

Since my last post in this thread I have finally travelled on a 197. I kept an open mind until i had been on one after reading some of the concerns. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised with the 197 experience. There are a few things like less luggage racks and less toilets than a 175 but there is far more that is better too. They are really nice pleasant trains, comfortable seats, good legroom, not as many tables but that doesnt bother me personally. The information screens are great and easy to read plus the automated announcements aren't too bad. I dont mind the doors being in the middle of the train either, never bothered me on a 170 or 186 either. Overall a major step up in quality for the TFW network and hopefully they will be a success when finally rolled out across the network.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I wonder if when LNER eventually surrender their IC225s, Transport for Wales may receive the eight MK4 sets (shortened to 5 coaches of course) which would allow all Cardiff Holyhead services to be MK4 operated, and more or all Manchesters, although you would need to split the service at Cardiff or Swansea for the remaining through trains like has been done for the current MK4 diagrams. Even if that was not possible, some on Manchester Bangor could potentially work.

If TfW were to get more mark 4s I think they should put them on Manchester-Swansea, with the ideal being to have a full hourly Manchester-Swansea service, plus three fast Holyhead-Cardiff workings each way, worked by mark 4s (had they obtained all the sets than have gone off-lease so far, I think they would have been able to do this but sadly lots have gone for scrap).

Since my last post in this thread I have finally travelled on a 197. I kept an open mind until i had been on one after reading some of the concerns. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised with the 197 experience. There are a few things like less luggage racks and less toilets than a 175 but there is far more that is better too. They are really nice pleasant trains, comfortable seats, good legroom, not as many tables but that doesnt bother me personally.

What is better than a 175? You mention good legroom, but a 175 is better (84cm seat spacing in airline-style by my reckoning versus 82cm on a 197 according to the seat plan, and even TfW admitted a 1cm loss of legroom on a 197 compared to a 175). Loss of tables bothers me because I like to have a clear view outside, and only window-aligned table bays (which there are even fewer of on a 197) really do that.

 

[Jez]

If TfW were to get more mark 4s I think they should put them on Manchester-Swansea, with the ideal being to have a full hourly Manchester-Swansea service, plus three fast Holyhead-Cardiff workings each way, worked by mark 4s (had they obtained all the sets than have gone off-lease so far, I think they would have been able to do this but sadly lots have gone for scrap).


What is better than a 175? You mention good legroom, but a 175 is better (84cm seat spacing in airline-style by my reckoning versus 82cm on a 197 according to the seat plan, and even TfW admitted a 1cm loss of legroom on a 197 compared to a 175). Loss of tables bothers me because I like to have a clear view outside, and only window-aligned table bays (which there are even fewer of on a 197) really do that.

The legroom is still good on a 197 even if it might not be as good as a 175. Overall I just found the 197 nicer and more pleasant than a 175 to travel on. I put a 197 as marginally better than a 175 when i first went on it but now on reflection i think i prefer the 197 overall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The legroom is still good on a 197 even if it might not be as good as a 175. Overall I just found the 197 nicer and more pleasant than a 175 to travel on. I put a 197 as marginally better than a 175 when i first went on it but now on reflection i think i prefer the 197 overall.

I think the 197 will overall be more practical for the sort of use TfW are putting them to. For instance the wide doors at thirds will better take standees when heaving in summer, and the large overhead racks will help with luggage.

While there are obvious cases where the "base model" has been selected to save money, e.g. the direct lighting rather than the classier indirect setup on the 196/397, most of the issues are niggles. I can find a lot more wrong with the Class 777 to be honest.

 

[Rhydgaled]

@LNW-GW Joint posted this over on the TfW mark 4 topic; I thought it more appropriate to reply here instead of there.

No new stock has been ordered by any TOC since the start of Covid, with the exception of HS2 stock which is still in the development phase (production has yet to start).
Several DMU procurement options are being pursued by TOCs which might result in orders for CAF Civitys, but no orders seem at all imminent while off-lease DMU/DEMU stocks are potentially available.
TfW can by-pass the DfT controls on expenditure, but that doesn't mean the WG will be interested in further spend on rolling stock while the very large investment already made is still not delivering results.
Also CAF will need work to keep its Newport facility going after another year of 196/197 production.
But are diesel-only trains a viable proposition to order in 2023?
More Stadler 231s are another option.

The legally-binding net-zero target is 2050. Given that the lifespan of a train carriage body is 35-40 years I would strongly argue that diesel-only trains (along with anything that doesn't have at least passive provision for drawing powerfrom 25kv OHLE) should have been banned around 2010-2015, which means that Northern's class 195s shouldn't have been built as such either.

Regarding keeping the CAF assembly plant working, does anyone know whether the painted bodyshells for the Northern class 195s, in the condition they arrived at the Newport plant, are at all different (other than the pantograph well on the PTS vehicle of course) from the bodyshells for class 331 vehicles in equivelent condition? If the bodyshells are indeed the same (or near enough), I feel the best way of making the Civity DMUs compatible with the 2050 net-zero target is to send them to Newport and have them disassembled back to the bare bodyshells, a pantograph well cut in some of them and then reassembled as class 331 EMUs (with the 196s and 197s become a new subclass of 331s given the different spec with end-gangways). I think there were plans to fit some class 331s with batteries to allow some operation beyond the wires (eg. for Windermere) so perhaps that could be done to the converted 195s/196s/197s while they are at the Newport plant becoming 331s.

In the case of the TfW units, I would put some of them on the Rhymney line, moving the 756s to the Aberdare, Trehebert and Merthyr routes and the 398s to the Coryton branch and the new, extended, Cardiff Bay line to the Splott/Tremorfa area.

 

[tomuk]

The legally-binding net-zero target is 2050.

As railway emissions make up less than half a percent of UK emissions their contribution to net zero or lack thereof is pretty irrelevant. In fact building more diesel only stock now to enable modal change would be a good idea.

 

[Pete_uk]

As railway emissions make up less than half a percent of UK emissions their contribution to net zero or lack thereof is pretty irrelevant. In fact building more diesel only stock now to enable modal change would be a good idea.

I agree with the quoted post.
Ideally a battery to allow the train to sit at a station for some time without the engines on would be included.

Britain decarbonisation isn't going to save the polar bears.

 

[HSTEd]

Okay. Wake me up when the Tesla Semi becomes something more than a thinly-veiled scam... I'll wait.

The UK eHighway proposal would require rather fewer lane miles to be electrified per tonne-mile of freight than the remaining rail network.

Indeed it was only about 15000 lane kilometres to allow a 65% decarbonisation of road freight operations. Using an 80kWh battery in the finished system, so a lorry with a modern electric car battery and a tiny diesel range extender.

You get about half for 8000-ish lane kilometres.

For the UK railway network has about 31,200 track kilometres, about half of which (ish) are electrified.

Given the runaway costs of rail electrification, railway electrified for freight decarbonisation looks like a spectacularly bad deal compared to pushing forward with an eHighway scheme.

 

[yorkie]

Does anyone have anything to add on the topic of CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions?

Anything else is best discussed in a separate thread, thanks

 

[Rhydgaled]

Does anyone have anything to add on the topic of CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions?

Anything else is best discussed in a separate thread, thanks

I must admit to ignoring the 'for TfW' bit with post #289 and included other CAF Civity DMUs, not just the 197s, but it was still about a design issue (compatibility, or rather the lack of it, with net-zero targets) with these units (and whether there might be a solution). Perhaps posting in the "New DMUs (Civity) - climate change" topic would have been more-appropriate but that one is locked and this one isn't.

And yes, despite the replies, incompatibility with net-zero targets is an issue. I'll try to explain.

As railway emissions make up less than half a percent of UK emissions their contribution to net zero or lack thereof is pretty irrelevant.

It's a net-zero target, not a 99.5% reduction target. It doesn't matter how small the rail industry's emissions are - they still need to be eliminated or compensated for by increased carbon sequestration. In the Transport Decarbonisation Plan (page 74) they published in 2021, the Government committed to a net-zero rail network by 2050. While they didn't say exactly what a net-zero rail network would look like, they mentioned Network Rail's TDNS which does. And diesel-only passenger trains have no part to play in that.

Based on the map in the TDNS, I surmise that a net-zero UK rail network would feature a maximum of 5 traction types for passenger services:

1. Straight electric (EMU)
2. EMU with range-extender battery (IPEMU eg. 777/379013) charging under the wires (and/or on 3rd rail electrified routes)
3. Battery EMU (BEMU eg. GWR class 230 Greenford trial) charging at stations using specialised equipment (ie. NOT existing live rail or OHLE)
4. Hydrogen-Electric Multiple Unit (HEMU) with pantograph for use on electrified sections
5. Hydrogen Multiple Unit (HMU) operating on hydrogen only, with no pantograph

However, given that the last of these (HMU) is only applicable to lines already operated by Greater Anglia's bi-modes I think it can be discounted leaving us with four traction types. Only one of these four (BEMU) does not require a pantograph (and/or compatibility with existing 3rd rail electrification).

BEMU traction looks it would be applicable only for:

• St. Ives, Falmouth, Looe and Gunnislake branches,
• Henley and Marlow branches,
• Possibly the Slough-Windsor and the Greenford branch (scale of map means these cannot be easily seen),
• Ebbw Vale to Newport
• Conwy Valley Line (although Llandudno branch is recommended for electrification, so IPEMU may be more appropriate)
• Wrexham-Bidston
• Ellesmere Port - Helsby
• Darlington - Bishop Auckland
  

In fact building more diesel only stock now to enable modal change would be a good idea.

This brings the other design issues with the Civity DMUs into the frame. Depending where they are deployed, they are not particularly attractive alternatives to car travel. In fact, as electric car roll-out continues, the continued presence of diesel-only trains may lead to modal shift away from rail.

Britain decarbonisation isn't going to save the polar bears.

Not by itself. I doubt very much that unilateral decarbonisation by any state would 'save the polar bears'. Only global decarbonisation can do that, but decarbonising one state does no harm and is a necessary step (albiet a small one in the case of the UK) in the right direction. Also, net-zero by 2050 is a legally-binding target - presumably that means there are legal consequences for failing to meet that; even if the contribution to the climate crisis is fairly insignificant.

 

[tomuk]

I must admit to ignoring the 'for TfW' bit with post #289 and included other CAF Civity DMUs, not just the 197s, but it was still about a design issue (compatibility, or rather the lack of it, with net-zero targets) with these units (and whether there might be a solution). Perhaps posting in the "New DMUs (Civity) - climate change" topic would have been more-appropriate but that one is locked and this one isn't.

And yes, despite the replies, incompatibility with net-zero targets is an issue. I'll try to explain.

It's a net-zero target, not a 99.5% reduction target. It doesn't matter how small the rail industry's emissions are - they still need to be eliminated or compensated for by increased carbon sequestration. In the Transport Decarbonisation Plan (page 74) they published in 2021, the Government committed to a net-zero rail network by 2050. While they didn't say exactly what a net-zero rail network would look like, they mentioned Network Rail's TDNS which does. And diesel-only passenger trains have no part to play in that.

Based on the map in the TDNS, I surmise that a net-zero UK rail network would feature a maximum of 5 traction types for passenger services:

1. Straight electric (EMU)
2. EMU with range-extender battery (IPEMU eg. 777/379013) charging under the wires (and/or on 3rd rail electrified routes)
3. Battery EMU (BEMU eg. GWR class 230 Greenford trial) charging at stations using specialised equipment (ie. NOT existing live rail or OHLE)
4. Hydrogen-Electric Multiple Unit (HEMU) with pantograph for use on electrified sections
5. Hydrogen Multiple Unit (HMU) operating on hydrogen only, with no pantograph

However, given that the last of these (HMU) is only applicable to lines already operated by Greater Anglia's bi-modes I think it can be discounted leaving us with four traction types. Only one of these four (BEMU) does not require a pantograph (and/or compatibility with existing 3rd rail electrification).

BEMU traction looks it would be applicable only for:

• St. Ives, Falmouth, Looe and Gunnislake branches,
• Henley and Marlow branches,
• Possibly the Slough-Windsor and the Greenford branch (scale of map means these cannot be easily seen),
• Ebbw Vale to Newport
• Conwy Valley Line (although Llandudno branch is recommended for electrification, so IPEMU may be more appropriate)
• Wrexham-Bidston
• Ellesmere Port - Helsby
• Darlington - Bishop Auckland
  

This brings the other design issues with the Civity DMUs into the frame. Depending where they are deployed, they are not particularly attractive alternatives to car travel. In fact, as electric car roll-out continues, the continued presence of diesel-only trains may lead to modal shift away from rail.


Not by itself. I doubt very much that unilateral decarbonisation by any state would 'save the polar bears'. Only global decarbonisation can do that, but decarbonising one state does no harm and is a necessary step (albiet a small one in the case of the UK) in the right direction. Also, net-zero by 2050 is a legally-binding target - presumably that means there are legal consequences for failing to meet that; even if the contribution to the climate crisis is fairly insignificant.

Net Zero by 2050 is a target and the Climate Change Act requires the government to produce proper plans on how they are going to meet it. There are no sanctions within in the act if the government fails to enact it plans or misses the target. The best the could happen is a judicial review could be taken against the government to produce a better plan there is no power to direct actual actions. In fact the government could change the target, as it already has, by secondary legislation without full parliamentary oversight.

The TNDS and individual route\regional plans are just strategies and will go nowhere without funding.

Why are Civities not attractive compared to cars? Are the doors in the wrong place perhaps.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The TNDS and individual route\regional plans are just strategies and will go nowhere without funding.

True - and the existence of well over one hundered and fifty diesel-only units with plenty of life left in them won't help the case for getting that funding. That's one of the reasons I consider the Civity DMUs to be a massive mistake and why I am strongly against any more units being built without OHLE compatibility.

Why are Civities not attractive compared to cars? Are the doors in the wrong place perhaps.

I said they were not particularly attractive compared to cars depending where they are deployed. There's not a lot wrong with using a class 331 on something like a Leeds-Doncaster stopping serivce, expect perhaps for the ironing board seats. (I've not been on a 331 but understand they are the same as 195s inside, which I have been on).

For a longer journey, anything which makes the trip less comfortable/pleasant compared to a car journey is going to have a greater impact the longer the journey is. Hands up anyone who thinks a motorist would accept standing from Manchester to Cardiff? There are plenty of reasons why a class 195 Civity, on a coach-for-coach basis, is less-attractive than a class 175; for example:

• uncomfortable (excessively hard) seats - indeed, hard seats is an issue even on the class 397s (even though they don't have ironing boards), which are otherwise quite a big improvement compared to a 195,
• fewer table bays*
• reduced seat pitch*
• reduced availability of toilets
• lack of internal vestibule doors
• toilet in full view of the passenger saloon (this, as you predicted, is due to the doors being in the wrong place but as you can see from this list, it's only a small part of the problem),
• excessive width of the exterior doors, which causes more issues than their position - indeed a hybrid door layout like a 444 is probably ok

* these are based on class 197 figures as I don't have 195 figures to hand although I have been on a 195 but not yet a 197.

In terms of a comparison with a private car, a motorist knows their seat is not going to be next to a smelly toilet and they aren't going to have unheated/uncooled air coming in unless they choose to. A passenger on a Civity DMU cannot count on that.

 

[Dai Corner]

I said they were not particularly attractive compared to cars

Let's compare a car with a 197

No table bays

reduced seat pitch

no toilets

Often too few exterior doors so front seat passengers have to get out to let rear seat passengers in/out
no access to large luggage without stopping, getting out and opening the boot.
no specific provision for disabled passengers.

 

[tomuk]

True - and the existence of well over one hundered and fifty diesel-only units with plenty of life left in them won't help the case for getting that funding. That's one of the reasons I consider the Civity DMUs to be a massive mistake and why I am strongly against any more units being built without OHLE compatibility.

The costs associated with the existence of 150 diesel units is just a drop in the ocean and an irrelevance compared to decarbonisation costs. At worst they'll be written off early at best they will get cascaded around the country seeing of the hundreds of older DMUs. If the bodies stand up well there is always the possibility of a rebuild to battery\emu too despite the differences with a 331.

I said they were not particularly attractive compared to cars depending where they are deployed. There's not a lot wrong with using a class 331 on something like a Leeds-Doncaster stopping serivce, expect perhaps for the ironing board seats. (I've not been on a 331 but understand they are the same as 195s inside, which I have been on).

For a longer journey, anything which makes the trip less comfortable/pleasant compared to a car journey is going to have a greater impact the longer the journey is. Hands up anyone who thinks a motorist would accept standing from Manchester to Cardiff? There are plenty of reasons why a class 195 Civity, on a coach-for-coach basis, is less-attractive than a class 175; for example:

• uncomfortable (excessively hard) seats - indeed, hard seats is an issue even on the class 397s (even though they don't have ironing boards), which are otherwise quite a big improvement compared to a 195,
• fewer table bays*
• reduced seat pitch*
• reduced availability of toilets
• lack of internal vestibule doors
• toilet in full view of the passenger saloon (this, as you predicted, is due to the doors being in the wrong place but as you can see from this list, it's only a small part of the problem),
• excessive width of the exterior doors, which causes more issues than their position - indeed a hybrid door layout like a 444 is probably ok

* these are based on class 197 figures as I don't have 195 figures to hand although I have been on a 195 but not yet a 197.

In terms of a comparison with a private car, a motorist knows their seat is not going to be next to a smelly toilet and they aren't going to have unheated/uncooled air coming in unless they choose to. A passenger on a Civity DMU cannot count on that.

Doors, Vestibules and Toilets is what all your posts boil down to despite trying to dress them up as concern about green issues.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Doors, Vestibules and Toilets is what all your posts boil down to despite trying to dress them up as concern about green issues.

Not just those things, and not all my posts. But yes, many of my posts do boil down to issue such as:

• doors
• vestibules
• toilets
• table bays / window alignment
• seat pitch (or legroom)
• design of seats

However, lots of my posts instead (or, in some cases, also) relate to the need for massive extension of electrification of the national rail network. That desire for more electrification is, in my case, motivated largely by genuine concern about what you call 'green issues'. If I wasn't genuinely concerned about getting a net-zero railway by 2050, I might well be arguing for the 197s to be sent off to somewhere like Chiltern to replace the 165s. But, doing that would set back any proposals to electrify a route which should be fairly high up the priority list.

If the bodies stand up well there is always the possibility of a rebuild to battery\emu too despite the differences with a 331.

Which is what I was getting at in Post #289 so, if you stripped them down to the bare bodyshells, are there any differences between the driving cars of a 195 and a 331? Similarly, is the bodyshell of a class 195/197 MS vehicle any different to that from a TS vehicle from a 4-car 331?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Don’t be so utterly ridiculous; they are perfectly adequate trains for what they do, they have a far superior PIS and through gangways on the 175s, they have long distance seat types (UK), and a better space efficient layout for Castlefield corridor and peak Marches routes, and the 5 carriage formations on Manchester Cardiff will offer enormous capacity.

The end gangways and 5-car formations are improvements over the class 175s, I'll give you that. But the fact remains that they are diesel-only at a time the railway should only be buying electric or bi-mode stock (because we need widespread electrification in their lifetimes).

197s have a space-efficient layout? You must be joking. Less bays of 4, less toilets and a tighter seat pitch than a 175 for basically the same seating capacity per vehicle. It is a better layout for the Castlefield corridor perhaps, but only because the UK Government failed to authorise the two additional platforms at Piccadilly (and associated 4-tracking work) and the Welsh Government failed to move the TfW service to Manchester Victoria in response.

Perfectly adequate trains for what they do? Again no - the Rail Delivery Group's best practice (the 'Key Train Requirements') defines 'adequate' toilet provision for inter-urban services and the 197s fail to meet that target. They would be adequate for an outer-suburban Metro service (something like Rhymney to Bridgend via Barry) perhaps, but more of those are electrified so the diesel-only design becomes even more of an issue. That's why I call them Cavity Abominations.

As for having a long-distance seat, my understanding is that the seat in first class on the class 800/801/802 units is the "Fanisa MD" - the same Fanisa who manufacture the 'Sophia' found in standard class on the 197s and the 800/801/802. Further, I understand that the 'MD' stands for Medium Distance. Obviously the TOCs/DfT would specify a higher-spec seat for first class compared to that in standard class, which means the 'Sophia' is intended to be an inferior seat to the MD. Therefore, standard class passengers are getting, at best, a low-spec medium-distance seat.