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

[Northerngirl]

ASDO on the 197 is GPS based rather than beacon, so it isn't precise. It knows which direction the train is heading (Up or Down), which station is next, which side the platform is on and how many doors said platform fits. It isn't accurate enough to know if the train is fully platformed.

Once the train enters the ASDO GPS "bubble" a few hundred meters before a station, it knows how many doors to allow. It is then down to the guard to ensure the train is stopped in the correct position and that all doors selected by ASDO are platformed. For example if a 4 car 197 stopped short of a platform, and the back is hanging off, if the guard then releases the doors all of the allowed doors will open - not just those which are accommodated.

For stations where there is more than one choice of platform the train could arrive at, the GPS isn't precise enough to determine which platform the train has arrived into. At these stations ASDO isn't available and has to be overridden by the guard. Examples include large stations such as Crewe, Lime St, Chester etc, but also stations which have bi-directional platforms such as Liverpool South Parkway.

Are there any multiple platform stations that aren't long enough, and I don't understand how any of that means that 3 years after the were introduced they still can't operate correctly on one of the main routes. Surely it takes a day out with a tape measure to establish where isn't long enough, or are we still at the point where 10 committees that all need to agree on what tape measure is used.

 

[Dai Corner]

Are there any multiple platform stations that aren't long enough, and I don't understand how any of that means that 3 years after the were introduced they still can't operate correctly on one of the main routes. Surely it takes a day out with a tape measure to establish where isn't long enough, or are we still at the point where 10 committees that all need to agree on what tape measure is used.

I'm not a rolling stock engineer but would have though that instead of trying to determine where the train is within a metre or less and look up which doors to let the guard release it would be easier to work out whether there was a platform adjacent, perhaps by detecting a passive beacon on the platform edge?

 

[Envoy]

If the Victorian rail pioneers are looking down at this debacle*, they must be laughing their heads off. Its been months now and they have still not resolved the issue - whatever it is. Absolutely appalling. No 5 coach 197’s between Shrewsbury & Crewe.

 

[nwales58]

Does anyone know what happened in the specification and implementation of this? Was the spec (TfW +/- consultants) simplistic, or is what was delivered (CAF + sub-contractors) not in line with what was bought?

 

[Lurcheroo]

Are there any multiple platform stations that aren't long enough, and I don't understand how any of that means that 3 years after the were introduced they still can't operate correctly on one of the main routes. Surely it takes a day out with a tape measure to establish where isn't long enough, or are we still at the point where 10 committees that all need to agree on what tape measure is used.

The way they work at complex station isn’t really relevant in this scenario.
The first 197 came into service just over 18 months ago …

Nothing to do with tape measures. The platform and 197 lengths are well documented.
It’s something to do with the ASDO software but I can’t quite work it out exactly.
There’s a lot of H+S paperwork that must been done and very thing must be correct. Every ‘i’ must have its dot and every ‘t’ must be crossed. The sim is that everything must but sorted so that nothing should go wrong.
If something goes wrong and someone becomes injured (or worse) it must be shown that everything was completed by the book.
That’s just the reality of it. The railway isn’t the safest mode of transport in the country by an absolute country mile for no reason.

 

[WirralLine]

Are there any multiple platform stations that aren't long enough, and I don't understand how any of that means that 3 years after the were introduced they still can't operate correctly on one of the main routes. Surely it takes a day out with a tape measure to establish where isn't long enough, or are we still at the point where 10 committees that all need to agree on what tape measure is used.

It’s something to do with the ASDO software but I can’t quite work it out exactly.
There’s a lot of H+S paperwork that must been done and very thing must be correct. Every ‘i’ must have its dot and every ‘t’ must be crossed. The sim is that everything must but sorted so that nothing should go wrong.
If something goes wrong and someone becomes injured (or worse) it must be shown that everything was completed by the book.
That’s just the reality of it. The railway isn’t the safest mode of transport in the country by an absolute country mile for no reason.

The specific issues with stations on this line are platforms in relation to level crossings. Wem as an example. The Up platform at Wem (Heading to Shrewsbury) is max 4 car formation for most units with the stop board at the far end of the platform. If a 5/6 car 197 were to stop at the far end of the platform, the rear coaches would be fouling the level crossing - to combat this, the 5/6 car stop board markers are placed off the platform to the FRONT of the train, meaning unlike most other stations with short platforms, it would be the front of the train off the platform instead of the rear. I believe the update with ASDO is to enable this feature to work instead of locking out rear coaches it can lock out front ones. The same applies to Prees in the down (Crewe) direction, possibly others too but can't remember.

This method of operation also throws a spanner in the works for guards - if a 197 has defective ASDO guards currently have to manually override it to release doors at a platform using a toggle switch. If stopping at a short platform (with the rear car/cars off the platform) they have to walk down to the furthest rearmost door panel that is platformed, and override ASDO forward only to release doors forward of that panel. The operation at Wem would obviously be the other way around, meaning the conductor would need to be at the furthest door to the front that is platformed, and then override ASDO backward to release only the doors in rear of that panel.

I could be wrong, but I believe the reason 197s cant block crossings like older stock can is because they dont have any "grandfather rights". Similar issues regarding long 197 consists have popped up at request stops across Anglesey, such as 5+ cars not being allowed to call at Bodorgan due to blocking the barrow crossing in the Down (Holyhead) direction. There are also similar ASDO issues across Anglesey, with longer consists having to use local door operation at certain stops instead of ASDO.

 

[Western 52]

So if the guard has to walk to a specific door for ASDO at short platforms, what happens when the train is so full walking through is not possible? I was on a 197 today which was that full.

 

[WirralLine]

So if the guard has to walk to a specific door for ASDO at short platforms, what happens when the train is so full walking through is not possible? I was on a 197 today which was that full.

The guard has to walk to a specific door for short platforms regardless of stock ASDO or no ASDO. Taking Conwy as a good example - max 2 car, but regularly used by 4 car 197s and 158s. Arguably it is easier to fight through 1 or 2 carriages in which doors arn't going to open on a 197 and move people forward to a suitable coach (where all platformed coaches will open), than it would be to fight through all 4 coaches on a packed pair of 158s, moving everybody to one door for local door operation in the front coach only. It is quite challenging and sometimes it's almost impossible, but its an issue that applies to all stock!

 

[Lurcheroo]

So if the guard has to walk to a specific door for ASDO at short platforms, what happens when the train is so full walking through is not possible? I was on a 197 today which was that full.

Yep just as Wirral has said really. I have had to work my way through many packed 158 carriages to get to middle doors or even the front door for one station. It is a peril of the job.

 

[childwallblues]

It does seem to me that in all the recent postings we seem to have missed the delivery on 27/06 of 197030 from Wolverton to Arriva Traincare, Crewe by 66514.

 

[Topological]

Reading this is all a little disappointing as a passenger on the line.

There is a much wider debate to be had around the serving of smaller stations with long distance services. Were it the case that no diagrams on the Marches served the intermediate stations then presumably we would be able to have 5 car trains on the Manchester (units permitting). However, there appears to be some smaller numbers holding back the improvement. If the only trains stopping were the Crewe-Shrewsbury shuttles then presumably there would be no delay?

Given the present situation is that there are Manchester trains serving the intermediate stations we are where we are. It does not look great from the outside though.

 

[Athe]

The specific issues with stations on this line are platforms in relation to level crossings. Wem as an example. The Up platform at Wem (Heading to Shrewsbury) is max 4 car formation for most units with the stop board at the far end of the platform. If a 5/6 car 197 were to stop at the far end of the platform, the rear coaches would be fouling the level crossing - to combat this, the 5/6 car stop board markers are placed off the platform to the FRONT of the train, meaning unlike most other stations with short platforms, it would be the front of the train off the platform instead of the rear. I believe the update with ASDO is to enable this feature to work instead of locking out rear coaches it can lock out front ones. The same applies to Prees in the down (Crewe) direction, possibly others too but can't remember.

This method of operation also throws a spanner in the works for guards - if a 197 has defective ASDO guards currently have to manually override it to release doors at a platform using a toggle switch. If stopping at a short platform (with the rear car/cars off the platform) they have to walk down to the furthest rearmost door panel that is platformed, and override ASDO forward only to release doors forward of that panel. The operation at Wem would obviously be the other way around, meaning the conductor would need to be at the furthest door to the front that is platformed, and then override ASDO backward to release only the doors in rear of that panel.

I could be wrong, but I believe the reason 197s cant block crossings like older stock can is because they dont have any "grandfather rights". Similar issues regarding long 197 consists have popped up at request stops across Anglesey, such as 5+ cars not being allowed to call at Bodorgan due to blocking the barrow crossing in the Down (Holyhead) direction. There are also similar ASDO issues across Anglesey, with longer consists having to use local door operation at certain stops instead of ASDO.

Whilst I understand that issue and it is where we currently are, none of the stations along the line have changed.

Therefore, surely the initial spec of the ASDO tech should have factored this in, and ultimately it’s a failure/oversight on TfWs part that it wasn’t.

It isn’t the railway being really hot on safety preventing it, it is the railway not getting it right in the first place?

 

[Lurcheroo]

The specific issues with stations on this line are platforms in relation to level crossings. Wem as an example. The Up platform at Wem (Heading to Shrewsbury) is max 4 car formation for most units with the stop board at the far end of the platform. If a 5/6 car 197 were to stop at the far end of the platform, the rear coaches would be fouling the level crossing - to combat this, the 5/6 car stop board markers are placed off the platform to the FRONT of the train, meaning unlike most other stations with short platforms, it would be the front of the train off the platform instead of the rear. I believe the update with ASDO is to enable this feature to work instead of locking out rear coaches it can lock out front ones. The same applies to Prees in the down (Crewe) direction, possibly others too but can't remember.

This method of operation also throws a spanner in the works for guards - if a 197 has defective ASDO guards currently have to manually override it to release doors at a platform using a toggle switch. If stopping at a short platform (with the rear car/cars off the platform) they have to walk down to the furthest rearmost door panel that is platformed, and override ASDO forward only to release doors forward of that panel. The operation at Wem would obviously be the other way around, meaning the conductor would need to be at the furthest door to the front that is platformed, and then override ASDO backward to release only the doors in rear of that panel.

I could be wrong, but I believe the reason 197s cant block crossings like older stock can is because they dont have any "grandfather rights". Similar issues regarding long 197 consists have popped up at request stops across Anglesey, such as 5+ cars not being allowed to call at Bodorgan due to blocking the barrow crossing in the Down (Holyhead) direction. There are also similar ASDO issues across Anglesey, with longer consists having to use local door operation at certain stops instead of ASDO.

I missed this before, thank you that’s a great explanation. I had thought it may be to do with level crossing fouling as 4 cars were banned on the Cambrian coast because of it and it was only last year that a method of work was devised to allow 4 cars to call at all stops and not foul a level crossing. No idea why grandfather rights weren’t allowed. However I had heard that there were issues with level crossing sighting (and white light as they’re ABCL / AOCL+B’s) at some stops which 197’s wouldn’t be allowed to get away with as the 158’s do as they won’t get grandfather rights but they seem to be resolved.

Anyway, I couldn’t work out where issues with level crossings would happen (I was thinking about Nantwich) so this make sense now. I also think down south some stations towards Swansea have limitations on max formation lengths that are permitted to stop.

Therefore, surely the initial spec of the ASDO tech should have factored this in, and ultimately it’s a failure/oversight on TfWs part that it wasn’t.

It isn’t the railway being really hot on safety preventing it, it is the railway not getting it right in the first place?

Do you have the original spec from TFW ? If not then that’s very presumptuous. Not to mention that as there was a different MOW for old stock then some issues may not have been apparent initially.
Hindsight is wonderful as they say.

The railway is pretty hot on safety regardless though.

 

[Dai Corner]

Do you have the original spec from TFW ? If nkot then that’s very presumptuous. Not to mention that as there was a different MOW for old stock then some issues may not have been apparent initially.
Hindsight is wonderful as they say.

It seems to me that the delay is in configuring the ASDO rather than the specification being incorrect or not delivered properly. Surely the spec given to CAF wouldn't have included such detail as 'trains consisting of any combination of units up to and including 6 cars must be able to call at xyz station in tne Down direction without fouling the level crossing, ensuring adequate signal sighting and releasing all platformed and no non-platformed doors provided they stop with the front within 1 metre of the position shown on the attached diagram'? That's a post-delivery exercise for TfW.

 

[Krokodil]

I had thought it may be to do with level crossing fouling as 4 cars were banned on the Cambrian coast because of it and it was only last year that a method of work was devised to allow 4 cars to call at all stops and not foul a level crossing. No idea why grandfather rights weren’t allowed.

As far as I'm aware, there was never an explicit ban of 4-car 158s on the Cambrian, so they did have grandfather rights. However the use of four car sets had stopped due to rolling stock shortages and corporate memory faded, so the assumption was that there was a ban in place.

 

[Lurcheroo]

As far as I'm aware, there was never an explicit ban of 4-car 158s on the Cambrian, so they did have grandfather rights. However the use of four car sets had stopped due to rolling stock shortages and corporate memory faded, so the assumption was that there was a ban in place.

So, I’ve clarified it and it started as a ban on 4cars at short platforms. So you would need not to stop orders if you had 4 coaches and then it became 4 cars not allowed in service just ECS.
Apparently had something to do with the ORR seeing someone touch. Train whilst blocking a crossing at a station.

When they came to to sort it out last year, no one knew who exactly put that ban in place though.

 

[Krokodil]

Apparently had something to do with the ORR seeing someone touch. Train whilst blocking a crossing at a station.

Of all the hazards in this world, running up to and touching a stationary train is not one that registers with me. I'm willing to bet that the number of people injured by there being no barrier between a path/road and a stationary train is less than one. If someone decides to continue driving through a level crossing on the basis that the lights have timed out, even though there is a great big train in the way then that person should not be driving.

Bodorgan is ridiculous too. Can't stop a five car set there because the foot crossing is fouled. You can however stop a four car set on the Down there which might not foul the foot crossing but it does block visiblity of approaching trains on the Up line. So people might start crossing in front of a train approaching at 75mph - something that they can't physically do if a five car is blocking it. As far as I'm concerned therefore, it is more dangerous to stop a four car there than it is to stop a five, yet which one have they banned?

They also tried to ban us from stopping 197s at Valley or Ty Croes if we fouled the crossings, even though both are fully barriered/gated and controlled by a signaller or crossing keeper. Even though it's been fine for years with 158s etc.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Of all the hazards in this world, running up to and touching a stationary train is not one that registers with me. I'm willing to bet that the number of people injured by there being no barrier between a path/road and a stationary train is less than one. If someone decides to continue driving through a level crossing on the basis that the lights have timed out, even though there is a great big train in the way then that person should not be driving.

Bodorgan is ridiculous too. Can't stop a five car set there because the foot crossing is fouled. You can however stop a four car set on the Down there which might not foul the foot crossing but it does block visiblity of approaching trains on the Up line. So people might start crossing in front of a train approaching at 75mph - something that they can't physically do if a five car is blocking it. As far as I'm concerned therefore, it is more dangerous to stop a four car there than it is to stop a five, yet which one have they banned?

They also tried to ban us from stopping 197s at Valley or Ty Croes if we fouled the crossings, even though both are fully barriered/gated and controlled by a signaller or crossing keeper. Even though it's been fine for years with 158s etc.

I must say, I’m with you. It does seem absolutely wild. If someone’s going to stop for a barrier then they’ll surely stop for a train.

‘it’s the railway’ comes to mind

 

[Cestrian21]

Of all the hazards in this world, running up to and touching a stationary train is not one that registers with me. I'm willing to bet that the number of people injured by there being no barrier between a path/road and a stationary train is less than one. If someone decides to continue driving through a level crossing on the basis that the lights have timed out, even though there is a great big train in the way then that person should not be driving.

Bodorgan is ridiculous too. Can't stop a five car set there because the foot crossing is fouled. You can however stop a four car set on the Down there which might not foul the foot crossing but it does block visiblity of approaching trains on the Up line. So people might start crossing in front of a train approaching at 75mph - something that they can't physically do if a five car is blocking it. As far as I'm concerned therefore, it is more dangerous to stop a four car there than it is to stop a five, yet which one have they banned?

They also tried to ban us from stopping 197s at Valley or Ty Croes if we fouled the crossings, even though both are fully barriered/gated and controlled by a signaller or crossing keeper. Even though it's been fine for years with 158s etc.

Sometimes the rail industry seems obssessed with creating a rod for its own back.

The big shake-up of the North Wales Coast timetable that was supposed to follow the introduction of the 197s has apparently also suffered from a similar malaise. Allegedly Network Rail are refusing any additional services because they've determined it would increase the collision risk at some foot crossings.

 

[Krokodil]

The big shake-up of the North Wales Coast timetable that was supposed to follow the introduction of the 197s has apparently also suffered from a similar malaise. Allegedly Network Rail are refusing any additional services because they've determined it would increase the collision risk at some foot crossings.

To be fair, those particular crossings have seen multiple fatalities. They definitely need sorting.

What I don't understand however is why they still haven't reinstated the pre-pandemic weekday service into Llandudno. The foot crossings on that section are closed to the public, so the only crossings in use are full barriered ones. The Saturday and Sunday services were reinstated to half-hourly so why not the weekday?

 

[Lurcheroo]

To be fair, those particular crossings have seen multiple fatalities. They definitely need sorting.

What I don't understand however is why they still haven't reinstated the pre-pandemic weekday service into Llandudno. The foot crossings on that section are closed to the public, so the only crossings in use are full barriered ones. The Saturday and Sunday services were reinstated to half-hourly so why not the weekday?

I think it comes down to two things really. Money and units. And a lack of both at that!

 

[RailWonderer]

I've had my first belated ride on a 197 a few days ago, 197 115 from Piccadilly to Crewe, sitting in the permanently(?) declassified first section and it was exquisite. I prefer the dimmer ambience in the 196s but the seating both in the first and standard is, dare I say it, above the FISA lean seating in the GA Stadlers and the moquette is softer than the seating used in the IETs. The ride felt mostly smooth besides a hard jolt passing Holmes Chapel/Sandbach area. A worthy successor to the *edit 175* as long as they don't run any shorter than 3 coaches. I saw a 2 car earlier on in the day and can't imagine how cozy it would have been.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I've had my first belated ride on a 197 a few days ago, 197 115 from Piccadilly to Crewe, sitting in the permanently(?) declassified first section and it was exquisite. I prefer the dimmer ambience in the 196s but the seating both in the first and standard is, dare I say it, above the FISA lean seating in the GA Stadlers and the moquette is softer than the seating used in the IETs. The ride felt mostly smooth besides a hard jolt passing Holmes Chapel/Sandbach area. A worthy sucessor to the 197 as long as they don't run any shorter than 3 coaches. I saw a 2 car earlier on in the day and can't imagine how cozy it would have been.

Glad you enjoyed it. I really don’t mind them and I’m very glad the extra money was spent for the better seats.

Today it was reported that there are 3 Cardiff - Manchester diagrams with 2 cars allocated whilst there was a 3 car on a Camarthen - PB, Cardiff- Ebbw vale and 3 x 3cars on Maesteg’s.
It was therefore requested that 3 cars were prioritised on Manchester where the capacity is needed and 1 of the 2 car Manchester Diagrams has been made a 3 car.

 

[Krokodil]

I think it comes down to two things really. Money and units. And a lack of both at that!

Not in this case, the unit just sits in the platform at Llandudno with its engines idling for 44 minutes between arriving and departing, when it used to run to Junction and back to allow Holyhead/Cardiff/Birmingham/London passengers to connect conveniently with the town. Now those journeys take half an hour longer.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Not in this case, the unit just sits in the platform at Llandudno with its engines idling for 44 minutes between arriving and departing, when it used to run to Junction and back to allow Holyhead/Cardiff/Birmingham/London passengers to connect conveniently with the town. Now those journeys take half an hour longer.

Ohhh right ! Yeah definitely not. That Seems like an easy win for TFW. God can only know why not then haha

 

[Jez]

Glad you enjoyed it. I really don’t mind them and I’m very glad the extra money was spent for the better seats.

Today it was reported that there are 3 Cardiff - Manchester diagrams with 2 cars allocated whilst there was a 3 car on a Camarthen - PB, Cardiff- Ebbw vale and 3 x 3cars on Maesteg’s.
It was therefore requested that 3 cars were prioritised on Manchester where the capacity is needed and 1 of the 2 car Manchester Diagrams has been made a 3 car.

Thats good to know the Manchester's will be prioritised for 3 cars.

I went on 2 different 3 cars today and both were fairly busy. Not helped with lots of luggage on seats that could have been used by passengers. 1 person in particular on a table seat using all 3 of the other seats at that table for luggage, when the overhead racks were empty! I also find bikes are causing issues again. There were 2 bikes in the standard plus section on 197114, not the correct place for bikes to be stored, it was very difficult to get to the doors.

I found the aircon wasnt particularly good on 197120 but it seemed fine on 197114. So very hit and miss it seems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2024 ==

I noticed the 1549 Cardiff to Manchester didnt get the extra 2 cars added to make 4 cars as booked. Also a 150 was on a couple of Swanline services today including the 1505 Chester but swapped for 197125 at Cardiff.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Thats good to know the Manchester's will be prioritised for 3 cars.

I went on 2 different 3 cars today and both were fairly busy. Not helped with lots of luggage on seats that could have been used by passengers. 1 person in particular on a table seat using all 3 of the other seats at that table for luggage, when the overhead racks were empty! I also find bikes are causing issues again. There were 2 bikes in the standard plus section on 197114, not the correct place for bikes to be stored, it was very difficult to get to the doors.

I found the aircon wasnt particularly good on 197120 but it seemed fine on 197114. So very hit and miss it seems.

Yes, 3 cars absolutely should be prioritised on those services in my opinion.

yeah, only 1 luggage rack is an issue but I see these issues on 158’s with multiple big racks and some small ones. People would deny it but they like to try and stop strangers sitting next to them.

I used to make a point on busy services to make announcements about bags on seats and then as I Was doing revenue to ask anyone with something on a seat to remove it. If I was taking a 2 car to Birmingham (almost guaranteed to be full and standing before wolves) I’d ditch the revenue equipment and just walk through to open windows and get bags off seats.

Any idea if the bike space was already full ? Or if they just used the wrong door ?

Aircon is being complained about by train crew as well on our internal social media. No particular answer on it though.
We were issued a warm weather guide though. Some stuff in there about reporting aircon that doesn’t seem to be working and it’s been looked at to use the fridge in the catering cupboard to store the complimentary bottles of water that get offered during heatwaves so that they’re kept cool.

Side note, TFW have a website dedicated to AC on trains and there’s a bit on there about reporting a service you’re on if you think the AC isn’t working.
I would recommend that anyone that feels it’s not working as it should does so.
Link:

On board | Transport for Wales

Transport for Wales | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

tfw.wales

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2024 ==

I noticed the 1549 Cardiff to Manchester didnt get the extra 2 cars added to make 4 cars as booked. Also a 150 was on a couple of Swanline services today including the 1505 Chester but swapped for 197125 at Cardiff.

Possibly a bit short of 2 car 197’s today then.

 

[Breadface]

Side note, TFW have a website dedicated to AC on trains and there’s a bit on there about reporting a service you’re on if you think the AC isn’t working.
I would recommend that anyone that feels it’s not working as it should does so.
Link:

On board | Transport for Wales

Transport for Wales | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

tfw.wales

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2024 ==

Didnt know the 158s had AC, always thought it was never re-fitted as they still have the original roof vents, Also for the fact that ive never experienced the AC on a ATW/TfW 158

 

[Jez]

Yes, 3 cars absolutely should be prioritised on those services in my opinion.

yeah, only 1 luggage rack is an issue but I see these issues on 158’s with multiple big racks and some small ones. People would deny it but they like to try and stop strangers sitting next to them.

I used to make a point on busy services to make announcements about bags on seats and then as I Was doing revenue to ask anyone with something on a seat to remove it. If I was taking a 2 car to Birmingham (almost guaranteed to be full and standing before wolves) I’d ditch the revenue equipment and just walk through to open windows and get bags off seats.

Any idea if the bike space was already full ? Or if they just used the wrong door ?

Aircon is being complained about by train crew as well on our internal social media. No particular answer on it though.
We were issued a warm weather guide though. Some stuff in there about reporting aircon that doesn’t seem to be working and it’s been looked at to use the fridge in the catering cupboard to store the complimentary bottles of water that get offered during heatwaves so that they’re kept cool.

Side note, TFW have a website dedicated to AC on trains and there’s a bit on there about reporting a service you’re on if you think the AC isn’t working.
I would recommend that anyone that feels it’s not working as it should does so.
Link:

On board | Transport for Wales

Transport for Wales | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

tfw.wales

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2024 ==


Possibly a bit short of 2 car 197’s today then.

No idea about the bike space further down the train im afraid. I think they used the wrong door and had to stay there as the train looked quite busy.

I really should have asked the person to remove the bag that was covering 2 seats at the table seat but then someone moved their bag for me to sit next do them in one of the airline seats so i just went there. I think you are right and some people just dont want anyone sitting next to them. I mean we all love having an airline seat or table to ourselves on a train but id rather sit next to someone than have to stand!

I didnt realise there was somewhere to report air con on the website. So Thank you for that. I will certainly bare that in mind next time im on a very warm 197!

There seemed to be a bit of moving around sets today, i noticed the 0914 Swanline was a pair of 153s and then that went onto the late morning Heart of Wales with the 150 (I assume off the Heart of Wales) going onto the 1105 Swanline. So perhaps it was just a case of moving sets around after the weekend. Either way it was good a 197 was found to take over the Chester service at Cardiff to avoid the 150 going onto the Marches!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2024 ==

Didnt know the 158s had AC, always thought it was never re-fitted as they still have the original roof vents, Also for the fact that ive never experienced the AC on a ATW/TfW 158

I was aware they had air con but also very aware of how often it doesnt work! At least 158s have windows that can be opened if the air con fails Its a concern if the air con isnt as it should be on the 197s given how many are now in service.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Didnt know the 158s had AC, always thought it was never re-fitted as they still have the original roof vents, Also for the fact that ive never experienced the AC on a ATW/TfW 158

Yep, they do, and they do sometimes work. When it’s a warm day and working the saloon is quite pleasant. The best it can ever do is 6°C below the outside temp so once it gets really warm out, even the saloon will feel warm with the AC going but it’s still better than opening the windows.
Drivers also get AC on 158’s but guards don’t and the back cab seems to get a lot hotter than the saloon.

No idea about the bike space further down the train im afraid. I think they used the wrong door and had to stay there as the train looked quite

Yeah that does happen a bit to be fair.

I really should have asked the person to remove the bag that was covering 2 seats at the table seat but then someone moved their bag for me to sit next do them in one of the airline seats so i just went there. I think you are right and some people just dont want anyone sitting next to them. I mean we all love having an airline seat or table to ourselves on a train but id rather sit next to someone than have to stand!

I’d have done the same and just sat on the available seat haha.
Yeah of course, it’s a bit weird when there’s plenty of airline seat bays available and someone sits next to you in an airline seat though!
But once it gets busy, you have to just accept that you have to sit next to someone.

I didnt realise there was somewhere to report air con on the website. So Thank you for that. I will certainly bare that in mind next time im on a very warm 197!

Just looked, it seems to just ask you to send it to them on X (twitter), which I don’t really use.

There seemed to be a bit of moving around sets today, i noticed the 0914 Swanline was a pair of 153s and then that went onto the late morning Heart of Wales with the 150 (I assume off the Heart of Wales) going onto the 1105 Swanline. So perhaps it was just a case of moving sets around after the weekend. Either way it was good a 197 was found to take over the Chester service at Cardiff to avoid the 150 going onto the Marches!

Not totally sure what’s gone on. I know a HOW was cancelled so possible getting units in the right place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2024 ==

Looks like the first day of fault free mileage accumulation on the Cambrian.
looks like to comes from Crewe, heads to Dovey junction, shuttles back to Welshpool then back to Dovey junction and then goes back to Crewe again.

Realtime Trains | 3Q51 0614 Crewe South Yard to Shrewsbury | 02/07/2024

Real-time train running information for 3Q51 0614 departure from Crewe South Yard to Shrewsbury on 02/07/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk