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

[Lurcheroo]

They cartainly can be rough riding.

Though they are miles ahead of either a 150 or a pair of 153s for the South Wales to Manchester trains.

Oh absolutely miles!

It kind of bugs me that TFW haven’t even acknowledged the 197 rough riding. Even if they just said “yes we are aware but there’s nothing that can be done” that would be something.

 

[Richard Scott]

They cartainly can be rough riding.

Though they are miles ahead of either a 150 or a pair of 153s for the South Wales to Manchester trains.

I'd take a pair of 153s any day over a 197. Neither as good as the 175, though. However, that's my opinion, sure others think differently.
If compared to a mark 2 air-con, I feel that the mark 2 would still hold its own, so much for 50 years of progress.

 

[Jez]

Id prefer a pair of 153's over a 150 but neither are anywhere near a 197 for me.

The 1104 from Milford is still showing as a pair of 153s from Cardiff, lets hope a 197 can be found to take over and then the 153's can go back to where they need to be on Ebbw Vale.

It looks like the previous service from Milford 2 hours earlier was a pair of 153s also, a third 153 added from Swansea and then swapped to a 2 car 197 from Cardiff-Manchester! Good capacity increase on the busy section between Swansea and Cardiff.

 

[craigybagel]

Id prefer a pair of 153's over a 150 but neither are anywhere near a 197 for me.

The 1104 from Milford is still showing as a pair of 153s from Cardiff, lets hope a 197 can be found to take over and then the 153's can go back to where they need to be on Ebbw Vale.

Set swap planned for Cardiff. 3 car 197 goes to Manchester, 153s go to Ebbw Vale

 

[Western 52]

I see 1V35 0730 Manchester Piccadilly to Carmarthen was 197105 + 197116 from Shrewsbury today. I saw it pass here about 15 minutes ago. Are 6 cars passed now for that section?

 

[MP393]

I see 1V35 0730 Manchester Piccadilly to Carmarthen was 197105 + 197116 from Shrewsbury today. I saw it pass here about 15 minutes ago. Are 6 cars passed now for that section?

Yes up to 6 south of Shrewsbury is fine, as well as north of Shrewsbury towards Holyhead. It’s Shrewsbury-Manchester which is still limited to 4 max.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I see 1V35 0730 Manchester Piccadilly to Carmarthen was 197105 + 197116 from Shrewsbury today. I saw it pass here about 15 minutes ago. Are 6 cars passed now for that section?

Shrewsbury to the South has never been a problem. Holyhead Cardiffs are regularly 6 carriages in the morning peak. It’s Crewe Shrewsbury they’re not doing.

 

[craigybagel]

Shrewsbury to the South has never been a problem.

When first introduced, it was 4 car maximum along there. I suspect 6 cars was something of an afterthought; when the stop car markers went in at stations, it was up to 5 car maximum - 6 cars got their own separate boards, often attached to the same poles that the 5 cars are on!

Holyhead Cardiffs are regularly 6 carriages in the morning peak. It’s Crewe Shrewsbury they’re not doing.

It will be done, it's necessary. It's just taking longer than expected.

 

[childwallblues]

I'd take a pair of 153s any day over a 197. Neither as good as the 175, though. However, that's my opinion, sure others think differently.
If compared to a mark 2 air-con, I feel that the mark 2 would still hold its own, so much for 50 years of progress.

Absolutely correct. The 175 was the perfect ride. I rode 150231 on the North Wales Coast in March and with its high backed seating was a great ride.

 

[Krokodil]

The 175 was the perfect ride

Not quite, I used to get complaints from the regulars about the ride when one deputised for the Mk3 LHCS. I'm yet to experience anything that rides as well as a Mk3.

 

[Topological]

Absolutely correct. The 175 was the perfect ride. I rode 150231 on the North Wales Coast in March and with its high backed seating was a great ride.

If anyone from TfW is reading, this is where to send the 150s

As someone who uses the Marches too often, the 197s are bringing a very welcome end to the era of 150s.

Glad to see that the swap was undertaken to get a 197 onto the Manchester diagram. 3-cars will have been very welcome on the 17:30 back south.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'd take a pair of 153s any day over a 197. Neither as good as the 175, though. However, that's my opinion, sure others think differently.
If compared to a mark 2 air-con, I feel that the mark 2 would still hold its own, so much for 50 years of progress.

It kind of bugs me that TFW haven’t even acknowledged the 197 rough riding. Even if they just said “yes we are aware but there’s nothing that can be done” that would be something.

What really bugs me is when TfW (or any similar organisation, such as governments) put out statements that imply a change they're making is a big improvement all round when in actual fact there are aspects of the new order which are inferior to the previous setup. If they are going to spout how great they are, then whatever it is had better be at least as good as what came before in every respect. I would much rather they acknowledged the shortcomings of the 197s (even if they blame it on the UK Government's failure to fund the Castlefield upgrade) and removed some/all/most of their positivity marketing rubbish. Not specifically rough riding, but the whole package - yes they will eventually enable more carriages on Manchesters than Arriva had with the 175s, but other than that the 197s will never be able to deliver on TfW's hype.

 

[simonmpoulton]

I think the biggest issue here is that if you want a new DMU the CAF Civity seems to be the only option. Stadler have some options but from what I understand are a lot more expensive and as far as I am aware Alstom/Bombardier and Siemens are no longer in the business of producing basic DMU's, they seem to have a bigger focus on battery and hydrogen tech instead which is probably to be honest the future.
Now of course the sensible thing to do would be to specify that CAF make the product ride as well as a 175 and with penalties if they fail to deliver on that promise. Given TFW did specify better seats for there units it actually puzzles me that the ride quality wasn't also specified.

 

[Dai Corner]

I think the biggest issue here is that if you want a new DMU the CAF Civity seems to be the only option. Stadler have some options but from what I understand are a lot more expensive and as far as I am aware Alstom/Bombardier and Siemens are no longer in the business of producing basic DMU's, they seem to have a bigger focus on battery and hydrogen tech instead which is probably to be honest the future.
Now of course the sensible thing to do would be to specify that CAF make the product ride as well as a 175 and with penalties if they fail to deliver on that promise. Given TFW did specify better seats for there units it actually puzzles me that the ride quality wasn't also specified.

Fitting different seats is fairly easy. I'm not sure how you'd specify ride quality but the engineering effort to assess the track conditions throughout the planned operating area, design a suitable bogie and suspension, then verify that the results meet the spec sounds enormous and probably more expensive than the politicians would be prepared to pay.

 

[aar0]

Obviously the track was different, but I’ve now travelled in a 197 and a 195 (is that correct, northern’s new DMUs?) on the same day, and the 195 rode noticeably worse. Crashing, slamming, lots of noise and a sort of hesitant feel. 197s are certainly harsh riding but they’re much better than the 195s.

 

[Western 52]

Back in the 1950s BR introduced many DMUs, with basic single bolster bogies. They all rode more smoothly than a 197, although they were lively at 70mph. Why is a good ride such an issue these days?

 

[BenBracken]

I’ve not studied the bogie design that closely on a 197 but I’m right in thinking that the 15x units all have an inflatable rubber cushion (which is a fairly obvious solution for a smooth ride) and the 197s do not? This would a fairly fundamental aspect of bogie design that wouldn’t be able to be sorted, but could improved dampers be added fairly easily?

 

[Lurcheroo]

I’ve not studied the bogie design that closely on a 197 but I’m right in thinking that the 15x units all have an inflatable rubber cushion (which is a fairly obvious solution for a smooth ride) and the 197s do not? This would a fairly fundamental aspect of bogie design that wouldn’t be able to be sorted, but could improved dampers be added fairly easily?

197’s also have air bags as the primary suspension. They’re a fair bit smaller than the 158 air bags though.

 

[43096]

197’s also have air bags as the primary suspension. They’re a fair bit smaller than the 158 air bags though.

Primary or secondary? Primary is between axle box and bogie frame, secondary between bogie and body.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Primary or secondary? Primary is between axle box and bogie frame, secondary between bogie and body.

Whoops must be secondary and I’ve got them the wrong way round! Cheers for the correction

 

[Tom125]

In all honestly do passengers care about a “rough ride”? As a user of the 197s and someone who is interested in railways but really a passenger at heart, I like the new trains. The interiors are lovely and the seats are fine, I don’t really care what is painted on the outside etc, what I care about is whether the interior is clean with seats available and the train gets me to my destination on time.

 

[Western 52]

I think people do care about the ride. For example last week on 197120 I had to keep hold of my drink as it would not stay put on the table. People who are unsteady on their feet find it harder to visit the toilet or get to the door. When the train is full and standing, you do need to hold onto something.

 

[Richard Scott]

In all honestly do passengers care about a “rough ride”? As a user of the 197s and someone who is interested in railways but really a passenger at heart, I like the new trains. The interiors are lovely and the seats are fine, I don’t really care what is painted on the outside etc, what I care about is whether the interior is clean with seats available and the train gets me to my destination on time.

Yes, when I'm on one I'm a passenger and they are unpleasant to be on due to the poor ride. Was particularly evident on Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester section when I was last on one.

 

[Lurcheroo]

In all honestly do passengers care about a “rough ride”? As a user of the 197s and someone who is interested in railways but really a passenger at heart, I like the new trains. The interiors are lovely and the seats are fine, I don’t really care what is painted on the outside etc, what I care about is whether the interior is clean with seats available and the train gets me to my destination on time.

I get your point, and passengers definitely do want a seat to sit on, probably more than anything else. But there’s a point where it’s too rough and normal passengers will notice it and I think 197’s have creeped past that point as I have heard a few comments on them whilst working.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think the biggest issue here is that if you want a new DMU the CAF Civity seems to be the only option. Stadler have some options but from what I understand are a lot more expensive and as far as I am aware Alstom/Bombardier and Siemens are no longer in the business of producing basic DMU's, they seem to have a bigger focus on battery and hydrogen tech instead which is probably to be honest the future.

Nobody should have been ordering DMUs anyway - the lack of provision for a pantograph is a much larger part of the reason that I refer to the class 195s and class 197s as abominations than their unsuitability for long-distance services.

Now of course the sensible thing to do would be to specify that CAF make the product ride as well as a 175 and with penalties if they fail to deliver on that promise. Given TFW did specify better seats for there units it actually puzzles me that the ride quality wasn't also specified.

TfW didn't (initially) specify better seats, they had to pay extra on a contract variation when it came out that the contracted specification was for 'ironing board' seats. On that basis, I doubt TfW thought to specify anything over and above Northern's class 195s other than the unit end gangways. Even after the contract variation, the 197s are still fitted with Fainsa seats, albeit Sophias as fitted on the Hitachi class 800, 801 and 802 units* which in my view are significantly better than the 'ironing boards' but still not good enough for a multi-hour journey.

* although some say the TfW cushion is not the same as on 80x, I have not had a long enough trip on a 197 to compare them but my one short trip was not encouraging.

 

[Western 52]

I travel extensively in both 197s and 800s, and although the seats are the same, those in the 197s are more comfortable than those in the 800s. This may be because they are newer, but I found the 800s had hard seats from new.

 

[Krokodil]

In terms of ride, my theory is that in an effort to get weight down, manufacturers often try and strip weight out of the bogie. With the Mk1 we have a coach that rode on many different bogies and we can therefore compare the ride. The heavy, cast, Commonwealth bogies had the best ride in my view.

Regarding seats, the 197s have traditional tufted material rather than the flat cloth on most 80x. I think that this makes a considerable difference.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Nobody should have been ordering DMUs anyway - the lack of provision for a pantograph is a much larger part of the reason that I refer to the class 195s and class 197s as abominations than their unsuitability for long-distance services.

Given the state of things DMU’s are probably the right call.

If there had been some further electrification done in Wales then Bi-modes would have been better IMO.

There is the argument of having a reason to electrify but I think even with Bi-modes the case would be pushed no further along as it stands.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Given the state of things DMU’s are probably the right call.

DMUs yes; brand new ones no. The problem is the amount of life remaining in them (ie. pretty much their entire design life, which I assume will be the same 35-40 years of previous generations of stock). To quote David Attenborough (at least I think it was him) "we know where this story is heading, and we know we must give it a different ending". What is/was needed is cascaded half-life DMUs built around 10-20 years ago with another 10-20 years life left in them. Failing that, bi-modes (with or without the pantographs actually being fitted from day one - given the limited amount of OHLE currently available it probably makes sense to leave them off (as TfW did with the 769s if I recall correctly) at first to save having to maintain them).

 

[vicbury]

Yes, when I'm on one I'm a passenger and they are unpleasant to be on due to the poor ride. Was particularly evident on Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester section when I was last on one.

I travel between Severn Tunnel Junction and Lydney weekly and, apart from a short section between Caldicot and Chepstow where they get unsettled, I find they ride fine whether sitting or standing.