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

[Kite159]

From footbridge (left to Right)
197028,030,034
197033,031
197003,036,027

Just remember that photo when you are unable to board a 2 coach TfW special on the North Wales coast during the summer

 

[Topological]

Just remember that photo when you are unable to board a 2 coach TfW special on the North Wales coast during the summer

Mischievous, but then it was decided to use the small Chester depot for the 197s rather than finding a brownfield site (as had been done for the IET introduction on GWR, TPE in Manchester, York etc.)

For those of us using the Marches, the sidings in Holyhead have stood as a monument to what should have been. The 175s lined up in Holyhead as we journeyed on 150s was particularly annoying.

To be fair, the 197s are really improving the Marches. I just wish they ordered more, had more suitable depot facilities and would finally kill off the Mk4*

* The Mk4 is a better train, but does not have the fuel range and seemingly needs covering by a stretched 197 fleet too often. Ignoring the fact that there are only 4 diagrams for 6 sets now (down from 5 diagrams from 7), we are still seeing 197s taken as cover for one of the 4. Whilst the 197 would be a come down from the Mk4, it would be wrong to think that a guarantee of a minimum 4-cars of standard class on every service leaving Manchester was a bad thing.

 

[sd0733]

Ive noticed a few 150s and 158s covering the last few days. Anyone know how many 197s were in service on Friday/Saturday against their booked diagrams?

There looks to have been 2 197s short each day. Oddly despite multiple 150 and 158 substitutions in the south, there were 197s covering for AT units and 158s in the North.

 

[Krokodil]

Just remember that photo when you are unable to board a 2 coach TfW special on the North Wales coast during the summer

You don't need to wait, you could have had that this morning. Passengers left behind in multiple places.

But don't worry, the experts told us not to worry about two coach units, as they'd be coupled together. Yeah, right.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Many thanks both

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2025 ==

@Jacob Porrett and/or @SeaKing, would it be 4x 197s (197023/026/032/037) in Crewe Carriage Sidings? (Those are now the only 4 units left in the list with ???s)

Other than those, the list has been updated @Peter Sarf

I'll have a look tomorrow for you.

 

[Jez]

For what it's worth, it terminated at Crewe in order to get a rake of MKIVs back in service on that diagram, and to get the 197 coupled to the diagram an hour behind. Not ideal, but probably better overall than leaving it in service.

Thanks for explaining. I thought it was odd they terminated it at Crewe so thought there must be a good reason for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2025 ==

There looks to have been 2 197s short each day. Oddly despite multiple 150 and 158 substitutions in the south, there were 197s covering for AT units and 158s in the North.

I saw a 158 about an hour ago near Neath. Looks like it was on Pembroke Dock's earlier and then did the evening Swansea-Shrewsbury (via Cardiff) to get it back in the correct place in Shrewsbury.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2025 ==

Mischievous, but then it was decided to use the small Chester depot for the 197s rather than finding a brownfield site (as had been done for the IET introduction on GWR, TPE in Manchester, York etc.)

For those of us using the Marches, the sidings in Holyhead have stood as a monument to what should have been. The 175s lined up in Holyhead as we journeyed on 150s was particularly annoying.

To be fair, the 197s are really improving the Marches. I just wish they ordered more, had more suitable depot facilities and would finally kill off the Mk4*

* The Mk4 is a better train, but does not have the fuel range and seemingly needs covering by a stretched 197 fleet too often. Ignoring the fact that there are only 4 diagrams for 6 sets now (down from 5 diagrams from 7), we are still seeing 197s taken as cover for one of the 4. Whilst the 197 would be a come down from the Mk4, it would be wrong to think that a guarantee of a minimum 4-cars of standard class on every service leaving Manchester was a bad thing.

Personally unless im in First Class on a MK4 I prefer a 197. Obviously First Class on a MK4 is better than everything else TFW has and so it should be! But otherwise im a big fan of the 197s. Especially if they run as 4 or 5 carriages.

It is concerning to hear of short formed services on both the Marches and North Wales Coast. I only use the NW Coast very occasionally but i know how busy it can get.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2025 ==

From footbridge (left to Right)
197028,030,034
197033,031
197003,036,027

Good photo!

But to be fair these arent meant to be being used until the Cambrian/Birmingham Services switch to 197s. 3 at a time of the Cambrian units are being used to cover for long term out of service 197s from the regular fleet. I would think if it was possible to use more they would but clearly Chester cant cope with taking on more units to maintain which is a shame when these are just sat in sidings.

 

[absolutelymilk]

But don't worry, the experts told us not to worry about two coach units, as they'd be coupled together. Yeah, right.

Would have been so much better if they'd ordered fixed four coach trains and had to cancel the whole service instead...

 

[Topological]

Would have been so much better if they'd ordered fixed four coach trains and had to cancel the whole service instead...

Quite

It is not the ability to run 2-car that is the problem. It is the inability to keep enough in service due to constrained depot space. Decisions not to provide more depot space are where ire needs to be directed.

 

[Krokodil]

Would have been so much better if they'd ordered fixed four coach trains and had to cancel the whole service instead...

Services today and yesterday were not "short-formed". There wasn't a breakdown on the day that led to trains running as two coaches. These trains are booked to run as two coaches every weekend. It's in the LTP timetable. Has been the case for years, including when 158s were booked on them instead of 197s.

Quite

It is not the ability to run 2-car that is the problem. It is the inability to keep enough in service due to constrained depot space. Decisions not to provide more depot space are where ire needs to be directed.

The availablity projections were overambitious to begin with. And four coach fixed formations are inherently more reliable than two coach units - they have more engines than single two coach units and fixed formations don't get the faults that occur when coupling pairs of units. As it happens a half hour delay and a cancellation were caused this morning because a pair of units refused to uncouple.

But what do I know, I'm only the one who actually has to face the passengers or even make the call as to whether the train is safe to proceed. Those in offices hundreds of miles away know best - after all it was a person in an office who specified the 197s (with their many flaws) and who said to local management "no, we don't need stabling sidings at Llandudno Junction, Chester will be fine". I still remember an ASLEF rep's account of a meeting where the person from Cardiff said how many units he expected to service and stable at Chester each night, the Alstom rep burst out laughing and asked if he'd ever been to Chester.

 

[Topological]

Services today and yesterday were not "short-formed". There wasn't a breakdown on the day that led to trains running as two coaches. These trains are booked to run as two coaches every weekend. It's in the LTP timetable. Has been the case for years, including when 158s were booked on them instead of 197s.


The availablity projections were overambitious to begin with. And four coach fixed formations are inherently more reliable than two coach units - they have more engines than single two coach units and fixed formations don't get the faults that occur when coupling pairs of units. As it happens a half hour delay and a cancellation were caused this morning because a pair of units refused to uncouple.

But what do I know, I'm only the one who actually has to face the passengers or even make the call as to whether the train is safe to proceed. Those in offices hundreds of miles away know best - after all it was a person in an office who specified the 197s (with their many flaws) and who said to local management "no, we don't need stabling sidings at Llandudno Junction, Chester will be fine". I still remember an ASLEF rep's account of a meeting where the person from Cardiff said how many units he expected to service and stable at Chester each night, the Alstom rep burst out laughing and asked if he'd ever been to Chester.

Thank you for the response.

Have the 3-car proved any more reliable than the 2-car?

I can see why longer units have advantages when it comes to spare power in the motors, but equally something like a windscreen wiper failure would only knock half of a 2 x 2-car out compared to a full 4-car. That tends to put me in favour of combining 2-cars.

However, 2-car only work where they are combined on the heaviest flows. Sadly, there is no accounting for the inability to book sufficient capacity onto the heaviest flows in the first place.

It would be good if some more 197s could be acquired, though I know that is never going to happen.

 

[Krokodil]

Have the 3-car proved any more reliable than the 2-car?

There are a number of three car units being sent out with an engine isolated. They can just about get away with this, they'll only lose a bit of time and cook the Conductor. Losing an engine from a two car unit however is generally game over unless you can couple it to a unit with working engines.

The other thing is that with a three car unit you have two toilets, and with a hypothetical four car unit you'd have three. Each two car 197 however has just one, which will inevitably play up at some point during the day.

but equally something like a windscreen wiper failure would only knock half of a 2 x 2-car out

This bring up another rant of mine: availability of spare parts. I realise that having every possible part under the sun in stock is expensive and some may never get used. However we've seen 197s stopped long term awaiting spares, often being cannibalised to borrow parts for other units who themselves are awaiting spare parts. Clearly the balance is not being struck.

It would be good if some more 197s could be acquired, though I know that is never going to happen.

I'd prefer to see some more centre cars for the existing fleet. Driving cars are more expensive and space inefficient. However it looks like more units will be procured at some point.

 

[Christian Schm]

Is the issue with the toilets more the doors on the disabled toilets not opening/closing properly? I was on a 2 car 197 yesterday between Port Talbot and Cardiff and it was just as well the toilet was working as there were a few groups of men going to Cardiff for a stag do and the toilet was in constant use the entire journey! The main issue was people actually getting through the standing passengers which seem to congregate by the doors, to get to the actual toilet. Not ideal only putting 2 cars on these services on a Saturday. I suppose its too much to ask all Swansea-Cardiff are 5 cars!

That reminded me of a trip from Manchester to Newport a couple of years ago that got cancelled as both toilets weren’t working. Everyone then piled on the following two-car 150, which then was so crushed that it was quite impossible to get to the toilet unless you happened to stand right next to it…

 

[WirralLine]

Ive noticed a few 150s and 158s covering the last few days. Anyone know how many 197s were in service on Friday/Saturday against their booked diagrams?

I am aware that 197s have been covering for MK4's as well. Yesterday a 2 car 197 was covering for a MK4. Reported on Journey Planner as 2 car in lieu of 5 with no first class and reduced catering. But top it all it was terminated short at Crewe!

A 197 was covering a 230 diagram all day on Bidstons yesterday too.

 

[vicbury]

There are a number of three car units being sent out with an engine isolated. They can just about get away with this, they'll only lose a bit of time and cook the Conductor. Losing an engine from a two car unit however is generally game over unless you can couple it to a unit with working engines.

The 3 car units running on 2 engines often seem to end up on the Cheltenham runs (or maybe that is coincidence) and generally keep to time on this route, whereas the 150s struggle to keep to time.

 

[Caaardiff]

It would be good if some more 197s could be acquired, though I know that is never going to happen.

While it would standardise the fleet even more, without a new Depot, that's unlikely to happen. The compromise might be to see if Machynlleth Depot can be expanded and more 197's get fitted with ETCS, where Machynlleth can pick up some of the more remedial and smaller maintenance.

To replace the Mk4's with like for like 5 carriages would probably mean about 10 more 197s (2 and 3 cars) with some schedule refining to make them carry on West may mean a few less than that.
Throw in some for Heart of Wales and Bidston and the Depots will definitely be over maximum capacity.

Now that Barry Depot is up and running, which I don't believe was ever in the plans, Canton should have some spare capacity to handle some more Flirts, therefore freeing up some of the current 197 fleet for other routes.

 

[tfw756rider]

I'll have a look tomorrow for you.

Many thanks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2025 ==

It would be good if some more 197s could be acquired, though I know that is never going to happen.

...with the overriding reason being, of course, that new train orders are now all about battery electric or multi-mode (no more pure diesel).

I'd prefer to see some more centre cars for the existing fleet. Driving cars are more expensive and space inefficient. However it looks like more units will be procured at some point.

Maybe more centre cars is something that could be got away with, as they wouldn't be "new trains" and therefore wouldn't be subject to the "no more new pure diesel trains" thing.

 

[Belperpete]

Personally unless im in First Class on a MK4 I prefer a 197. Obviously First Class on a MK4 is better than everything else TFW has and so it should be! But otherwise im a big fan of the 197s.

Give me a mk4 or a 158 any day, the 197s are awful to ride in.

Having said that, I made another return trip on the NW Coast this weekend, and I managed to bag seats in standard premium, and the difference was noticeable. I actually managed to doze off - no way was I able to on previous trips in "standard standard" on the same route.

What was noticeable was the number of people who got on and obviously thought it was first class and moved down to stand in the standard-standard when there were seats free in the premium.

 

[Krokodil]

The compromise might be to see if Machynlleth Depot can be expanded

No chance.

 

[aar0]

The Mk4 is a better train, but does not have the fuel range and seemingly needs covering by a stretched 197 fleet too often. Ignoring the fact that there are only 4 diagrams for 6 sets now (down from 5 diagrams from 7), we are still seeing 197s taken as cover for one of the 4. Whilst the 197 would be a come down from the Mk4, it would be wrong to think that a guarantee of a minimum 4-cars of standard class on every service leaving Manchester was a bad thing

I do think this is just because of their small number relative to the 197s. There’s been a few occasions where they’ve covered 197s, and if we had the reverse fleet sizes (imagine!) I think the 197s’ reliability would hardly be glowing. As it is they hide a lot of problems by being uncoupled and running shorter, which isn’t an option with a 225/67

 

[Topological]

I do think this is just because of their small number relative to the 197s. There’s been a few occasions where they’ve covered 197s, and if we had the reverse fleet sizes (imagine!) I think the 197s’ reliability would hardly be glowing. As it is they hide a lot of problems by being uncoupled and running shorter, which isn’t an option with a 225/67

It would be interesting to have the stats on how many time a Mk4 rake has covered a 197. I suspect it can be counted on the back on one hand given they very rarely manage to cover their own diagrams.

All this is is an argument against microfleets. The fact that the 197s are "running shorter" also informs that it is a good idea to have schedules made from two units rather than the whole thing being cancelled.

As someone who wants to get where they are going at the time the timetable says they will get where they are going, a shortform is much better than what happens when a single train is taken out.

 

[Belperpete]

As someone who wants to get where they are going at the time the timetable says they will get where they are going, a shortform is much better than what happens when a single train is taken out.

Particularly on a route with an hourly or worse service. Although I wouldn't mind too much if the 197 on the Conwy Valley was cancelled, as the replacement bus would likely be both faster and considerably more comfortable.

 

[sd0733]

It would be interesting to have the stats on how many time a Mk4 rake has covered a 197. I suspect it can be counted on the back on one hand given they very rarely manage to cover their own diagrams.

It happens far more often than that. It happens probably once every couple of weeks on average where the Mk4 works back from Manchester vice 197 due to unit shortages for the split. Its extremely rare, pretty much unheard of for a whole diagram bar a couple off Holyhead a few months back but ad-hoc workings not so much. A Mk4 even had a couple of hours on Crewe-Chester shuttles once covering for a 197.

 

[Krokodil]

It's difficult to sub LHCS in for 197s due to traincrew competency. Not all crews working the route sign it. Occasionally (on rugby international days for example) the set that would normally sit at Holyhead overnight gets sent down to Cardiff on 1V93, returning on 1W96 or 1W98 (the latter will require Network Rail to keep the line west of Llandudno Junction open later).

The correct way to provide a resilient service is to have enough rolling stock. If a four car fixed formation set has to come out of traffic, you fetch the hot spare from the yard. A two car train is as good as a cancellation for those unable to board it. Shortening formations (LTP, STP and VSTP) to cover for fleet shortages results in the severe overcrowding, poor performance and can be a safety issue if the guard does not manage it properly. Frontline staff take all of the abuse, not beancounters hundreds of miles away.

 

[Caaardiff]

The correct way to provide a resilient service is to have enough rolling stock. If a four car fixed formation set has to come out of traffic, you fetch the hot spare from the yard. A two car train is as good as a cancellation for those unable to board it. Shortening formations (LTP, STP and VSTP) to cover for fleet shortages results in the severe overcrowding, poor performance and can be a safety issue if the guard does not manage it properly. Frontline staff take all of the abuse, not beancounters hundreds of miles away.

Cannot disagree with this more.
Firstly, what hot spare? If there's spares sat around, why aren't they being used to strengthen other services that you keep saying there are?

You're saying a 4 car set comes out of service, so use the spare 2 car (which may or may not be there), meaning kicking everyone off the 4 car set and moving to the 2 car set.... instead of a 4 or 5 car train being split with the faulty unit, lets say a 3 car, being taken out of service and the 2 car continuing it's journey. It would just mean moving passengers, but at least those in the 2 car don't have to move.

Shortening formations LTP/STP results in severe overcrowding - What exactly do you suggest they do? At least if it's planned in advance then everyone knows what's going on and there aren't short notice changes on the day and people having to change trains.

Lets not forget as well that the fleet renewal for TFW still isn't complete until the 398s are introduced. Once they come into service more 197's will be cascaded to the routes they should be on.
We know the reliability of the 197's isn't great and on occasions TFW still struggle with capacity issues, but at the same time things are very different to where they were just a few years ago.

You sound like a disgruntled employee. Maybe you should share your views with TFW Management rather than on a rail forum where nothing will get done about it.

 

[DelW]

You sound like a disgruntled employee. Maybe you should share your views with TFW Management rather than on a rail forum where nothing will get done about it.

I am a complete outsider in this discussion, but that seems quite unfair. I believe (purely from reading their posts) that @Krokodil works as train crew on TfW, and I value their insight into the issues that train crew working at the passenger interface have to deal with. It would be a great pity if the working train crew (drivers and guards) who post on these forums were to be discouraged from doing so.

 

[Caaardiff]

I am a complete outsider in this discussion, but that seems quite unfair. I believe (purely from reading their posts) that @Krokodil works as train crew on TfW, and I value their insight into the issues that train crew working at the passenger interface have to deal with. It would be a great pity if the working train crew (drivers and guards) who post on these forums were to be discouraged from doing so.

I travel TFW regularly and there's been a marked improvement in the capacity they provide, and many of my colleagues who use TFW agree. I don't think it's a fair representation that TFW are still as dismal as Arriva were. There will always be days where things go wrong, but in comparison to many other TOCs, TFW are certainly headed in the right direction.
If staff have issues with how TFW are run then they should raise that with TFW's Management, as that's the only way to get things to change. I also wouldn't want an employee to get into trouble for posting such criticism on a public forum as I know with my company it is frowned upon in the companies social media policy.

 

[Krokodil]

Cannot disagree with this more.
Firstly, what hot spare? If there's spares sat around, why aren't they being used to strengthen other services that you keep saying there are?

Hot spares are diagrammed at the STP planning stage, to be used by control as they see fit (service recovery, on the day strengthening etc.). Please reread my first sentence, a competent operation would ensure that it has enough redundancy to cover predictable issues.

You're saying a 4 car set comes out of service, so use the spare 2 car (which may or may not be there), meaning kicking everyone off the 4 car set and moving to the 2 car set.... instead of a 4 or 5 car train being split with the faulty unit, lets say a 3 car, being taken out of service and the 2 car continuing it's journey. It would just mean moving passengers, but at least those in the 2 car don't have to move.

No I'm not. I'm saying that a four car fixed-formation unit comes in knackered, and a fresh four car fixed-formation unit comes out of the yard to replace it. Use an island platform and the swap can be very slick. Try cramming four coaches' worth of passengers into a two car unit and it won't be slick at all. Though of course if the minimum unit length was three coaches then you'd have a bit more wiggle room anyway. There are almost no 197 diagrams where a two coach unit is adequate for the full day.

Shortening formations LTP/STP results in severe overcrowding - What exactly do you suggest they do?

As I said above. Procure enough vehicles.

At least if it's planned in advance then everyone knows what's going on and there aren't short notice changes on the day and people having to change trains.

What comfort is that when 300 people are trying to wedge themselves into a two car train?

You sound like a disgruntled employee. Maybe you should share your views with TFW Management rather than on a rail forum where nothing will get done about it

What's the definition of insanity? They haven't listened to the staff on any other issue until now, I've no confidence that they will listen on this either. Believe me though, I do push through the proper channels, for what good it does. Unfortunately the only thing that seems to have any effect is to stop and refuse to move.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2025 ==

I travel TFW regularly and there's been a marked improvement in the capacity they provide, and many of my colleagues who use TFW agree.

It's great to know that things are so much better down south. Up here we're playing with sardine tins just as much as we always were.

 

[Topological]

It happens far more often than that. It happens probably once every couple of weeks on average where the Mk4 works back from Manchester vice 197 due to unit shortages for the split. Its extremely rare, pretty much unheard of for a whole diagram bar a couple off Holyhead a few months back but ad-hoc workings not so much. A Mk4 even had a couple of hours on Crewe-Chester shuttles once covering for a 197.

To be fair I just remembered that the 20:30 last Wednesday was a Mk4 covering the 197. I did not see how far south it made, but there was not a large gap so if it did switch over to a 197 then the switch was done quickly.

I was thinking of the genuine covering of a whole service rather than just the Mancehster to Crewe ECS running in service.

 

[Krokodil]

I was thinking of the genuine covering of a whole service rather than just the Mancehster to Crewe ECS running in service.

Rugby internationals are the days to look out for that. See if the Holyhead set comes out to play.

 

[Topological]

Rugby internationals are the days to look out for that. See if the Holyhead set comes out to play.

But isnt that more strengthening for demand than covering?

Presumably, they then take the 197 to strengthen a different diagram for the same Rugby?

(Actually from what people say about TfW management, they probably just leave the 197 in Holyhead all day)