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

[Snow1964]

I believe TfW does get some penalty payments from CAF, and they do help with TfW financial position, but they feel they don’t make CAF improve.

So the contracts as drawn up, only have weak penalties, pay a little bit, but not enough to squeeze them to action improvements.

But contracts are usually commercially sensitive, not public, so don't know what they have got to achieve.

Of course, if a contract exists, it is no use having clauses unless it is enforced to the letter, rather than its sort of ok approach. If that means members of TfW legal team needs to accompany driver of first train out in morning to depot and check it meets spec to the millimetre, rather than nearly meets spec, it should happen, what is known in posh hotels as white glove checks, wipe tucked away surfaces to check it is cleaned etc. These enforcement checks needs to done regularly be rechecked at random intervals.

Part of my career was in International shipping, and we regularly sent Independent Inspectors to ports to check contract specs were being met. Yes it could cost $3k (maybe $5-6k when they started finding things and extra checks were undertaken) each time, but in long term saved fortune in penalties, and problems due to unsuitable conditions causing interruptions and unavailability. As the Railway operates with contracts these days, I don't understand the lack of enforcement to the millimetre.

 

[Anonymous10]

The 0910 Milford Haven to Mancheater is a 150 and then showing on RTT as attaching to a 3 car 197 at Swansea. Clearly that won't happen! But TFW are going to come into difficuly when a Sprinter deputises for 197 and there is booked attachment to another 197. I guess it will simply be swapped and run as a 3 car from Swansea unless another 2 car 197.can somehow be found. This is why it's easier for the likes of Maesteg and Pembroke Dock to use 150s if they ate short on 197s as these don't usually attach to anything

This has happened previously the 197/1 will run the service. Unlikely another swap can be made as the pembroke dock branch leaves Carmarthen 10 minutes before the Haverfordwest service arrives. (Ideally youd swap the 150 onto the limited stop Tenby service)

 

[nwales58]

So the contracts as drawn up, only have weak penalties, pay a little bit, but not enough to squeeze them to action improvements.

But contracts are usually commercially sensitive, not public, so don't know what they have got to achieve.

Relevant penalties in the contract might have been large enough to make compliance worthwhile. We just do not know.

But liquidated damages are usually capped at some number, large enough to hurt but not so large that the supplier walks away mid-contract, or goes bust.

Given the delivery delays it is quite possible that a cap has been reached so there is no additional pain to CAF, unless TfW or Keolis contract lawyers outwitted CAF's by structuring several caps. Also, higher management will simply contest hard, then pay, penalties if that is cheaper than resolving the problem.

As old-school mechanicals will point out, one solution is to give a keen young-ish grad engineer a suitable budget and remind them their career will be accelerated if they can get sustained reliability up.

 

[Bikeman78]

The 0910 Milford Haven to Mancheater is a 150 and then showing on RTT as attaching to a 3 car 197 at Swansea. Clearly that won't happen! But TFW are going to come into difficuly when a Sprinter deputises for 197 and there is booked attachment to another 197. I guess it will simply be swapped and run as a 3 car from Swansea unless another 2 car 197.can somehow be found. This is why it's easier for the likes of Maesteg and Pembroke Dock to use 150s if they ate short on 197s as these don't usually attach to anything

There are options. There's a Swanline diagram that sits at Swansea from 0857 to 1629. If that is a 197 then it could attach to the Manchester and the 150 work the 1629.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Relevant penalties in the contract might have been large enough to make compliance worthwhile. We just do not know.

But liquidated damages are usually capped at some number, large enough to hurt but not so large that the supplier walks away mid-contract, or goes bust.

Given the delivery delays it is quite possible that a cap has been reached so there is no additional pain to CAF, unless TfW or Keolis contract lawyers outwitted CAF's by structuring several caps. Also, higher management will simply contest hard, then pay, penalties if that is cheaper than resolving the problem.

As old-school mechanicals will point out, one solution is to give a keen young-ish grad engineer a suitable budget and remind them their career will be accelerated if they can get sustained reliability up.

Yes, I agree. A "Carrot" is better than a "Stick" after a certain point in recurring problems is reached.

IF things are so bad with the 197s then TfW may have an incentive to sort things out themselves (or the ROSCO ?) by direct physical intervention. That then leaves CAF finding it harder to get future orders - the question is have things got so bad that CAF are viewed as not part of the solution ?.

I think it is just as likely that TfW got these 197s cheap and cannot complain. Do we know how cheap these 197s were ?.

Furthermore remember CAF is an employer in South Wales.

 

[Jez]

There are options. There's a Swanline diagram that sits at Swansea from 0857 to 1629. If that is a 197 then it could attach to the Manchester and the 150 work the 1629.

I agree. That always seems rather a waste for a 197 to sit at Swansea for so many hours.

Looks like it was swapped at Swansea for the 3 car 197 then another 2 cars added at Cardiff to make the 5 car formation as booked.

 

[tfw756rider]

I think it is just as likely that TfW got these 197s cheap and cannot complain. Do we know how cheap these 197s were ?.

Over a year ago in the 231/756 thread, @AlexNL posted an image of a table of the prices / leasing costs of the 197s (as well as the 231s and 756s for comparison).

Unfortunately though, it has since been removed from Discord (the site it was hosted on). Maybe I have a copy on my PC, but I'd have to dig it up. Or could @AlexNL be so kind as to re-post it in here?

Anyway, from the table, you could work out from the 231s and 756s what a non-existent 3-coach 231 would cost, and then compare it to a 3-car 197.

 

[Krokodil]

Given the delivery delays it is quite possible that a cap has been reached so there is no additional pain to CAF

I'm pretty sure that I remember James Price saying something like that last year.

 

[tfw756rider]

A while back, the cab differences of the ETCS-fitted and non-ETCS 197s were talked about in here (the ETCS-fitted 197s having tinted windows, and the black vinyl around and below the rear control panel).

Well, on the 19/8/25 I was on 1V44 1327 Manchester Piccadilly to Pembroke Dock (from Burry Port to Carmarthen) and it was 197024+197050, so I used the opportunity to take comparison photos!

One photo shows:

• non-ETCS 197050's non-tinted windows (top)
• ETCS-fitted 197024's tinted windows (bottom)

The other photo shows:

• non-ETCS 197050's rear control panel (left, without the black vinyl)
• ETCS-fitted 197024's rear control panel (right, with the black vinyl)

Additionally, if you compare the bottom rows of the control panels:

• 197050 has Dynamic Brake and 3 blanks
• 197024 has Dynamic Brake, ERTMS, Cab (? ? A) Holdover Activation and 1 blank

197024 also has a laminated notice / instruction card relating to the isolation of its ETCS before it enters service on the Cambrian:

"Reminder: ETCS should be ISOLATED on this unit. If not, Inform Maintenance Control and use Driver's key" etc. etc.

 

[Bikeman78]

I agree. That always seems rather a waste for a 197 to sit at Swansea for so many hours.

Looks like it was swapped at Swansea for the 3 car 197 then another 2 cars added at Cardiff to make the 5 car formation as booked.

Ultimately the plan is for the stoppers to run hourly all day so that unit wouldn't stable at Swansea anymore.

 

[WirralLine]

Theres never been 6 before, it always was 4 out of service at any point.
From the Non-ERTMS fleet 197004 and 197110 are long stored and Im led to believe quite heavily stripped and 197012 which has now been at Holyhead for over a month.

004 visible in Chester yard at the Crewe end with DOO cameras removed and taped over, and the front lower fibreglass skirt/corner panel removed below one of the driving cabs.

Edit - maybe its something unlucky about "004s" - Merseyrails 777004 has also been used as a parts donor at Kirkdale and has been out of action for over a year I believe!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Yes, I agree. A "Carrot" is better than a "Stick" after a certain point in recurring problems is reached.

IF things are so bad with the 197s then TfW may have an incentive to sort things out themselves (or the ROSCO ?) by direct physical intervention. That then leaves CAF finding it harder to get future orders - the question is have things got so bad that CAF are viewed as not part of the solution ?.

I think it is just as likely that TfW got these 197s cheap and cannot complain. Do we know how cheap these 197s were ?.

Furthermore remember CAF is an employer in South Wales.

The contractual arrangements in the privatised rail industry are so complicated it's a wonder anything got gone at all. As well as the UK Government, Welsh Government, CAF and KeolisAmey, there is at least one ROSCO in the mix. With several of the more-recent orders for new trains (including at least one of the TfW fleets), I understand that some of the ROSCOs have started setting up 'special purpose ventures' (SPVs) which I think are seperate subsiduary limited companies for each new fleet. So, if a lease expires and no TOC wants to lease that fleet again, the losses are limited to the relevant SPV and the parent ROSCO doesn't take a hit. Or something like that - economics and contract law aren't among my areas of expertise.

 

[nwales58]

I understand that some of the ROSCOs have started setting up 'special purpose ventures' (SPVs) which I think are seperate subsiduary limited companies for each new fleet. So, if a lease expires and no TOC wants to lease that fleet again, the losses are limited to the relevant SPV and the parent ROSCO doesn't take a hit.

There could be good reasons for a SPV, slightly cheaper money raised from investors who want a cleaner risk than the whole ROSCO maybe.

And very good reasons for wrapping each fleet in a separate company from the start, much easier if that fleet is later sold on such as back to DfT or whoever. Same reason as each TOC is a separate subsidiary of he owning company. If you’ve ever been involved in splitting a bit out of a company it’s painful, disrupts real work for ages.

Not all corporate/financial engineering is evil.

 

[Peter Sarf]

There could be good reasons for a SPV, slightly cheaper money raised from investors who want a cleaner risk than the whole ROSCO maybe.

And very good reasons for wrapping each fleet in a separate company from the start, much easier if that fleet is later sold on such as back to DfT or whoever. Same reason as each TOC is a separate subsidiary of he owning company. If you’ve ever been involved in splitting a bit out of a company it’s painful, disrupts real work for ages.

Not all corporate/financial engineering is evil.

My feeling is that introducing subsidiary companies implies some inefficiencies. But so be it if water tight compartments are required.

It really brings me back to the feeling that it really is impossible to dis-own a problem fleet that one relies on. Better to just get it sorted - but obviously the money/blame-game is the controlling factor.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There could be good reasons for a SPV, slightly cheaper money raised from investors who want a cleaner risk than the whole ROSCO maybe.

And very good reasons for wrapping each fleet in a separate company from the start, much easier if that fleet is later sold on such as back to DfT or whoever. Same reason as each TOC is a separate subsidiary of he owning company. If you’ve ever been involved in splitting a bit out of a company it’s painful, disrupts real work for ages.

Not all corporate/financial engineering is evil.

I wasn't trying to suggest that this was necessarily 'evil'; just that there are so many legal entities involved, each with their own contract lawyers, that it is hard (perhaps even impossible for a layman like me) to know who is legally responsible for what. Some of the posts in the discussion above have mentioned CAF, TfW and Keolis (and/or KeolisAmey) without recognising that there is yet another layer in the form of the SPV (and perhaps it's parent ROSCO) that actually owns the 197s. It would be much clearer if it was just (G)BR buying new trains outright from the makers (CAF, in this case) but the reality is far away from that.

Have all 77 units even been accepted by TfW and are they actually paying the lease fees on the relatively small number of units stored at Holyhead etc.?

 

[Jacob Porrett]

I wasn't trying to suggest that this was necessarily 'evil'; just that there are so many legal entities involved, each with their own contract lawyers, that it is hard (perhaps even impossible for a layman like me) to know who is legally responsible for what. Some of the posts in the discussion above have mentioned CAF, TfW and Keolis (and/or KeolisAmey) without recognising that there is yet another layer in the form of the SPV (and perhaps it's parent ROSCO) that actually owns the 197s. It would be much clearer if it was just (G)BR buying new trains outright from the makers (CAF, in this case) but the reality is far away from that.

Have all 77 units even been accepted by TfW and are they actually paying the lease fees on the relatively small number of units stored at Holyhead etc.?

Not all 77 have been accepted yet.

 

[tfw756rider]

Not all 77 have been accepted yet.

How many 197s have been accepted?


We know that at least 67 (of the 77) definitely have, because they have been in service:

• all 30 non-ETCS 2-car 197/0s - 197001+002, 197004-021 and 197042-051
• 10 (of 21) ETCS-fitted 2-car 197/0s - 197003+022+024, 197027-031 and 197033-035
• all 12 188-seat 3-car 197/1s - 197101-112
• all 14 174-seat 3-car 197/1s - 197113-126

That leaves 10 units (all of which are ETCS-fitted 2-car 197/0s), of which:

• 5 have been on test ("off-Cambrian") - 197023+025+026+036+037
• 2 have been on test on the Cambrian - 197032+038
• 3 are understood to have not yet been delivered - 197039+040+041

Do you @Jacob Porrett or anyone else know what stage any of these 10 units are at in terms of acceptance?

 

[Gordonman]

How many 197s have been accepted?


We know that at least 67 (of the 77) definitely have, because they have been in service:

• all 30 non-ETCS 2-car 197/0s - 197001+002, 197004-021 and 197042-051
• 10 (of 21) ETCS-fitted 2-car 197/0s - 197003+022+024, 197027-031 and 197033-035
• all 12 188-seat 3-car 197/1s - 197101-112
• all 14 174-seat 3-car 197/1s - 197113-126

That leaves 10 units (all of which are ETCS-fitted 2-car 197/0s), of which:

• 5 have been on test ("off-Cambrian") - 197023+025+026+036+037
• 2 have been on test on the Cambrian - 197032+038
• 3 are understood to have not yet been delivered - 197039+040+041

Do you @Jacob Porrett or anyone else know what stage any of these 10 units are at in terms of acceptance?

197026 and 197037 moved from Crewe South Yard to Holyhead last Monday.So they are now accepted for service.

 

[tfw756rider]

197026 and 197037 moved from Crewe South Yard to Holyhead last Monday.So they are now accepted for service.

Many thanks So at least 69 have now been accepted, of which at least 67 have been in service.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

How many 197s have been accepted?


We know that at least 67 (of the 77) definitely have, because they have been in service:

• all 30 non-ETCS 2-car 197/0s - 197001+002, 197004-021 and 197042-051
• 10 (of 21) ETCS-fitted 2-car 197/0s - 197003+022+024, 197027-031 and 197033-035
• all 12 188-seat 3-car 197/1s - 197101-112
• all 14 174-seat 3-car 197/1s - 197113-126

That leaves 10 units (all of which are ETCS-fitted 2-car 197/0s), of which:

• 5 have been on test ("off-Cambrian") - 197023+025+026+036+037
• 2 have been on test on the Cambrian - 197032+038
• 3 are understood to have not yet been delivered - 197039+040+041

Do you @Jacob Porrett or anyone else know what stage any of these 10 units are at in terms of acceptance?

The 3 units that haven't been delivered yet have not been accepted yet.

 

[tfw756rider]

The 3 units that haven't been delivered yet have not been accepted yet.

Makes sense, but thanks for confirming

 

[Cambrian359]

I take it the acceleration on 197s are pretty good? I was just scrolling reels on instagram and a video of a 197 taking off from Llanelli surprised me at how quickly they moved off from station! It almost seemed electric!
While I’ve been on one twice I didn’t really notice at the time.

 

[hexagon789]

I take it the acceleration on 197s are pretty good? I was just scrolling reels on instagram and a video of a 197 taking off from Llanelli surprised me at how quickly they moved off from station! It almost seemed electric!
While I’ve been on one twice I didn’t really notice at the time.

The 195s set the pace for that, in Super Power mode they can truly shift; in eco mode they are more like a slightly better 158.

I understand Northern 195s and TfW 197s default and are timetabled for Eco Mode but can be run in any of the 4 modes as desired by the driver.

The WMT 196s are locked in Eco Mode according to the relevant thread on this forum.

I further understand, again from reading various posts on various threads on this forum, that in Eco Mode 100mph can be reached in about 5 mins, in Super Power it's nearer 4 mins.

 

[WirralLine]

I take it the acceleration on 197s are pretty good? I was just scrolling reels on instagram and a video of a 197 taking off from Llanelli surprised me at how quickly they moved off from station! It almost seemed electric!
While I’ve been on one twice I didn’t really notice at the time.

Theyre really quick with a good driver and in superpower mode, you can leave Chester 10mins late on one and be back on time near enough by Llandudno Junction if the dwell times arnt too lengthy. Vastly better acceleration compared to the 175s!.

Its not too uncommon for them to have to wait a couple of minutes at each stop due to early running too.

 

[tfw756rider]

I take it the acceleration on 197s are pretty good? I was just scrolling reels on instagram and a video of a 197 taking off from Llanelli surprised me at how quickly they moved off from station! It almost seemed electric!
While I’ve been on one twice I didn’t really notice at the time.

The Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) with 6-speed ZF EcoLife bus-style gearboxes (172s, 195s, 196s and 197s - especially 195s and 197s when in superpower mode) do tend to accelerate quicker than DMUs with the 2-stage Voith T211 hydraulic transmissions, even ones approaching the same kind of engine power such as 175s.

The bus-style gearboxes work much more efficiently than the hydraulic transmissions.

 

[craigybagel]

The 195s set the pace for that, in Super Power mode they can truly shift; in eco mode they are more like a slightly better 158.

I understand Northern 195s and TfW 197s default and are timetabled for Eco Mode but can be run in any of the 4 modes as desired by the driver.

The WMT 196s are locked in Eco Mode according to the relevant thread on this forum.

I further understand, again from reading various posts on various threads on this forum, that in Eco Mode 100mph can be reached in about 5 mins, in Super Power it's nearer 4 mins.

Theyre really quick with a good driver and in superpower mode, you can leave Chester 10mins late on one and be back on time near enough by Llandudno Junction if the dwell times arnt too lengthy. Vastly better acceleration compared to the 175s!.

Its not too uncommon for them to have to wait a couple of minutes at each stop due to early running too.

The Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) with 6-speed ZF EcoLife bus-style gearboxes (172s, 195s, 196s and 197s - especially 195s and 197s when in superpower mode) do tend to accelerate quicker than DMUs with the 2-stage Voith T211 hydraulic transmissions, even ones approaching the same kind of engine power such as 175s.

The bus-style gearboxes work much more efficiently than the hydraulic transmissions.

It's especially noticeable climbing hills. On a fully functional 197 you need to ease off the power climbing Gresford bank (between Chester and Wrexham) to avoid going over the 60 linespeed. Even a 175 couldn't match that.

Climbing out of Abergavenny, a good 3 car 175 would go over the summit at Llanvihangel at around 63. A 197 will vary between about 69 for a 2 car in eco mode, and 76 or more for a 3 car on super power.

This does all come with the caveat that it requires all engines to actually be fully functional, which is unfortunately far from guaranteed.

 

[scottie]

Has anyone got an upto date list of which 197s are now in Holyhead sidings please?

 

[Gordonman]

Has anyone got an up to date list of which 197s are now in Holyhead sidings please?

197003 197010 197012 197026 197028 197029 197030 197031 197036 and 197037

 

[scottie]

That's great thank you. Hoping to do a visit later this week.

 

[Jez]

197003 197010 197012 197026 197028 197029 197030 197031 197036 and 197037

197010 197012 are not 'Cambrian' units. Is there a reason why these are stored at Holyhead at the moment?