Are there any other options for DMUs for TfW and other operators other than CAF?

[BenBracken]

mods note - split from this thread.

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

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #8 originally in this thread. Especially as the service is usually standing room only as far as Cwmbran in standard class. No, I think the best thing would be too do it the same as it is now with the MKIIIs, with a view to adding a 5th composite car in the future if...

www.railforums.co.uk

There’s a lot of negativity around CAF units amongst the railway community, but I’m curious as to what alternatives are out there for new 2/3 coach diesel units that would work on UK rural lines?

Outside of Wales a lot of other operators/GBR areas, GWR/Scotrail/Northern etc are ploughing on with 15x/16x units, some of which are 40 years old now, for the foreseeable future, are there any plans for them to get new units in the next 5-10 years?

Will we see new CAF trains elsewhere in the UK? (Apart from WMT)

 

[amahy]

There’s a lot of negativity around CAF units amongst the railway community, but I’m curious as to what alternatives are out there for new 2/3 coach diesel units that would work on UK rural lines? Outside of Wales a lot of other operators/GBR areas, GWR/Scotrail/Northern etc are ploughing on with 15x/16x units, some of which are 40 years old now, for the foreseeable future, are there any plans for them to get new units in the next 5-10 years? Will we see new CAF trains elsewhere in the UK? (Apart from WMT)

In my opinion, the best option is to “do a Greater Anglia”, and opt for 3 or 4 car Stadler Flirts. They are far superior to CAF’s offering.

 

[Harpo]

In my opinion, the best option is to “do a Greater Anglia”, and opt for 3 or 4 car Stadler Flirts. They are far superior to CAF’s offering.

Having both, TfW has an excellent opportunity to compare the two. I wonder which of the two fleets suffers most from ‘more trains than usual needing repair’?” (Don’t think I’ve heard that happening on GA……..)

 

[Peter Sarf]

In my opinion, the best option is to “do a Greater Anglia”, and opt for 3 or 4 car Stadler Flirts. They are far superior to CAF’s offering.

I would prefer FLIRTS but two problems.

1) The FLIRTS do not have unit end gangways for portion working. So will require more crew etc and inconvenience for passengers. There is enough joining and splitting on TfW to make this an issue.

2) Cost - FLIRTS are more expensive - BUT you get what you pay for.

But I can imagine if TfW really want more DMUs AND have the money then they will buy more FLIRTS rather than more 197s and push the 197s further off the South Wales circuits where possible. Concentrating FLIRTS near Canton and Barry makes sense.

Oh for a ride on a FLIRT up the heart of Wales line !.

Having both, TfW has an excellent opportunity to compare the two. I wonder which of the two fleets suffers most from ‘more trains than usual needing repair’?” (Don’t think I’ve heard that happening on GA……..)

GA have the luxury of "more trains available than usually needed". Which is still a good way of being reliable - backup.

Yes TfW would be better placed to compare reliability and costs.

 

[Harpo]

GA have the luxury of "more trains available than usually needed". Which is still a good way of being reliable - backup.

Only 720s though isn’t it? The Stadler spare capacity gets used as a triple set on Liv St to Narje or is there more?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Only 720s though isn’t it? The Stadler spare capacity gets used as a triple set on Liv St to Narje or is there more?

I think slightly more 755s than are needed to cover 745s.

But we are off topic.

I cannot see TfW having any surplus once the 15x fleets are worn out.

 

[amahy]

2) Cost - FLIRTS are more expensive - BUT you get what you pay for.

But doesn’t this present other issues on TfW? Such as the fact that the more expensive new TfW trains are only running around Cardiff, with cheap 197s running everywhere else. It seems like everywhere but Cardiff has drawn the short straw in this regard.

Also, a train can be cheaper, but it still has to work, which the 197s barely do!

 

[Jez]

But doesn’t this present other issues on TfW? Such as the fact that the more expensive new TfW trains are only running around Cardiff, with cheap 197s running everywhere else. It seems like everywhere but Cardiff has drawn the short straw in this regard.

Also, a train can be cheaper, but it still has to work, which the 197s barely do!

Everywhere but Cardiff and Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Cheltenham!

Seriously though, as much as I like the FLIRTS I also find the 197s perfectly fine for the routes they are running on providing there is a suitable amount of carriages for each service - 4 or 5 for Swansea/Cardiff to Manchester services and 2 cars are clearly fine for some routes. This is why the split works so well for so many services.

 

[Caaardiff]

But doesn’t this present other issues on TfW? Such as the fact that the more expensive new TfW trains are only running around Cardiff, with cheap 197s running everywhere else. It seems like everywhere but Cardiff has drawn the short straw in this regard.

Also, a train can be cheaper, but it still has to work, which the 197s barely do!

Flirts are ideal for Valleys work, which is why they were ordered. 3-4 carriage commuter style, level boarding, enough units to be maintained at Canton. They do not have the fuel range to work long distance services.

The idea of the 197 makes total sense for what TFW need, although more 3 carriages should have been ordered. It just happened they are a terrible product, which it seems no-one at TFW could see during the ordering and contracts process.

Given the issues at EMR, and issues GWR also have on a smaller scale with Hitachi's, i'm not entirely sure what the best alterative to a 197 would have been.

 

[Peter Sarf]

But doesn’t this present other issues on TfW? Such as the fact that the more expensive new TfW trains are only running around Cardiff, with cheap 197s running everywhere else. It seems like everywhere but Cardiff has drawn the short straw in this regard.

Also, a train can be cheaper, but it still has to work, which the 197s barely do!

OK so *IF* TfW could afford more FLIRTs would it be better not to spend the money on them but on these "inferior units" ?. Just to keep things fair.
No. You get the best you can within reason when you can. I do not think the 197s are that bad and, if anything, they the only thing suitable for the longer less intensive routes - FLIRTS do not have the unit end gangways.

Also 197s do not come ready to run on 25kV AC, not sure how easily they can be adapted to run on AC.

We should remember the ruumoured extra units are not necessarily even for South Wales I suppose.

Everywhere but Cardiff and Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Cheltenham!

Seriously though, as much as I like the FLIRTS I also find the 197s perfectly fine for the routes they are running on providing there is a suitable amount of carriages for each service - 4 or 5 for Swansea/Cardiff to Manchester services and 2 cars are clearly fine for some routes. This is why the split works so well for so many services.

I agree, this is the balance required.

 

[Akela]

I would prefer FLIRTS but two problems.

1) The FLIRTS do not have unit end gangways for portion working. So will require more crew etc and inconvenience for passengers. There is enough joining and splitting on TfW to make this an issue.

Is there a reason why TFW's services have to involve as much joining and splitting as they do now? I feel like if you were designing the diagrams from scratch and they had the luxury of enough depot space for new trains and funding for certain infrastructure improvements a lot of a splitting and joining that happens on the South Wales/West Wales lines (for example) could be minimised.

 

[craigybagel]

Is there a reason why TFW's services have to involve as much joining and splitting as they do now? I feel like if you were designing the diagrams from scratch and they had the luxury of enough depot space for new trains and funding for certain infrastructure improvements a lot of a splitting and joining that happens on the South Wales/West Wales lines (for example) could be minimised.

Everybody wants trains to everywhere else and woe betide anyone who suggests streamlining things in a more simple matter. This is the cheapest way to achieve it - bearing in mind it's already a hugely subsidised network before you start trying to run 5 cars from Manchester through to Milford Haven all day long.

 

[James James]

I would prefer FLIRTS but two problems.

1) The FLIRTS do not have unit end gangways for portion working. So will require more crew etc and inconvenience for passengers. There is enough joining and splitting on TfW to make this an issue.

Surely they can design and build it if needed. CAF didn't used to make trains with end gangways, and now they do. It might be slightly tricky due to floors being higher at the driving end, but that's not an insurmountable problem.

 

[Caaardiff]

Is there a reason why TFW's services have to involve as much joining and splitting as they do now? I feel like if you were designing the diagrams from scratch and they had the luxury of enough depot space for new trains and funding for certain infrastructure improvements a lot of a splitting and joining that happens on the South Wales/West Wales lines (for example) could be minimised.

It's what works based on demand. The splitting at Swansea means less units required, so cheaper. The 3 car should carry on West to provide extra capacity west of Swansea, but there aren't enough 3 cars in the fleet.

Its the same with all the splitting on the cambrian network. Some services work as 2 cars based on demand, others in to the big cities need 4+ car.

Flirts are ideal for South Wales, just not long distance. 2x 3 cars for Newport-Ebbw Vale and some 4 cars for Cardiff-Pembroke Dock or West Wales-Bristol would be ideal. Those displaced 2 car 197s can strengthen other services and also replace the 153s on the Heart of Wales line.

 

[tomoufc]

It does unfortunately seem that the easiest solution to long term availability of the 197s, would be to order more 197s (or similar products from the same platform).

 

[amahy]

Everybody wants trains to everywhere else and woe betide anyone who suggests streamlining things in a more simple matter. This is the cheapest way to achieve it - bearing in mind it's already a hugely subsidised network before you start trying to run 5 cars from Manchester through to Milford Haven all day long.

I’ve said this before many times. Manchester to South West Wales being one service simply does not work. It is unfair for someone, for example, travelling from Hereford to Shrewsbury, to suffer from disruption due to problems at Carmarthen, and vice versa. Passengers travelling north of Newport to west of Swansea are in a tiny minority of people using these services. When you factor in the inadequate 15 minute turnaround at Manchester, the punctuality situation is a disaster waiting to happen.

It’s much better to run, for example, a 5 car train between Manchester and Swansea, then a 3-4 car train west of Swansea. Swansea has the added benefit of all platforms being on the same level as each other, so it isn’t too disruptive to have to change.

It does unfortunately seem that the easiest solution to long term availability of the 197s, would be to order more 197s (or similar products from the same platform).

If the engine issues, air-con, toilets, ride quality, and overly bright lights were fixed, then I’d agree with you. There should also be a second 197 maintenance depot, preferably at Swansea, to relieve pressure on Chester, and avoid units working in the south having to run all the way to Chester for maintenance. If all these issues were fixed, the situation would be vastly improved.

 

[Torfaen]

It does unfortunately seem that the easiest solution to long term availability of the 197s, would be to order more 197s (or similar products from the same platform).

Isn't one of the main issues with 197 availability the lack of maintenance capacity? Expanding the fleet may not improve things much if it just increases the backlog of repairs at Chester.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Isn't one of the main issues with 197 availability the lack of maintenance capacity? Expanding the fleet may not improve things much if it just increases the backlog of repairs at Chester.

Tempting option would be. If Canton has capacity then give it more FLIRTs to maintain.
Well Barry then !.

Important point is that depot capacity can be a limit and I think Chester is fully stretched and beyond.
It is why I believe replacing the 230s with 197s would not help as Chester depot already has enough on its plate.
Perhaps in South Wales there is more capacity but would it be easier to give South Wales more of the same (FLIRTs) rather than making those depots have to carry different spares, tools and expertise for 197s ?.

It is not necessarily about what runs where but also who get lumbered with maintaining it !.

 

[stevieinselby]

Also 197s do not come ready to run on 25kV AC, not sure how easily they can be adapted to run on AC.

They can't.

All class 1xx DMUs have mechanical or hydraulic drivetrains, which pretty much precludes them from being converted to bi-modes or EMUs without completely ripping out all of the mechanicals and rebuilding from scratch.
That's different from class 2xx DMUs, which use a diesel generator to power an electric motor that drives the train, and so it would be in principle a lot easier to add an electrical pickup that could power the motor directly (although if the train hasn't been designed with that in mind then you're probably not going to have the space to fit in all the gubbins that you need). That's why the class 231s can be converted to class 755/756 style bi-modes, but class 197s can't.

 

[TastyMaltesers]

They can't.

All class 1xx DMUs have mechanical or hydraulic drivetrains, which pretty much precludes them from being converted to bi-modes or EMUs without completely ripping out all of the mechanicals and rebuilding from scratch.
That's different from class 2xx DMUs, which use a diesel generator to power an electric motor that drives the train, and so it would be in principle a lot easier to add an electrical pickup that could power the motor directly (although if the train hasn't been designed with that in mind then you're probably not going to have the space to fit in all the gubbins that you need). That's why the class 231s can be converted to class 755/756 style bi-modes, but class 197s can't.

I did not realise before, thank you for your informative post

 

[Zomboid]

Do 195/6s have the same reliability issues as the 197s seem to? If not , why not? I had the impression that they were pretty similar designs.

 

[Helvellyn]

How are Northern and West Midlands Trains getting on with their CAF DMUs (Classes 195 and 196 respectively) in comparison to the TfW Class 197s?

 

[TastyMaltesers]

Do 195/6s have the same reliability issues as the 197s seem to? If not , why not? I had the impression that they were pretty similar designs.

Something to consider is the CAF strikes having an effect on the maintenance of the TfW ones in particular.

 

[The exile]

Surely they can design and build it if needed. CAF didn't used to make trains with end gangways, and now they do. It might be slightly tricky due to floors being higher at the driving end, but that's not an insurmountable problem.

Indeed - wasn’t Stadler’s route into the mass-market the production of short customer-runs for the multitude of minor Swiss railways? I’m sure if you wanted (and were prepared to pay for) inter-unit gangways, they’d find a way. Trouble is, too many people think they’re not worth it. (The gangways, that is).

 

[Zomboid]

Something to consider is the CAF strikes having an effect on the maintenance of the TfW ones in particular.

If the poor availability is down to a lack of maintenance, then there's your solution; the trains themselves are not necessarily the issue.

 

[Peter Sarf]

They can't.

All class 1xx DMUs have mechanical or hydraulic drivetrains, which pretty much precludes them from being converted to bi-modes or EMUs without completely ripping out all of the mechanicals and rebuilding from scratch.
That's different from class 2xx DMUs, which use a diesel generator to power an electric motor that drives the train, and so it would be in principle a lot easier to add an electrical pickup that could power the motor directly (although if the train hasn't been designed with that in mind then you're probably not going to have the space to fit in all the gubbins that you need). That's why the class 231s can be converted to class 755/756 style bi-modes, but class 197s can't.

Yes... Easier to add a diesel engine to an EMU - But class 319 to class 769 shows what can, but perhaps shouldn't, be done !.

 

[Polarbear]

One possibility could be to invest in a small fleet of (say six car) Flirts for the Marches routes?

 

[Peter Sarf]

One possibility could be to invest in a small fleet of (say six car) Flirts for the Marches routes?

That is what I fancy. Enough FLIRTs to run all Swansea/Manchester services. Get rid of the Mk4s and free up some 197s. Probably requires two power pack mini coaches (thrash cupboards to some) so a bit "different".

I wonder if replacement of 230s with 197s is a thing ?.
I expect the replacement of 230s is waiting on Mersey Rail BUT if it is not then 197s soon that could be freed up in the distant future when Borderlands line eventually becomes part of Mersey Rail BEMU operation (gets battery 777s).

 

[Trainbike46]

That is what I fancy. Enough of them to run all Swansea/Manchester services. Get rid of the Mk4s and free up some 197s. Probably requires two power pack mini coaches (thrash cupboards to some) so a bit "different".

The 3-car GA 755s only use half the space in the thrash cupboard for engines, so logically you could make a 6-car FLIRT with a single thrash cupboard for TfW with the same power-to-weight ratio on diesel as the 3-car GA 755. On electric, it would match the power-to weight ratio of the class 745.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The 3-car GA 755s only use half the space in the thrash cupboard for engines, so logically you could make a 6-car FLIRT with a single thrash cupboard for TfW with the same power-to-weight ratio on diesel as the 3-car GA 755. On electric, it would match the power-to weight ratio of the class 745.

True. Only caveat is I guess the routes in Anglia are flatter.