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

[Zomboid]

And the GA units aren't exactly overburdened with fuel capacity.

How much of an issue is train length? 2x 2 engine thrash cupboards with larger fuel tanks and some batteries in the extra space might be necessary for the Manchester to South Wales route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or how about the Irish style FLIRT with a power car at one end rather than thrash pods?

 

[tbtc]

Option A. More 197s - pure diesel, poor reliability, but assembled in Newport

Option B. FLIRTs - bi-mode, working very well on Anglia's varied routes, but not Welsh

Which one the Plaid-run public sector choose may tell us a lot. Is the passenger experience more or less important than headlines/jobs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Option A. More 197s - pure diesel, poor reliability, but assembled in Newport

Option B. FLIRTs - bi-mode, working very well on Anglia's varied routes, but not Welsh

Which one the Plaid-run public sector choose may tell us a lot. Is the passenger experience more or less important than headlines/jobs?

I'd personally say the passenger experience on the 197 is better than the UK FLIRT, which I find like the Pendolino doesn't squash nicely into UK loading gauge and is as a result quite cramped and clumsy in layout. Yes, low floor is a "killer app" but aside from that I think the passenger preference between the two is rather subjective.

Certainly for me 197s win on legroom and window size/position/non-obstruction over any of the UK FLIRTs so far. I don't think there should be any new pure DMUs, but a five-car version of that as a bi-mode with first class and a small buffet counter with a proper coffee machine (and ideally a between-bogie drop in one coach for wheelchair access) would to me be a winner as a regional express unit. For bonus points use the lighting conduit from the 196 as it is classier than the cheap direct lighting in other CAFs, but you can leave most of the rest of the features of that particular design such as the terrible legroom and tiny windows.

Even better if it could work with a 197 then you could run 7 car through services from Manchester to Pembroke with the 2 car going forward from Swansea.

 

[Tetragon213]

Here's to hoping that TfW goes with more FLIRTs as opposed to those dreadful CAF units. There's a reason their usual nickname is one that involves not-safe-for-forum language... leading to their alternate safe-for-work nickname Call A Fitter.

The 196 units that WMT uses are pretty poor. I would assume the TfW units are not much better.

With the entire 158 and 159 fleet approaching end-of-life, what TfW does may have major ramifications for what GBR does to replace the venerable Express Sprinters.

 

[Zomboid]

Or how about the Irish style FLIRT with a power car at one end rather than thrash pods?

Too much like a locomotive!
I like the Amtrak Airo concept actually, Charger diesel locomotive and the carriages have the pantograph (might have some traction motors) or batteries on the carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With the entire 158 and 159 fleet approaching end-of-life, what TfW does may have major ramifications for what GBR does to replace the venerable Express Sprinters.

I can't help but feel that the answer to that in the medium term is to wire the Chiltern line and cascade the 168 fleet to replace 158s on the regional operations. There's easily another 10-20 years in those.

 

[Krokodil]

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.

It also allows them to shortform trains when short of units, which is cheaper than having a large enough fleet to cope with traffic levels - and stuff the passengers.

I travelled on the Marches yesterday. When I looked through RTT everything else to North Wales was a two-car, so I stayed later than usual and waited for the WAG. While waiting at Newport I saw the preceding Manchester train leave passengers behind, formed of two coaches.

 

[Tetragon213]

I can't help but feel that the answer to that in the medium term is to wire the Chiltern line and cascade the 168 fleet to replace 158s on the regional operations.

The problem there is, the Chiltern NIMBY brigade would rather set the entire Chilterns ablaze to "save" it from the "menace" of the railways before accepting progress and the passage of time. If the NIMBY brigade kicked up such a stink over HS2 despite that being mostly out of sight, I can't even begin to imagine the hyped up tales they'll tell about "anxiety" over seeing a wire at 50,000 paces; all supported by the Daily Wail printing headlines such as "SHOCK HORROR RAIL ENGINEERS DESTROY THE SIGHTLINES OF THE CHILTERNS" or words to that effect for months on end.

On top of that, There aren't enough 168s to cover the 158 and 159 operations. Iirc Chiltern's 168 fleet is about 85 coaches, 50 of which have cabs. Northern alone operates more 158 coaches than Chiltern's entire stock of 168s if you replaced on a like-for-like basis. This doesn't even cover the Scotrail fleet of about 80-odd coaches, let alone the 103 coaches' worth of 159 that SWR operates. We'll be needing a lot of new stock to replace the 158s. As good as they are, they're fundamentally old trains that don't have much more life in them.

 

[Zomboid]

The problem there is, the Chiltern NIMBY brigade would rather set the entire Chilterns ablaze to "save" it from the "menace" of the railways before accepting progress and the passage of time. If the NIMBY brigade kicked up such a stink over HS2 despite that being mostly out of sight, I can't even begin to imagine the hyped up tales they'll tell about "anxiety" over seeing a wire at 50,000 paces; all supported by the Daily Wail printing headlines such as "SHOCK HORROR RAIL ENGINEERS DESTROY THE SIGHTLINES OF THE CHILTERNS" or words to that effect for months on end.

On top of that, There aren't enough 168s to cover the 158 and 159 operations. Iirc Chiltern's 168 fleet is about 85 coaches, 50 of which have cabs. Northern alone operates more 158 coaches than Chiltern's entire stock of 168s if you replaced on a like-for-like basis. This doesn't even cover the Scotrail fleet of about 80-odd coaches, let alone the 103 coaches' worth of 159 that SWR operates. We'll be needing a lot of new stock to replace the 158s. As good as they are, they're fundamentally old trains that don't have much more life in them.

The railway will have permitted development rights though, so much like the Goring nimbies there won't be much they could do about anything within the railway boundaries.

 

[Trainbike46]

And the GA units aren't exactly overburdened with fuel capacity.

How much of an issue is train length? 2x 2 engine thrash cupboards with larger fuel tanks and some batteries in the extra space might be necessary for the Manchester to South Wales route.

Or how about the Irish style FLIRT with a power car at one end rather than thrash pods?

Both are possible, but probably not necessary. For fuel tank capacity, it depends on how much of the intended routes is electrified. In East Anglia, for some diagrams it is very little, so if there is more electrification on the intended routes than on the rural East Anglian routes, it seems unlikely fuel tank capacity will be an issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2026 ==

Option A. More 197s - pure diesel, poor reliability, but assembled in Newport

Option B. FLIRTs - bi-mode, working very well on Anglia's varied routes, but not Welsh

Which one the Plaid-run public sector choose may tell us a lot. Is the passenger experience more or less important than headlines/jobs?

This kind of ignores what I suspect would be quite a major part of the consideration: the costs of the units to be ordered.

 

[RailWonderer]

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

Their power to weight ratio is 16/17 kw per tonne which is far above the 185's 10kw per tonne so I'm sure they would be fine. Even the lack of gangways I doubt would be a problem, it's all about fuel tank range which I'm sure Stadler could increase with a revised design.

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).

Besides Switzerland, their largest orders first came from various German operators in the early 2000s, before the GTW evolved into the FLIRT which was rapidly ordered by MAV in Hungary, VR in Finland, more German operators, VY in Norway, plus Polish and Dutch operators.

 

[Trainbike46]

Their power to weight ratio is 16/17 kw per tonne which is far above the 185's 10kw per tonne so I'm sure they would be fine. Even the lack of gangways I doubt would be a problem, it's all about fuel tank range which I'm sure Stadler could increase with a revised design.

Is that on electric or on diesel? and just checking that is for the 3-cars, as the power-to-weight ratio is different for the 3-car and 4-car versions, as the 4-cars have double the diesel engines compared to the 3-cars.

Besides Switzerland, their largest orders first came from various German operators in the early 2000s, before the GTW evolved into the FLIRT which was rapidly ordered by MAV in Hungary, VR in Finland, more German operators, VY in Norway, plus Polish and Dutch operators.

GTW was popular in the Netherlands for a while too, though it has been overtaken by the FLIRT!

 

[RailWonderer]

Is that on electric or on diesel? and just checking that is for the 3-cars, as the power-to-weight ratio is different for the 3-car and 4-car versions, as the 4-cars have double the diesel engines compared to the 3-cars.

The 16/17 kw per tonne number is for the 755/4 on diesel, which has 4 engines for 4 cars, the /3s have 2 engines for 3 cars. On full electric, they are even faster, but drivers don't apply full power anymore like when they were new. According to Wikipedia on full electric, 755/3s are quicker as they are lighter:

• Class 755/3 (3-car unit): Approximately 20.0 to 22.8 kW per tonne

• Class 755/4 (4-car unit): Approximately 15.9 to 22.8 kW per tonne

 

[Peter Sarf]

I can't help but feel that the answer to that in the medium term is to wire the Chiltern line and cascade the 168 fleet to replace 158s on the regional operations. There's easily another 10-20 years in those.

Oh yes, if only for an electrify and cascade.......
The big picture but too big for a mere UK government I am afraid.

 

[Brubulus]

A standard 6 car FLIRT is probably best for the intercity routes, it would only require 1 thrash cabinet but fuel capacity would be a concern. However I suspect a 5 car CAF unit (probably with the 195 front-end as that's cheaper than a gangway) is more likely.

 

[Trainbike46]

A standard 6 car FLIRT is probably best for the intercity routes, it would only require 1 thrash cabinet but fuel capacity would be a concern. However I suspect a 5 car CAF unit (probably with the 195 front-end as that's cheaper than a gangway) is more likely.

I'd think it would be fine for Carmarthen/Swansea-Manchester for example, as both Crewe-Manchester and Cardiff-Newport are electrified, which are significant stretches where a FLIRT wouldn't use diesel. Cardiff-Holyhead might be more challenging, but even there the Cardiff-Newport electrification would be helpful, and I suspect it would be fine though some detailed modelling using data from both the GA and TfW operations with 755s and 231s would probably be advisable. It would even be possible to run some of the more demanding TfW IC diagrams with some 755s (and a TfW driver route-conducting a GA driver) as a test, and see how they perform and how much fuel is left at the end of a full day. But just to re-iterate, I strongly suspect it would be fine as long as they pan-up where OHLE is available.

 

[BenBracken]

This has been discussed elsewhere but it seems that many of the issues with 197s such as the toilets and other electrical gremlins are fixable? The ride quality sounds to be more of a fundamental problem on older track on rural lines but will those lines be eventually upgraded to CWR as part of the natural renewal process? I remember that the 15x units had all sorts of teething issues in the 80s. The entire 155 fleet had to be completely withdrawn and temporarily replaced by 156s and loco hauled stock on the Cardiff - Portsmouth line (was it brake issues?) for example, and now the 153s are considered bomb proof trains, so there is hope the 197s will get sorted!

 

[trebor79]

Don't forget the 755s had fuel capacity deliberately reduced in order to be able to use sprinter speed limits (axle loading).
I'm not sure how much of an issue that is in Wales, a lot of the routes seem fairly low speed anyway.

 

[Krokodil]

Don't forget the 755s had fuel capacity deliberately reduced in order to be able to use sprinter speed limits (axle loading).
I'm not sure how much of an issue that is in Wales, a lot of the routes seem fairly low speed anyway.

I can't see that being much of an issue on the Marches - if it's an issue for FLIRTs it'll be an issue for the existing loco-hauled trains.

Presumably having a second thrash cabinet would mean better fuel range.

 

[Bevan Price]

Remember that for their first few years, Class 175 were troublesome, and spme loco-hauled diagrams had to be retained in North Wales. But the 175 problems were sorted out and they eventually became fairly reliable. Given better maintenance, I see no reason why 197s should not become equally reliable. So, as suggested above, (Post#16) what is really needed is an enlarged, or additional maintenance depot, rather than additional trains.

 

[Krokodil]

Remember that for their first few years, Class 175 were troublesome, and spme loco-hauled diagrams had to be retained in North Wales. But the 175 problems were sorted out and they eventually became fairly reliable. Given better maintenance, I see no reason why 197s should not become equally reliable. So, as suggested above, (Post#16) what is really needed is an enlarged, or additional maintenance depot, rather than additional trains.

Where though? Landore?

 

[Caaardiff]

Remember that for their first few years, Class 175 were troublesome, and spme loco-hauled diagrams had to be retained in North Wales. But the 175 problems were sorted out and they eventually became fairly reliable. Given better maintenance, I see no reason why 197s should not become equally reliable. So, as suggested above, (Post#16) what is really needed is an enlarged, or additional maintenance depot, rather than additional trains.

The issue appears to be trying to maintain too many (56) at a depot with limited space, with limited staffing, on a train that appears to be of cheaper quality build, along with a shortage of parts.
Add in the big problems with the roll bars and now the gearboxes, then throw in few tree collisions that appear to crumple these trains quite easily.
Then you have TOC vs Manufacturer in fighting over a terribly drawn up contract and you have a perfect storm. The only ones that really suffer is the passenger.

CAF will not go to the expense of building a new depot, and TFW aren't able to maintain CAF units, so its pointless them building a new depot. Which is why more CAF units should be avoided, unless TFW take on full responsibility for the units themselves.

 

[Zomboid]

CAF will not go to the expense of building a new depot, and TFW aren't able to maintain CAF units, so its pointless them building a new depot. Which is why more CAF units should be avoided, unless TFW take on full responsibility for the units themselves

Or alternatively another order might give them the volume to justify a south Wales maintenance facility (or it could be a condition of the order).

 

[positron]

Given all the issues with CAF and their poor behaviour (I know you can look at it many ways but fighting over contracts rather than fixing the trains for passengers is poor behaviour), AND their lack of level boarding units. It would be pretty wild to order more CAF units. The FLIRT platform seems pretty adaptable and I'm sure any of the mentioned issues could be addressed. At the very least I suspect you could use FLIRTs for more services and cascade the 197s to bolster the marches even if you can't use FLIRTs on it for now.

Also got to remember with the Welsh government aspirations of electrification to Swansea and the north Wales line and even eventually the marches buying more pure diesel mechanical units would seem pretty strange.

Having used the Welsh FLIRTs I do think they'd be a great fit for many of the great western railway services too. I'm not aware of any other manufacturer (CAF might for LNER?) with a level boarding platform available on the market.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2026 ==

Also if GBR (with TfW and ScotRail) do a bulk order for stadler trains they could easily justify setting up a manufacturing plant within the UK the same way CAF did in Newport.

 

[TastyMaltesers]

Given all the issues with CAF and their poor behaviour (I know you can look at it many ways but fighting over contracts rather than fixing the trains for passengers is poor behaviour), AND their lack of level boarding units. It would be pretty wild to order more CAF units. The FLIRT platform seems pretty adaptable and I'm sure any of the mentioned issues could be addressed. At the very least I suspect you could use FLIRTs for more services and cascade the 197s to bolster the marches even if you can't use FLIRTs on it for now.

Alas, accountants see that the CAF stuff is cheaper... (don't the initials stand for Cheap And F*****? )

 

[D365]

Given all the issues with CAF and their poor behaviour (I know you can look at it many ways but fighting over contracts rather than fixing the trains for passengers is poor behaviour), AND their lack of level boarding units. It would be pretty wild to order more CAF units.

Notwithstanding that CAF has been shortlisted for the Northern and Southeastern new train tenders, for which (partial or full) level boarding is a requirement.

 

[Topological]

It is a shame there is no incentive to turn brownfield sites into productive land. Somewhere with a rail connection and acceptable road access would make an ideal depot.

I am glad others have pointed out that there is a queue of 197s awaiting fixing and that the queue would not be there if the depot was sized to the fleet. Currently, the whole fleet is being squeezed through a depot that previously just did the much smaller 175 fleet.

As someone who uses the Marches regularly, the 197 is an excellent unit. A 5-car 197 is the best you can get on the line as it lets you serve many more stations and not lose time compared to the Mk4 sets. Run the 197s on the Mk4 stopping pattern and you can genuinely improve journey times. Luckily, any DMU will perform better on a stopping service than a loco hauled set. Any appropriately doored DMU will do better than an intercity carriage on services that serve many rural communities.

I hope that TfW can get themselves more 197s, and find a depot solution. I know they will not though.

 

[Snow1964]

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.

That's a question of Investment, and if ordering more units (or even ordering just additional centre cars) then investing in capacity.

And of course if got a bigger fleet, there is a case for opening an additional depot, (even if it can only do light-medium work, not the super heavy stuff).

It doesn't help that a train near say Hereford or Bangor or Tenby is so far from a depot. If its takes a crew 3-4 hours to take a faulty train to a depot and bring back a spare, then always going to be problems unless preventative maintenance is done to extreme levels

But if its politically acceptable to order from CAF now they are on a UN blacklist for involvement in Israeli settlements is a different question.

 

[Torfaen]

Once 15x are gone, will Canton have spare maintenance capacity for additional Stadler units?

Wasn't one of the reasons TfW ordered 197s that they wanted a gangway connection between units, and CAF were pretty much their only choice? Would that necessarily be a requirement if expanding the fleet? While a fixed 5-car formation would suit daytime services on Cardiff-Manchester, I guess TfW would like the flexibility to split and join them for West Wales through services and late evenings.