CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[sd0733]

As for having a long-distance seat, my understanding is that the seat in first class on the class 800/801/802 units is the "Fanisa MD" - the same Fanisa who manufacture the 'Sophia' found in standard class on the 197s and the 800/801/802. Further, I understand that the 'MD' stands for Medium Distance. Obviously the TOCs/DfT would specify a higher-spec seat for first class compared to that in standard class, which means the 'Sophia' is intended to be an inferior seat to the MD. Therefore, standard class passengers are getting, at best, a low-spec medium-distance seat.

To be fair as bad as a lot of things on the 197s are the seats are one of the better bits.
Having been on a 197 then a GWR 80x the 197 version with the modified cushion is far more comfortable.

That said, when 158s (and previously 175s) roll in on 197 diagrams now there are often passengers commenting its nice to get the old trains back!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the stark interior colour scheme doesn't help. I've heard good things said about the Class 720, which must be the most uncomfortable thing this side of sitting on a pile of bricks, but the interior design is quite classy with fake wood and indirect lighting, so people are fooled.

Changing the lighting would cost a fortune, but they should print some vinyls of Welsh scenery and stick them on the boring grey to cheer it up a bit.

As for the Sophias the cushion is totally different to the normal ones and is to me quite good, and I hate the normal ones.

 

[MrCheeseGrater]

I think the 197s are suitable trains for most of the shorter, stopping routes they will/do run e.g the Cambrian, the Manchester to North Wales services, Cardiff to West Wales services, Swanline etc. These are services which, in my opinion, they are perfectly suitable for with their door layout, lighting and seat quality. I also think the toilet provision is not much of an issue on these routes where many journeys are shorter.

They'd also be suitable on the Maesteg/Ebbw Vale/Cheltenham services, but one rolling stock mistake I think TfW have made is buying a small fleet of 231's, when they could have just used extra 197s. Maybe they, for whatever reason, want to keep 197s seperate from South Wales Metro services.

I think that TfW's mistake is using these as a replacement for the 'regional express' style 175s and 158s on the long distance West Wales/Cardiff to Manchester/Holyhead services. These routes are much more suitable for something closer to 175s, with more comfortable seating, lighting and end doors, which the 197 lacks. What they should have done instead is bought another fleet of train with, like an improved, more modern 175 with longer formations (I think a major issue with the 175 design was that they were not 4/5 carriages), a quality first class offering, and better PIS. Ideally, they would have kept the excellent seat to window allignment and airline/table seat ratio. Perhaps even have them gangweyed.

A lot of these things, from a passenger comfortperspective, the 197 does not do, so I think these would have been far more suitable for the long distance services which seem to be where people find the 197 lacking.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think the 197s are suitable trains for most of the shorter, stopping routes they will/do run e.g the Cambrian, the Manchester to North Wales services, Cardiff to West Wales services, Swanline etc. These are services which, in my opinion, they are perfectly suitable for with their door layout, lighting and seat quality. I also think the toilet provision is not much of an issue on these routes where many journeys are shorter.

They'd also be suitable on the Maesteg/Ebbw Vale/Cheltenham services, but one rolling stock mistake I think TfW have made is buying a small fleet of 231's, when they could have just used extra 197s. Maybe they, for whatever reason, want to keep 197s seperate from South Wales Metro services.

I agree that they should be suitable for the Swanline and Maesteg / Ebbw Vale / Cheltenham stoppers. However (and this may be why KeolisAmey went with FLIRTs for most of these services) the Welsh Government is likely to want these south Wales Metro services electrified fairly soon, and there is no passive provision for a pantograph in the class 197 design. I believe (though may be wrong) that the 197s are aluminium-bodied and that welding aluminium (to add a pantograph well) would require all electrical equipment to be removed from the unit. If that's true, you probably might just as well send them back to the CAF assembly plant in Newport and have the staff there reverse the assembly process - back to bare bodyshells to be modified for a pantograph well then reassemble as class 331/2 (2-car) and class 331/3 EMUs (3-car) (retaining the 197's gangwayed cabs). That's probably my main reason for using such a strong word (ie. abomination) to describe the 197s - the work they are best-suited to in the short term should be disappearing soon due to electrification.

However, I wouldn't include Cardiff to West Wales (getting on for two hours just to Carmarthen*, with nearly another hour to Fishguard/Milford), or the Cambrian (3hrs BHM-AYW or nearly 5hrs to Pwllheli) in the list of 'shorter, stopping routes'. As for North Wales:

• the Conwy Valley is probably short enough that the limited toilet provision isn't that much of an issue and lightly-loaded enough to avoid standees so just using whatever is to hand in Llandudno is probably not too big a concern, but I still think something like a cheaper-to-run 175*** would be the ideal unit for it.
• TfW's Manchester Airport to Chester route seems to be the main stopping service for Runcorn East, Frodsham and Helsby - if this was a standalone service the 197s (or rather, an electric version, since we really should have wired this sort of stuff by now) would probably be a good choice, but it runs on into north Wales in leiu of a proper regional express service. If it were up to me I'd give it to Northern to run, add a stop at Eccles (and maybe Patricroft) to make it more of a stopper and have TfW extend a North Wales coast service to Manchester (Victoria, unless the Castlefield/Piccadilly 4-tracking scheme gets resurected) calling at only Warrington Bank Quay and Newton-Le-Willows (something like a bi-mode 442 would run this faster service)
• All-stations stoppers between Llandudno and Chester and between Llandudno and Holyhead would be suitable teritory for an outer-suburban unit, but again these stations are currently served by longer-distance services in leiu of proper regional express services with fewer stops

* Cardiff - Carmarthen could be done in 1hr 23mins but then you would have at most 4 intermediate stops (Bridgend, Port Talbot, Morriston* and Llanelli) so most of the journey would be spent moving not dwelling.
** new station on the Swansea District Line near M4 junction 45 (yes, 45, not the Government's proposed station further west which in my view is only useful as a metro stop if a whole load of new stations are opened as part of a Swansea metro and shouldn't be served by express services)
*** lighter weight, lower top speed and less powerful engines (so better fuel economy) - more like a modernised 156 perhaps

I think that TfW's mistake is using these as a replacement for the 'regional express' style 175s and 158s on the long distance West Wales/Cardiff to Manchester/Holyhead services. These routes are much more suitable for something closer to 175s, with more comfortable seating, lighting and end doors, which the 197 lacks. What they should have done instead is bought another fleet of train with, like an improved, more modern 175 with longer formations (I think a major issue with the 175 design was that they were not 4/5 carriages), a quality first class offering, and better PIS. Ideally, they would have kept the excellent seat to window allignment and airline/table seat ratio. Perhaps even have them gangweyed.

A lot of these things, from a passenger comfortperspective, the 197 does not do, so I think these would have been far more suitable for the long distance services which seem to be where people find the 197 lacking.

I would definitely include end gangways in the specification of the new long-distance units, but probably wouldn't bother with first class unless they would have replaced the mark 3s instead of bringing in mark 4s. I would also add a pantograph (bi-mode capability) as an essential requirement. I think ordering something like a 175, with the addition of end gangways and bi-mode capability (still in 2-car and 3-car formations ideally) for the Cambrian services and releasing the 158s either to other operators (in which case more of the new new bi-modes would be added to the order (each one 3-cars or more) to suplement the 175s and perhaps replace the mark 3s (in which case they would be some 5-car units with a buffet and maybe some first class seating) instead of mark 4s) or to suplement the 175s elsewhere in TfW would have been a good plan. Instead KeolisAmey went for a heading-grabbing total fleet replacement and so they bulk-ordered the 197s - which presumably were the cheapest off-the-shelf units they thought they could get away with (remember they originally were going to come with 'ironing board' seats).

 

[Dai Corner]

I agree that they should be suitable for the Swanline and Maesteg / Ebbw Vale / Cheltenham stoppers. However (and this may be why KeolisAmey went with FLIRTs for most of these services) the Welsh Government is likely to want these south Wales Metro services electrified fairly soon, and there is no passive provision for a pantograph in the class 197 design.

CAF offer a bi-mode version of the Civity, so it probably wouldn't have been a huge job to take the electric traction bits out but leave provision for them to be retrofitted.

I don't think they do a tri-mode version as required for Rhymney Valley-Cardiff-Vale services though.

 

[Rhydgaled]

CAF offer a bi-mode version of the Civity, so it probably wouldn't have been a huge job to take the electric traction bits out but leave provision for them to be retrofitted.

I don't think they do a tri-mode version as required for Rhymney Valley-Cardiff-Vale services though.

I don't think it has been confirmed whether the bi-mode Civity is available for the UK loading guage variant though.

 

[Caaardiff]

I think the 197s are suitable trains for most of the shorter, stopping routes they will/do run e.g the Cambrian, the Manchester to North Wales services, Cardiff to West Wales services, Swanline etc. These are services which, in my opinion, they are perfectly suitable for with their door layout, lighting and seat quality. I also think the toilet provision is not much of an issue on these routes where many journeys are shorter.

They'd also be suitable on the Maesteg/Ebbw Vale/Cheltenham services, but one rolling stock mistake I think TfW have made is buying a small fleet of 231's, when they could have just used extra 197s. Maybe they, for whatever reason, want to keep 197s seperate from South Wales Metro services.

I think that TfW's mistake is using these as a replacement for the 'regional express' style 175s and 158s on the long distance West Wales/Cardiff to Manchester/Holyhead services. These routes are much more suitable for something closer to 175s, with more comfortable seating, lighting and end doors, which the 197 lacks. What they should have done instead is bought another fleet of train with, like an improved, more modern 175 with longer formations (I think a major issue with the 175 design was that they were not 4/5 carriages), a quality first class offering, and better PIS. Ideally, they would have kept the excellent seat to window allignment and airline/table seat ratio. Perhaps even have them gangweyed.

A lot of these things, from a passenger comfortperspective, the 197 does not do, so I think these would have been far more suitable for the long distance services which seem to be where people find the 197 lacking.

Don't forget that TFW haven't just ordered Class 231's. They've also ordered Class 756 and Class 398's. In total that's 71 Stadler trains under one order, so likely a deal was done. All of the Stadler units form part of the South Wales Metro plans - Valleys, VOG, Ebbw Vale, Maesteg - Cheltenham. What comes with that is the maintenance requirements. 398's at Taffs Well, 231's and 756s at Canton. Personally I'd rather see more 231's on Cardiff - Swansea Swanlines or even West Wales if the range worked.

Also Canton are not going to maintaining CAF units, that will be done at Chester and Machynlleth by CAF. There may not have been room for any more CAF units to be maintained at Chester and Machynlleth and Canton might not have been part of any plans to become a Depot for CAF for contractual reasons.

 

[Italianauto]

The class 197s are objectively inferior to class 175s on a number of measures. There are also objectively inferior to class 158s on a number of measures (not necessarily the same ones, although some of them are). For example, a single class 197 has fewer toilets than a single class 158 or class 175 of the same number of carriages. That is neither an opinion or speculative, it is a verifiable fact.

What is better than a 175? You mention good legroom, but a 175 is better (84cm seat spacing in airline-style by my reckoning versus 82cm on a 197 according to the seat plan, and even TfW admitted a 1cm loss of legroom on a 197 compared to a 175). Loss of tables bothers me because I like to have a clear view outside, and only window-aligned table bays (which there are even fewer of on a 197) really do that.

I recall in the early days of North Western Trains, there was a small in-house team who were dealing with the design rollout of the brand (the short-lived stars on blue colour) and design detail of the Class 175. I remember them explaining a criteria for 'good' train seating, for example. I perceived they were 'designers' concerned with brand look, comfort and ambience factors, working with Alstom. The Class 197 appears to exhibit none of this. No-one to my mind has defined ambience, interior quality, pax appeal and then specified that. We have seating which looks to be at a near-right angle between backrest and seat (I don't set my car seats at this angle, does anyone?) also metal framed, so no 'give', intolerable lighting, particularly at 07:00 on a dark winter's morning and zero decor appeal. Even if I could live with bumpy suspension, scarce tables and noisy heating. Did anyone involved in this project look at a base-spec Nissan Leaf, for example? Ok, so that's a car, and a basic one, but car is the main competition, and logit models show us that car wins out in most travel situations. For a train of the future, for longer distances, and full fare payers, this train doesn't advance the utility or appeal of rail travel at all, other than there will be more of them.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I recall in the early days of North Western Trains, there was a small in-house team who were dealing with the design rollout of the brand (the short-lived stars on blue colour) and design detail of the Class 175. I remember them explaining a criteria for 'good' train seating, for example. I perceived they were 'designers' concerned with brand look, comfort and ambience factors, working with Alstom. The Class 197 appears to exhibit none of this. No-one to my mind has defined ambience, interior quality, pax appeal and then specified that.

The reporting by Rhodri Clark after TfW paid for a variation order to avoid the 'ironing boards' (eg. HERE, (Modern Railways)) suggests you might be correct regarding the specification of the class 197s (although somebody did at least ensure they were ordered with Unit End Gangways). Some quotes from the above linked article:

specification mandates that they must be comfortable and practical for journeys of up to three hours.

legal action was considered to compel CAF and KeolisAmey, which uses the TfW Rail Services brand, to fit the Sophia seats.

‘Such legal action would be unlikely to succeed but would incur considerable additional cost and cause significant programme delay.’

It sounds to me that the class 197 specification meerly said that the seats must be 'comfortable', without adequately defining what 'comfortable' means, so KeolisAmey/CAF just went for a cheap off-the-shelf product in the form of the Fainsa Comrail 'ironing board' (not sure whether this would have been the class 700 version or the supposedly improved version on Northern class 195s which I would say aren't even comfortable for anything over one hour, let alone three (if I've ever been on a class 700, I can't remember if I thought them worse than a 195 or not)).

Even if I could live with bumpy suspension, scarce tables and noisy heating. Did anyone involved in this project look at a base-spec Nissan Leaf, for example? Ok, so that's a car, and a basic one, but car is the main competition, and logit models show us that car wins out in most travel situations. For a train of the future, for longer distances, and full fare payers, this train doesn't advance the utility or appeal of rail travel at all, other than there will be more of them.

I agree completely - the car is the main competition for motorists and train interiors should be designed to appeal to motorists, not only to those who don't have access to a car. Another quote from another Modern Railways article now:

Our expectations are managed downwards train by train, but that doesn’t work on someone moving from EasyJet or company car. They just see a hard, uncomfortable seat

The theory works - when I returned to rail after avoiding public transport through COVID lockdowns even seats I liked before are now on the edge of disgust at them being so hard.