WMR Class 196 Build and Implementation

[The_Train]

Can't they just ramp a section (or sections) of platforms like I have seen in certain locations?

Actually, I suppose the issue with that at stations which see a variety of units is that no doubt each of these will differ with access to the actual carriage and so the ramp may work for one unit but then not the next

 

[Amnesiac]

The main ramp leans on the step I believe

This is station dependent but if you need to use the bridging plate then yes, the ramp is secured to the step. They can also be deployed in a "normal" position just above the ridge as you put it without the bridging plate.

 

[The_Train]

Can anybody confirm that 196111 has carried pax and if so roughly when it first did so please?

 

[Peter Sarf]

The latest issue of Modern Railways states that "sources have suggested the Department (for Transport) is pressing for an alternative plan which would see DMUs from Chiltern Railways' existing fleet operate service instead."

Would it be easier for Chiltern to run the EWR service using some of their existing units from the Southern end of the Chiltern network. Then for WMR to loan 196s for Chiltern services that reach the Birmingham end of the Chiltern route ?.

Was supposed to be 2 units going on loan for traction training in Dec. Not heard any different. However it’s now been decided that Snow Hill will learn the units & more units will be required in the west mids from Dec 2024 to cover the Camp Hill work plus other rumoured service expansions. Ultimately Transport for West Midlands will ultimately have a say as they had involvement in the 196 order i believe.

I guess we will have to wait & see as with about 18 months/2 years before any EWR services start Are scheduled to start there will be many rumours & changes.

As you say - it is all a long way off anyway and many things can change in 18 months.

 

[12LDA28C]

Would it be easier for Chiltern to run the EWR service using some of their existing units from the Southern end of the Chiltern network. Then for WMR to loan 196s for Chiltern services that reach the Birmingham end of the Chiltern route ?.

As you say - it is all a long way off anyway and many things can change in 18 months.

In a word, no. Chiltern don't have any spare capacity in their fleet and as previously mentioned, as far as Chiltern is concerned the plan is still for 6 Class 196s to start EWR services between Oxford and Milton Keynes.

 

[meld3]

Can anybody confirm that 196111 has carried pax and if so roughly when it first did so please?

From another forum, and I know & trust the guy who posted it:

"I had 196111on Saturday 5th August 10-40 Shrewsbury Birmingham New for me"

 

[Chris172]

In a word, no. Chiltern don't have any spare capacity in their fleet and as previously mentioned, as far as Chiltern is concerned the plan is still for 6 Class 196s to start EWR services between Oxford and Milton Keynes.

Chiltern have put out a tender for refurbished and new 250 units (same time as Northerns tender) plus there's the rumour of West Midlands railway starting Banbury services

 

[12LDA28C]

Chiltern have put out a tender for refurbished and new 250 units (same time as Northerns tender) plus there's the rumour of West Midlands railway starting Banbury services

...which won't be in service for at least 4 or 5 years, well after the introduction of EWR services to Milton Keynes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2023 ==

plus there's the rumour of West Midlands railway starting Banbury services

Even if that were true and they could find some paths to operate such trains, what would that have to do with Chiltern Railways and their fleet requirements? That would suggest WMR need even more 196s for their own services, if anything.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In a word, no. Chiltern don't have any spare capacity in their fleet and as previously mentioned, as far as Chiltern is concerned the plan is still for 6 Class 196s to start EWR services between Oxford and Milton Keynes.

I was thinking 196s might be more likely to take over some Marylebone/London services so they could get back to Tysely for servicing. That would free up units (168s or maybe then 165s) based in/near London for EWR. That would fit with a rumour of Chiltern using their own units for EWR but still meaning Chiltern borrowed 196s so nothing really changed.

 

[12LDA28C]

I was thinking 196s might be more likely to take over some Marylebone/London services so they could get back to Tysely for servicing. That would free up units (168s or maybe then 165s) based in/near London for EWR. That would fit with a rumour of Chiltern using their own units for EWR but still meaning Chiltern borrowed 196s so nothing really changed.

Chiltern are currently expecting to commence EWR services with 196s subleased from WMR. Why would Chiltern spend more time and money training up more drivers on 196s to operate London services when the current plan is to only train up Bletchley EWR drivers on 196s as they are the only drivers who will need to sign them? It makes no sense. Furthermore, EWR services will be timed for 100mph units so it would be pretty pointless using 165s on the route.

The original plan for 196s to have light maintenance done at Banbury and heavier work done at Tyseley has changed since the drivers' depot has moved to Bletchley. AFAIK there is no agreement yet in place for Chiltern/EWR to have any access to Bletchley Depot to stable and maintain the 196s, this has yet to be agreed, as have many things relating to EWR.

 

[The_Train]

From another forum, and I know & trust the guy who posted it:

"I had 196111on Saturday 5th August 10-40 Shrewsbury Birmingham New for me"

Thanks @meld3 - that's the date I had heard as well so ties together!

 

[D.K.TAYLOR]

196106 out today 27 late leaving New Street on the 08-56 New Street Shrewsbury.
On time Wolves 11.33 apparently been a few cancellations on the Shrewsbury line but did run on the 14-56 New Street Shrewsbury

 

[Birmingham]

there's the rumour of West Midlands railway starting Banbury services

Any more information on this?

 

[Chris172]

Any more information on this?

No it is a rumour

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder this thread is for updates regarding the Class 196 build and implementation.

If anyone wants to make journey planning queries and/or reports, please use the Trip Planning & Reports section; diagrams can go in the Allocations & Timetables section, while speculation & rumours belong in Speculative Discussion please.

Thanks

 

[GalaxyDog]

More cancellations and breakdowns on the Shrewsbury line today thanks to the CAFs upto their old tricks, apparently...

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Which 196s are yet to enter service please?

 

[william.martin]

Which 196s are yet to enter service please?

196112
196113
196114

 

[Liam L]

Which 196s are yet to enter service please?

All the two cars have carried passengers now.

105,112,113 & 114 yet to carry passengers according to Uk rail logs.

 

[AJDesiro]

All the two cars have carried passengers now.

107,112,113 & 114 yet to carry passengers according to Uk rail logs.

I’ve had 196 107 for haulage 5 times so that one has definitely carried passengers.

 

[The_Train]

All the two cars have carried passengers now.

107,112,113 & 114 yet to carry passengers according to Uk rail logs.

I’ve had 196 107 for haulage 5 times so that one has definitely carried passengers.

196107 is showing as active on www.ukraillog.co.uk - was updated to this in November 2022

 

[Liam L]

I’ve had 196 107 for haulage 5 times so that one has definitely carried passengers.

I meant 105.

 

[Energy]

172005 on the Leamington to Nuneaton today instead of a 196. Very rattle-y, far worse than a 196...

...and all but a few lights turned off.

 

[warwickshire]

172005 on the Leamington to Nuneaton today instead of a 196. Very rattle-y, far worse than a 196...

...and all but a few lights turned off.

Have been told, from a few local train crew on the line, not all Coventry drivers sign 196s, so due to this reason 172 can Substitute, vice 196, from time to time as well. On the Leamington to Nuneaton shuttles.

 

[Energy]

Have been told, from a few local train crew on the line, not all Coventry drivers sign 196s, so due to this reason 172 can Substitute, vice 196, from time to time as well. On the Leamington to Nuneaton shuttles.

That's make sense, the 172s are rare on the shuttle now.

The 172 shaking itself to bits on the way out contrasted itself to the 196 which was smooth, quiet and pleasant. Following a Chiltern 168 and a XC 170 having a few rattle-y panels I'd argue the 196s aren't a "poor man's turbostar" but are much better.

The seats are a little softer now as well.

 

[Liam L]

That's make sense, the 172s are rare on the shuttle now.

The 172 shaking itself to bits on the way out contrasted itself to the 196 which was smooth, quiet and pleasant. Following a Chiltern 168 and a XC 170 having a few rattle-y panels I'd argue the 196s aren't a "poor man's turbostar" but are much better.

The seats are a little softer now as well.

All tubrostars rattle. How bad it is depends on the unit. I have traveled on most types of turbostars expect 171s. 172s are by-far the worse for it.

the 196s are improvement over them for sure.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The 197s seem a more pleasant environment than the TfW and XC 170s through Cardiff and Newport to me, similarly. Though XC 170 I find more comfortable, they’re looking rather tatty.

 

[GWVillager]

The 197s seem a more pleasant environment than the TfW and XC 170s through Cardiff and Newport to me, similarly. Though XC 170 I find more comfortable, they’re looking rather tatty.

Really? The TfW 170s are some of my favourite units to travel in, particularly with the declassified first class…

The 172 shaking itself to bits on the way out contrasted itself to the 196 which was smooth, quiet and pleasant. Following a Chiltern 168 and a XC 170 having a few rattle-y panels I'd argue the 196s aren't a "poor man's turbostar" but are much better.

They are better than the 172s, but I would say they’re considerably worse riding than the 170s at higher speeds. Whilst I could easily work on the latter, I find I can’t even type properly let alone write on the 196s!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Really? The TfW 170s are some of my favourite units to travel in, particularly with the declassified first class…

But they’re exceptionally tatty, and missing armrests and tables in certain places due to the vandals. The moquette is worn out and some covers have had to be replaced with CrossCountry ones. The mixture of dated signage looks odd. A pleasant environment on-board is more than seat comfort alone.

 

[Amnesiac]

172005 on the Leamington to Nuneaton today instead of a 196. Very rattle-y, far worse than a 196...

...and all but a few lights turned off.

It was 196011 at first, but it was swapped pretty early in the day.

Yes from a passenger point of view the 172 may seem worse these days, but operationally they're still far more friendly for train crew!