CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[Gordonman]

Just seen 2x 2 car 197s being dragged through Droitwich on 5Q94 Donnington Rft - Long Marston. No numbers on either unit, but pretty sure they has UT38 and UT41 displayed in the window. Any idea what they were, and why they were heading to Long Marston? Presume they do some preparation of them there prior to acceptance?

37407 6330 197029 197027 6344 37218

 

[Lurcheroo]

37407 6330 197029 197027 6344 37218

Any idea what the reason for going to Long Marston is ?

 

[Aquamanda]

I was on 197045 today and I noticed that most of the LED "spotlights" in the middle of the ceiling panels inside both vehicles weren't working - for the most part, only the main/normal "strip lights" were working.

It was the first time I noticed whether or not the interior LED "spotlights" were working on any 197, so is it a defect?

 

[DannyMich2018]

Presumably for storage as these are ERTMS units so won't be in service for a while so can avoid clogging up depots.

Replying to Lurcheroo.

 

[Topological]

Presumably for storage as these are ERTMS units so won't be in service for a while so can avoid clogging up depots.

Replying to Lurcheroo.

A layman might ask how that could happen given that there is a shortage of units being experienced, and rumours that services will be cut accordingly.

However, years of reading this thread confirm that it is entirely because the 197 depot is not large enough to handle all the 197s without the Cambrian outpost.

 

[Caaardiff]

A layman might ask how that could happen given that there is a shortage of units being experienced, and rumours that services will be cut accordingly.

However, years of reading this thread confirm that it is entirely because the 197 depot is not large enough to handle all the 197s without the Cambrian outpost.

How many TOCs have separate depots for maintaining their fleets? Hitachi don't maintain all of their IETs at one GWR Depot do they?

 

[Breadface]

Presumably for storage as these are ERTMS units so won't be in service for a while so can avoid clogging up depots.

Replying to Lurcheroo.

But isn't that what Donnington was for anyways? Doesn't seem like much of a point to move them elsewhere, unless they will all be delivered to Long Marston from now on (Perhaps Contract stuff and all that)

 

[Topological]

How many TOCs have separate depots for maintaining their fleets? Hitachi don't maintain all of their IETs at one GWR Depot do they?

Slightly confusing, sorry.

Hitachi use 4? depots (Swansea Maliphant, London North Pole, Laira and Bristol Stoke Gifford) though I am not 100% sure on Laira. There may also be other locations where the sort of maintenance that TfW are proposing for 197s at Machynlleth takes place.

My point is that Chester is at capacity seems like a poor reason for not bringing these 197s into service at a time when services are being cancelled.

 

[craigybagel]

Slightly confusing, sorry.

Hitachi use 4? depots (Swansea Maliphant, London North Pole, Laira and Bristol Stoke Gifford) though I am not 100% sure on Laira. There may also be other locations where the sort of maintenance that TfW are proposing for 197s at Machynlleth takes place.

My point is that Chester is at capacity seems like a poor reason for not bringing these 197s into service at a time when services are being cancelled.

Are we seeing many cancellations due to lack of units?

There is a solution being worked on for the lack of capacity at Chester. It should be in place much sooner than the introduction of 197s onto the Cambrian, though sadly not as immediately as people would have liked. Like many aspects of the introduction of the new fleets.

 

[Topological]

Are we seeing many cancellations due to lack of units?

There is a solution being worked on for the lack of capacity at Chester. It should be in place much sooner than the introduction of 197s onto the Cambrian, though sadly not as immediately as people would have liked. Like many aspects of the introduction of the new fleets.

The problem at the moment is that there are two 197 threads running simultaneously. The suggestion of cancellations was made by @Lurcheroo on that thread

TFW have said in a recent blog post that they expect all services on the marches to be 5 coaches within the next year.
It has been a long road no doubt, but we’re getting there and we will see the benefits.

Hopefully and 8th MK4 set can be made ready for service and an extra diagram brought in and hopefully this will free a few 197’s and allow all the MK4 services to be to and from Swansea.

I also hear rumours that the reason TFW is proposing some cuts to the December timetable is because they are expecting to not have enough units to cover everything until the 756’s and 398’s are in service.
So if that’s true and they do make the marches all 5 cars within a year then I will be reasonably impressed.

I am pleased to know that there are solutions being worked on.

It appears that the initial decision to use Chester for CAF rather than a brownfield site (as used by Hitachi for the new GWR fleets) has led to issues in the introduction of 197s because of capacity. These capacity issues appear to be negatively impacting provision in the same way that the decision to transfer Chester to CAF created challenges maintaining the 175s and has seemingly led to TfW wasting money on leasing charges for 175s that are not being used (see 175 thread, I do not have proof TfW are still paying leasing charges as I do not work for TfW or the leasing company)

From the outside it would seem strange to have stored units, but I do appreciate that the situation is what it is.

 

[craigybagel]

The problem at the moment is that there are two 197 threads running simultaneously. The suggestion of cancellations was made by @Lurcheroo on that thread

Thanks, I wasn't aware there was another thread.

 

[Lurcheroo]

The problem at the moment is that there are two 197 threads running simultaneously. The suggestion of cancellations was made by @Lurcheroo on that thread

Just to clarify, I am referring to the proposal to cut Cambrian services during the winter period from the December TT change.
I personally had thought this was aimed at reducing operating cost but had heard a rumour it was due to expected unit shortages.
I’m not sure I’ll ever know what it is for certain.

From the outside it would seem strange to have stored units, but I do appreciate that the situation is what it is.

I was chatting to a midwife who had come to do some checks on our Newborn the other day and they were asking about my job and what the shifts were like. I explained it was pretty much a 24 hour role with a night shift and they said “but trains don’t run at that time of night” and when I explained that we have to shunt trains on and around the depot so they can be cleaned and fuelled, have any exams done or any other maintenance items that need attending to, which can mean shunting units between different road’s multiple times as you play a huge game of ‘rush hour’ to get everything in the right place so that it can form the correct service the next morning, they were shocked that so much had to be done and said “I honestly just thought they went in a shed ready for the next day”.

So it’s entirely understandable that if you’re not directly involved, most people wouldn’t know the extent of what goes on.

The issue is that if more trains were given to a depot, even if there is enough stabling space for the additional units, if the maintenance capacity isn’t there then that means units won’t get serviced in time and then cancellations will happen.

 

[Caaardiff]

Chester is maxed out with the non-Cambrian units, that has certainly become apparent. But CAF want the maintenance in house which means other TFW depots are unable to perform any maintenance apart from small, simple things and is the reason why Machynlleth depot will ultimately become a CAF depot.
It's shown to be becoming a far from ideal setup and someone originally believed that Chester would be suitable rather than going to the vast cost of building a new depot.

But it's all part of the grand plans, and those plans do not include the Cambrian 197s being maintained by Chester, except heavy maintenance that Mach can't accommodate. So it's pointless going around in circles about the Cambrian 197s being in service before that.

 

[Topological]

Chester is maxed out with the non-Cambrian units, that has certainly become apparent. But CAF want the maintenance in house which means other TFW depots are unable to perform any maintenance apart from small, simple things and is the reason why Machynlleth depot will ultimately become a CAF depot.
It's shown to be becoming a far from ideal setup and someone originally believed that Chester would be suitable rather than going to the vast cost of building a new depot.

But it's all part of the grand plans, and those plans do not include the Cambrian 197s being maintained by Chester, except heavy maintenance that Mach can't accommodate. So it's pointless going around in circles about the Cambrian 197s being in service before that.

Indeed.

So the difference here is that Hitachi have provided a solution which worked to keep HSTs running through the 80x introduction on GWR, but CAF did not provide a solution that kept 175s running through the 197 introduction. Further, the Hitachi solution for GWR appears not to place the constraints on GWR that the CAF solution has placed on TfW in terms of having serviceable units in storage.

Essentially the decision to use the existing Chester (apparently now with a little extra stabling compared to pre 197s) is again proving to be a bad one.

Someone should really be asking questions in the Senned as I doubt people crowding into 2-cars would be particularly impressed by either the 175 continued lease payment consequence, or the storage of 197s.

Just to clarify, I am referring to the proposal to cut Cambrian services during the winter period from the December TT change.
I personally had thought this was aimed at reducing operating cost but had heard a rumour it was due to expected unit shortages.
I’m not sure I’ll ever know what it is for certain.


I was chatting to a midwife who had come to do some checks on our Newborn the other day and they were asking about my job and what the shifts were like. I explained it was pretty much a 24 hour role with a night shift and they said “but trains don’t run at that time of night” and when I explained that we have to shunt trains on and around the depot so they can be cleaned and fuelled, have any exams done or any other maintenance items that need attending to, which can mean shunting units between different road’s multiple times as you play a huge game of ‘rush hour’ to get everything in the right place so that it can form the correct service the next morning, they were shocked that so much had to be done and said “I honestly just thought they went in a shed ready for the next day”.

So it’s entirely understandable that if you’re not directly involved, most people wouldn’t know the extent of what goes on.

The issue is that if more trains were given to a depot, even if there is enough stabling space for the additional units, if the maintenance capacity isn’t there then that means units won’t get serviced in time and then cancellations will happen.

Neither motivation for the cuts is good. Shortage of 197s would be particularly poor (though the Cambrian is operating 158s so there is a bigger issue there).

The day-to-day operation of depots is another question. The issue is the choice to use Chester (again) and that was presumably taken, or at least advised, by people who do understand operating depots. Hence, even a layperson accepts Chester cannot cope with the units, the lay person would not understand why that constrained availability when the depots for the delayed new stock exist. It is about higher level agreements between CAF and TfW and therefore TfW are a partner.

 

[meld3]

I'm still surprised that an English depot was chosen over a Welsh one !!

 

[Dai Corner]

So the difference here is that Hitachi have provided a solution which worked to keep HSTs running through the 80x introduction on GWR, but CAF did not provide a solution that kept 175s running through the 197 introduction. Further, the Hitachi solution for GWR appears not to place the constraints on GWR that the CAF solution has placed on TfW in terms of having serviceable units in storage.

Essentially the decision to use the existing Chester (apparently now with a little extra stabling compared to pre 197s) is again proving to be a bad one.

I'm still surprised that an English depot was chosen over a Welsh one !!

I'm sure CAF would have been happy to build a new depot in Wales if that's what the Welsh Government had wanted and paid for. They could perhaps have reused the assembly plant in Newport once all the 197s had been delivered, if only it was rail-connected.

 

[Caaardiff]

So the difference here is that Hitachi have provided a solution which worked to keep HSTs running through the 80x introduction on GWR, but CAF did not provide a solution that kept 175s running through the 197 introduction. Further, the Hitachi solution for GWR appears not to place the constraints on GWR that the CAF solution has placed on TfW in terms of having serviceable units in storage.

I'd say that was TFWs responsibility in relying on CAF to maintain units that weren't CAF units on a Depot now operated by CAF. TFW dropped one there.
The issue was always going to arise during the changeover as Alstom staff transfered to CAF, or stayed with Alstom and moved elsewhere.
New Depot or Old Depot, one of those depots would not have been operational to maintain the 175s alongside 197s.

 

[Jez]

I think it would have been far better if TFW had allocated a 3rd depot for the 197s given that the 175s and 158s combined amounted to 51 units whilst when all 197s are in service there will be a total of 77. A 3rd depot at Canton would have been better given Chester is a long way from places like Milford Haven. Pembroke Dock and Carmarthen where the 197s will operate services. Even Cardiff is quite a distance from their home depot at Chester.

Also Canton has lost the 170's and will soon lose 150s and 153s plus any work they do on 158s when they eventually go. There should be plenty of spare capacity at Canton as they will only have the MK4s and FLIRTS once everything switches over.

 

[Kite159]

I think it would have been far better if TFW had allocated a 3rd depot for the 197s given that the 175s and 158s combined amounted to 51 units whilst when all 197s are in service there will be a total of 77. A 3rd depot at Canton would have been better given Chester is a long way from places like Milford Haven. Pembroke Dock and Carmarthen where the 197s will operate services. Even Cardiff is quite a distance from their home depot at Chester.

Also Canton has lost the 170's and will soon lose 150s and 153s plus any work they do on 158s when they eventually go. There should be plenty of spare capacity at Canton as they will only have the MK4s and FLIRTS once everything switches over.

Or even buying back Landore from Chrysalis Rail to have it as a satellite depot for 197s for South Wales.

Wouldn't Canton still have the 153s TfW are keeping for the Heart of Wales line?

 

[SuperLuke2334]

Or even buying back Landore from Chrysalis Rail to have it as a satellite depot for 197s for South Wales.

Wouldn't Canton still have the 153s TfW are keeping for the Heart of Wales line?

I don't believe Cardiff crew will sign 153s when they're restricted to HOW and Crewe Shrewsbury, they're due to be maintained at Crewe.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Hi folks, wondering if anyone can help me out here.
I’ve tried searching this forum and googling to no end.

Does anyone know which company’s (if any) other than CAF submitted bids to provide TFW’s new rolling stock ?
Mostly interested in what other options could have been available instead of the 197’s.

Thanks for any help.

 

[Caaardiff]

MTR from Hong Kong and Abellio & Arriva who eventually both pulled out.
Google Wales and Borders Franchise bid and you'll get a fair bit of info.

 

[Rhydgaled]

MTR from Hong Kong and Abellio & Arriva who eventually both pulled out.
Google Wales and Borders Franchise bid and you'll get a fair bit of info.

Those were franchise bids not rolling stock bids. CAF were not in the running for the franchise competition. The four bidders in the franchise competition were:

KeolisAmey (NOT CAF, CAF were a rolling stock supplier)
MTR
Abellio
Arriva

 

[Dai Corner]

Those were franchise bids not rolling stock bids. CAF were not in the running for the franchise competition. The four bidders in the franchise competition were:

KeolisAmey (NOT CAF, CAF were a rolling stock supplier)
MTR
Abellio
Arriva

Does anyone know or know where to find out what rolling stock MTR offered in their bid?

 

[Jez]

Or even buying back Landore from Chrysalis Rail to have it as a satellite depot for 197s for South Wales.

Wouldn't Canton still have the 153s TfW are keeping for the Heart of Wales line?

Good idea re Landore.

Cardiff depot dont sign the HOWL i believe its Carmarthen crew that sign the southern half of the HOWL So they wont need to visit Canton.

I don't believe Cardiff crew will sign 153s when they're restricted to HOW and Crewe Shrewsbury, they're due to be maintained at Crewe.

yes i believe that is correct.

 

[Anonymous10]

Good idea re Landore.

Cardiff depot dont sign the HOWL i believe its Carmarthen crew that sign the southern half of the HOWL So they wont need to visit Canton.


yes i believe that is correct.

Of course they will need a depot for servicing ect. Where that will be done remains to be seen.

 

[Jez]

Of course they will need a depot for servicing ect. Where that will be done remains to be seen.

its going to be at Crewe.

 

[craigybagel]

Or even buying back Landore from Chrysalis Rail to have it as a satellite depot for 197s for South Wales.

Wouldn't Canton still have the 153s TfW are keeping for the Heart of Wales line?

Good idea re Landore.

Cardiff depot dont sign the HOWL i believe its Carmarthen crew that sign the southern half of the HOWL So they wont need to visit Canton.

I suspect on paper the 153s will still be nominally allocated to Canton with CF diagram numbers as at present - but it would appear that only Carmarthen, Shrewsbury and Crewe drivers will be retaining competency and their regular maintenance depot will be Crewe.

Hi folks, wondering if anyone can help me out here.
I’ve tried searching this forum and googling to no end.

Does anyone know which company’s (if any) other than CAF submitted bids to provide TFW’s new rolling stock ?
Mostly interested in what other options could have been available instead of the 197’s.

Thanks for any help.

I would suspect it's all top secret and we'll never find out, especially as two of the four bidders pulled out before the end! Given CAF's products are generally regarded as being cheap, and the very limited options for DMUs in the UK, it's hard to see how different any other options from other bidders would have been though. It would have been a lot harder to achieve the originally proposed timetable with only a partially replaced fleet.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I would suspect it's all top secret and we'll never find out, especially as two of the four bidders pulled out before the end! Given CAF's products are generally regarded as being cheap, and the very limited options for DMUs in the UK, it's hard to see how different any other options from other bidders would have been though. It would have been a lot harder to achieve the originally proposed timetable with only a partially replaced fleet.

Yeah that’s very true.

This all started with someone complaining about the 197’s on Facebook and then someone saying what other choices where there. And I couldn’t think of any other new DMU’s with gangways in the UK.

 

[Topological]

Yeah that’s very true.

This all started with someone complaining about the 197’s on Facebook and then someone saying what other choices where there. And I couldn’t think of any other new DMU’s with gangways in the UK.

To be fair there are not many new DMU in the UK. The decision to have gangways makes sense for when they really start operating in multiple on Swansea to Manchester.

Stadler offerings do not have gangways.

The 196s do, but they are CAF

Is the answer the 172s? That is a while back now though.