CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[craigybagel]

Are the seating plans that were issued out of date? They show a very high density and non-aligned layout - basically an updated version of TfW's 150/2s.



We do know that only the 2-car sets will be fitted with ETCS, which means formations to Aber and Pwllheli can only be 2 to each (or all 4 to Aber), which will mean an overcrowding problem round the Coast at busy times due to the reduced capacity.

The interior mock-up is unlikely to be particularly out of date
View attachment 92310
The left hand shot looks quite good to be fair, but then again do some shots of the interior of class 800s; the seats only appear to be comfortable. Both of those shots tie up with the seating plans, except that there is one less tip-up seat by the toilet on the mock-up compared to the seat plan.

My apologies, those renders are more up to date then the ones I had in mind. I wasn't aware these ones were in the public domain.

True, we don't know that. The only things we know for certain that suggest more people will have to stand are the seating capacity of each unit and the number intended to be fitted with ETCS (only 21 units). That suggests (but does not confirm, admitedly, as some 4-car services may be operated) that there will be less capacity on the Cambrian Coast line.

It should be an increase in units allocated to the Cambrian then now - as unlike with the 158s there shouldn't be any need for them to go on to other routes. This is why I keep saying we need to wait until we see the full timetable before we pass judgement

The appearance is certainly high quality, but the question is does it live up to that in practice?

Which again is why surely it would be better to wait for these units to arrive before decrying how awful they're going to be?

Something I've just noticed is that the cgi render of the 197 (top right image) seems to suggest that there's been a change in the window layout that have previously been shown in previous renders. Going from the window layout of the 195s, which have only four windows between the doors, to the style found on the 196s, which have five windows between the doors. If this is the case and not just some render mix-up, then this should guarantee that all the seats should line up with the windows.

The render is incorrect - it's only 4 windows per side.

 

[Energy]

the seats only appear to be comfortable

"only appear" - unless you have tried the specific ones for TfW yourself I wouldn't call them uncomfortable yet.

 

[Rhydgaled]

My apologies, those renders are more up to date then the ones I had in mind. I wasn't aware these ones were in the public domain.

I understand the two interior pictures on the slide are photos of the mock-up, not renders. That picture is a screenshot from the Modern Railways 4th Friday Club Rail In Wales And The West Virtual Conference, which was in the 'public domain' to the extent that it was available to Modern Railways subscribers.

 

[Spirit555]

Richard Clinnick has "apparently tweeted" that the first "Class 197" has arrived at Donnington and will move to Crewe for testing on North Wales coast.

I am unable to provide any links as I am not on Twitter.

Mark

 

[JakeMurphy]

Richard Clinnick has apparently tweeted that the first Class 197 has arrived at Donnington and will move to Crewe for testing on North Wales coast

197001

 

[paddyb6]

From Welsh Marches Group on Facebook - Class 197001 arrived at Donnington RFT on 12/4/2021.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet another livery that emphasizes the ugly fly-ridden gangway snout!

 

[greatvoyager]

Yet another livery that emphasizes the ugly fly-ridden gangway snout!

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a red gangway before

 

[Anonymous10]

From Welsh Marches Group on Facebook

View attachment 94301

they actually look kind of smart in real life

 

[43096]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a red gangway before

I’m not convinced they comply with the spirit (if not the exact letter) of standard GM/RT2131, which states:

The following issues have been identified for different types of train front end colours which
could introduce a potential increase in the risk to operating practice:
a) Using colours which already have an operational meaning to drivers and track staff.
These include: red and green which are associated with signal aspects; orange, which
is associated with track staff high visibility clothing. Colour characteristics could be
manipulated to mitigate this risk (for example, using different shades of the colour).

 

[greatvoyager]

I’m not convinced they comply with the spirit (if not the exact letter) of standard GM/RT2131, which states:

After reading that, I’m not convinced either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has this ever caused DB a problem, as all their loco fronts are red?

 

[43096]

Has this ever caused DB a problem, as all their loco fronts are red?

The majority of their front ends is yellow in the UK.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yet another livery that emphasizes the ugly fly-ridden gangway snout!

I'm tempted to say it's what you get when you follow the strange UK aberration for gangway unit ends, which hardly anyone else in Europe does.
Apart from the aesthetics, I'd much rather the driver had a proper view out front, as with Northern's versions.
In the fullness of time, it would be nice to hear what drivers think of this aspect compared to their current steeds (gangwayed 158, non-gangwayed 175).

 

[Jamesrob637]

The majority of their front ends is yellow in the UK.

I think @Bletchleyite meant DB locomotives in Deutschland and neighbouring countries

 

[43096]

I think @Bletchleyite meant DB locomotives in Deutschland and neighbouring countries

Last time I checked, UK RSSB standards didn’t apply in anywhere except the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Last time I checked, UK RSSB standards didn’t apply in anywhere except the UK.

RSSB standards are clearly imposed for a reason, not a laugh.

My question was why that standard was not considered necessary in Germany, where most locomotives and regional units have a red front - not only that, but a red (Verkehrsrot - traffic red) which is basically the same colour as a red signal.

Clearly this doesn't cause them an issue, or they wouldn't do it, as it's cosmetic rather than required (IC units are white). So why is the UK different?

I'm tempted to say it's what you get when you follow the strange UK aberration for gangway unit ends, which hardly anyone else in Europe does

Well, it's not, because the most attractive non-yellow designs I've seen paint this particularly ugly part of the train black instead, so as to de-emphasize it and hide the fly coating.

If you're going to do a bright colour (e.g. classic yellow) it looks better painting the whole unit front that colour, as that removes the emphasis.

 

[43096]

RSSB standards are clearly imposed for a reason, not a laugh.

My question was why that standard was not considered necessary in Germany, where most locomotives and regional units have a red front - not only that, but a red (Verkehrsrot - traffic red) which is basically the same colour as a red signal.

Clearly this doesn't cause them an issue, or they wouldn't do it, as it's cosmetic rather than required (IC units are white). So why is the UK different?

Possibly because Germany (and the likes of Switzerland, where SBB use a red front end) haven’t historically had set standards for front end colour? Here we’re only just getting away from everything having custard applied to the front end, so drivers are not used to seeing different colour fronts. A risk assessment of that suggests that using colours such as red or green is not a good idea as it could have an alternative interpretation when you’re not used to it on the front end.

 

[g_m_h_redwood]

66587 with barrier HHAs at Donnington RfT

 

[Jamesrob637]

Possibly because Germany (and the likes of Switzerland, where SBB use a red front end) haven’t historically had set standards for front end colour? Here we’re only just getting away from everything having custard applied to the front end, so drivers are not used to seeing different colour fronts. A risk assessment of that suggests that using colours such as red or green is not a good idea as it could have an alternative interpretation when you’re not used to it on the front end.

Custard think CAF products would have been better made by Birds Eye!

 

[craigybagel]

Keep an eye on this , should be the drag from Donnington to Crewe tomorrow.

 

[g_m_h_redwood]

Keep an eye on this , should be the drag from Donnington to Crewe tomorrow.

That's interesting. Another one? Maybe another 197 will be unloaded at Donnington tonight.

 

[berneyarms]

That's interesting. Another one? Maybe another 197 will be unloaded at Donnington tonight.

Looking at Realtime Trains, I’m not sure that the movement to Crewe Basford Hall SMM today is the Cl 197 - the movement to the Crewe CS (L & NWR Site) tomorrow would make more sense as a destination.

I think the movement today is just a normal freight train.

 

[g_m_h_redwood]

Looking at Realtime Trains, I’m not sure that the movement to Crewe Basford Hall SMM today is the Cl 197 - the movement to the Crewe CS (L & NWR Site) tomorrow would make more sense as a destination.

I think the movement today is just a normal freight train.

I see what you mean, and it's a bit odd that today's movement has no load for the return to Crewe, but tomorrow's does (600 tonnes I believe it says)

Having said that, I don't see why 66587 would have brought barrier wagons with it, unless it's going to prepare the 197 today, go to Crewe and then come back tomorrow to move it?

Just speculating of course

 

[greatvoyager]

Keep an eye on this , should be the drag from Donnington to Crewe tomorrow.

Good to see things are moving along.

 

[craigybagel]

I see what you mean, and it's a bit odd that today's movement has no load for the return to Crewe, but tomorrow's does (600 tonnes I believe it says)

Having said that, I don't see why 66587 would have brought barrier wagons with it, unless it's going to prepare the 197 today, go to Crewe and then come back tomorrow to move it?

Just speculating of course

AIUI that's exactly what's happening - barrier wagons going down today to be prepared, then the actual move of the unit itself is tomorrow.

 

[berneyarms]

I see what you mean, and it's a bit odd that today's movement has no load for the return to Crewe, but tomorrow's does (600 tonnes I believe it says)

Having said that, I don't see why 66587 would have brought barrier wagons with it, unless it's going to prepare the 197 today, go to Crewe and then come back tomorrow to move it?

Just speculating of course

That is exactly what I think is happening.

 

[Goldfish62]

RSSB standards are clearly imposed for a reason, not a laugh.

My question was why that standard was not considered necessary in Germany, where most locomotives and regional units have a red front - not only that, but a red (Verkehrsrot - traffic red) which is basically the same colour as a red signal.

Clearly this doesn't cause them an issue, or they wouldn't do it, as it's cosmetic rather than required (IC units are white). So why is the UK different?

Because for some reason, unlike the rest of the world the UK never adopted headlights early on. If it had adopted headlights in the 1930s this would have followed through on to diesels and electrics and it's likely that the visibility issues that became apparent in the 1960s would never have arisen.

It's amazing to think that up until fitment of headlights from the early 1980s onwards trains remained largely invisible at night, given that yellow paint is not luminous!

 

[g_m_h_redwood]

I think it's safe to say the unit isn't going out today (taken less than 10 minutes ago)

Update as of 15:47, 66587 has gone back to Crewe, just passing Shrewsbury, light loco

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Has anybody worked out who owns/is funding the class 197 fleet?
Usually the Rosco (which picks up all the long-term maintenance issues) figures in the press releases, but apparently not for this.
Northern's Civitys (195/331) are owned by Eversholt.
WMT's 196s appear to be owned by the franchise owners (Abellio, JR East and Mitsui, the latter being a bank), but I may be wrong.
It's difficult to know who is responsible for what with TfW and the recent rewriting of franchise contracts.

If 196 and 197 differ only in internal layout, wouldn't you expect some synergy between the technical introduction of the two fleets, leading to one UK certification?
ie done by the same teams at the same depots?
Or is that unrealistic today?
They will be sharing routes in parts of the West Midlands (Shrewsbury-Birmingham and around Hereford).