CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[Rhydgaled]

I really think we're past that point. These trains are contracted and under construction. They are going to be built. Cancelling the order now, stupid as it is to have new diesel trains coming, is just not going to happen.
Hopefully, the amount of electrification in the UK means they will have fairly short lives, and will be scrapped or subject to a massive rebuild in 20 years, but I am not all that optimistic.

Scrapping them after 20 years is also stupid due to the embodied carbon involved in building them. A rebuild would be sensible, but I am not at all optimistic that would be seen as possible/practical given that eVoyager failed and was on-paper a least a simpler prospect. Cancelling the order now would also be stupid as some units have been built and TfW needs extra units to deliver promised service enhancements. However a variation to reduce the order* from 77 to 30 (or slighltly fewer) is still possible however unlikely and I am lobbying hard for this to happen and would encourage others to do the same.

* or possibily to have later units that are not yet being assembled redesigned and delivered as bi-modes.

I think the end game of the Civities (all of them) is that they'll end up being the only remaining DMUs and deployed on branch lines, quite possibly significantly derated, geared down to say 50mph and burning some sort of biodiesel and with enhanced exhaust scrubbing fitted.

I agree, except that I'd be surprised if TOCs bothered having them derated given that they'll almost certainly be running the Conwy valley line at full-spec. The problem is that 161 Civities are more than enough to run ALL the unelectrified routes in the TDNS, if we get hydrogen and battery units coming in to run some of them there will be even less branches available for the Civities to work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree, except that I'd be surprised if TOCs bothered having them derated given that they'll almost certainly be running the Conwy valley line at full-spec.

They will, for reasons of interoperability. But if you want to make a DMU "sustainable" once it only works branch lines, derating it so the engines work less hard would certainly help.

 

[BayPaul]

Scrapping them after 20 years is also stupid due to the embodied carbon involved in building them. A rebuild would be sensible, but I am not at all optimistic that would be seen as possible/practical given that eVoyager failed and was on-paper a least a simpler prospect. Cancelling the order now would also be stupid as some units have been built and TfW needs extra units to deliver promised service enhancements. However a variation to reduce the order* from 77 to 30 (or slighltly fewer) is still possible however unlikely and I am lobbying hard for this to happen and would encourage others to do the same.

* or possibily to have later units that are not yet being assembled redesigned and delivered as bi-modes.

I love your optimism, but I would imagine that the only way to get 30 would involve still paying for 77 of the things. Redesigning them as bi-mode trains at this stage would probably also involve paying for the full cost of the original drive train, plus the new drive train, plus the cost for the delivery delay, plus the cost for the body modifications, plus a big variation order profit for CAF, who would be holding all the strings. If it was less than 150% of the original cost I would be amazed.
Governments are stupid. Its easier to accept that fact! Scrapping after 20 years is probably the least worst option that has any chance of happening right now.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I love your optimism, but I would imagine that the only way to get 30 would involve still paying for 77 of the things.

It's not optimisim, it's desperation. I am extremely pessimistic of the prospects for rail reaching net-zero by 2050 if all 77 are built and therefore feel that I must try to get them stopped despite the financial cost. I fully expect a large cost penalty if a variation happened but, partly because leasing is involved, my guess would be that reducing the fleet size would be a very different payment profile (more up-front, less in future) and a bit less overall than the total eventual cost of leasing 77x class 197s for 35-40 years.

Redesigning them as bi-mode trains at this stage would probably also involve paying for the full cost of the original drive train, plus the new drive train, plus the cost for the delivery delay, plus the cost for the body modifications, plus a big variation order profit for CAF, who would be holding all the strings. If it was less than 150% of the original cost I would be amazed.

Absolutely, variation orders equal gross profit, I get that; I just don't care. I care about getting electrification done and not downgrading routes like the Cambrian to a new fleet even worse than the poorly refurbished 158s SARPA managed to prevent (they got ATW to change the spec so we got nicely refurbished 158s instead).

Governments are stupid. Its easier to accept that fact!

Yes, they are or we wouldn't be in this mess, but we are in this mess and I'd rather we paid to get out of the mess than stay in the mess.

 

[TravelDream]

I would be astonished if the North Wales Coast line was not electrified by soon after, if not before, HS2 phase 2 opens. There will be huge political fall-out from the North Wales services remaining on the classic line post HS2 - "why does Scotland get fancy trains when we don't?" sort of thing. There are 2 "spare" half-trains planned into the HS2 timetable, one of which could be an hourly North Wales 200m service if that did happen.

@Rhydgaled
The Network Rail interim strategy is all well and good, but this is all politics and money though. Unless there's a national electrification programme, I can't see the North Wales ML being electrified within the next few decades. I don't want to get into politics, but the current government seemed most likely in recent times with the supposed green agenda and leveling up agenda, but nothing much has come from it.
I'm not much of a betting man, but my view is it is almost certain 197 DMUs will still be running on a non-electrified North Wales line in 2050 and will very likely be doing so in 2060.

 

[craigybagel]

It's not optimisim, it's desperation.

For the rest of us it's a very tiring refusal to accept reality.

@Rhydgaled
The Network Rail interim strategy is all well and good, but this is all politics and money though. Unless there's a national electrification programme, I can't see the North Wales ML being electrified within the next few decades. I don't want to get into politics, but the current government seemed most likely in recent times with the supposed green agenda and leveling up agenda, but nothing much has come from it.
I'm not much of a betting man, but my view is it is almost certain 197 DMUs will still be running on a non-electrified North Wales line in 2050 and will very likely be doing so in 2060.

This. People can moan all that want about how certain environmental targets can't be met, but that doesn't change the fact there is virtually zero chance that the 197s will find themselves with no work in their lifetime. The case for North Wales electrification is marginal at best, and as for the rest of the network.

There is no way a British or Welsh government is going to pay for it.

 

[wobman]

Whatever is written on the forums and other places, the 77 caf 197s will be delivered as planned now. The political pressure is huge to deliver new trains ASAP, just look on twitter to see tfw are desperate for more trains now.

Maybe as others have said bio diesel is the way forward with the 197s, I know the don't like to use poor quality diesel as there ad blue usage is high and there's been dpf issue's.

 

[Rhydgaled]

@Rhydgaled
I'm not much of a betting man, but my view is it is almost certain 197 DMUs will still be running on a non-electrified North Wales line in 2050 and will very likely be doing so in 2060.

I agree, that appears to be by far the most-likely outcome and the thought terrifies me.

The Network Rail interim strategy is currently our best guide to what the rail industry needs to acheive to contribute to UK net-zero - if (as seems likely) this doesn't happen it doesn't bode well for the UK target as a whole (yes rail is a tiny proportion of UK emissions, but if this is the government's attitude then other sectors are likely to fail to decarbonise as well). My view is that, however unlikely implementation of the TDNS is, we should strain every sinue to preserve even a faint possibility of the TDNS being implemented. Completing a total of 161 Civity DMUs as-good-as ensures that the TDNS is not implemented in time.

For the rest of us it's a very tiring refusal to accept reality.

Tiring it maybe (which is why I didn't go into details of my interior objections in post #1587), but for me it is not a refusal to accept reality but a refusal to accept the unacceptable.

 

[BayPaul]

@Rhydgaled
The Network Rail interim strategy is all well and good, but this is all politics and money though. Unless there's a national electrification programme, I can't see the North Wales ML being electrified within the next few decades. I don't want to get into politics, but the current government seemed most likely in recent times with the supposed green agenda and leveling up agenda, but nothing much has come from it.
I'm not much of a betting man, but my view is it is almost certain 197 DMUs will still be running on a non-electrified North Wales line in 2050 and will very likely be doing so in 2060.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the Network Rail interim strategy feels like official crayoning. As far as I can tell it basically just says 'electrify everything' (I think it has the Settle and Carlisle as needing wires for example). This is all very worthy, but it is so very unrealistic that I can't see it being much use. I would imagine that battery technology in particular will play a much bigger part than is forecast in this study for example. And as @Bletchleyite mentioned above, biofuels can also play a part in decarbonising lines such as the Cambrian that are too long for batteries, but too low traffic for wires to be economic. Biofuel supply is limited, but a few train routes of this nature would seem a good use of some of it, and (coming back to topic) would be a sensible use of the 19x class trains up to the end of their useful life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@Rhydgaled
The Network Rail interim strategy is all well and good, but this is all politics and money though. Unless there's a national electrification programme, I can't see the North Wales ML being electrified within the next few decades. I don't want to get into politics, but the current government seemed most likely in recent times with the supposed green agenda and leveling up agenda, but nothing much has come from it.

The North Wales mainline, give or take Chester-Crewe, is a Welsh matter, not an English one, and it is of note that the Welsh Government is left-wing. This being the case I'd see it as far more likely than were it in England.

Doesn't detract from my point, though - there are enough 15x, 16x and 17x/18x out there which could be replaced by the newer and less polluting CAF units in due course. They won't go in the bin.

 

[TravelDream]

The North Wales mainline, give or take Chester-Crewe, is a Welsh matter, not an English one, and it is of note that the Welsh Government is left-wing. This being the case I'd see it as far more likely than were it in England.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but rail infrastructure is NOT (and I will repeat, NOT) a devolved matter in Wales.
The North Wales Coast Line, just like the South Wales ML is the responsibility of the UK government.

Any money spent by the Welsh Government on rail infrastructure (outside of the CVL) has to come from health, education and similar budgets.

The Welsh Government only has control of the Core Valley Lines which are being electrified right now.

This has served Wales very badly as we get less investment in improvements than anywhere else in GB.

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2508372/WFA_evidence_rail2.pdf

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the Network Rail interim strategy feels like official crayoning. As far as I can tell it basically just says 'electrify everything' (I think it has the Settle and Carlisle as needing wires for example).

This is definitely the case. That and fantasy technologies which may exist in a few decades, but might not.

 

[craigybagel]

It's also worth pointing out that electrifying North Wales would not come cheap. I'm sure technologically speaking it's possible, but there are various reasons why it would be a challenging - and thus expensive - line to wire.

Even the connecting English line from Chester to Crewe would be difficult due to the abundance of low bridges - I seem to recall a study showed it would be more cost effective to build a new alignment altogether than to electrify the existing line.

 

[TravelDream]

Even the connecting English line from Chester to Crewe would be difficult due to the abundance of low bridges - I seem to recall a study showed it would be more cost effective to build a new alignment altogether than to electrify the existing line.

It seems quite possible future electrifications will make greater use of non-continuous electrification and batteries where appropriate which should lower costs dramatically.

 

[craigybagel]

It seems quite possible future electrifications will make greater use of non-continuous electrification and batteries where appropriate which should lower costs dramatically.

True, although in this particular case I believe even non-continuous electrification was shown to be a non starter, owing to the sheer number of low bridges and the short distances between them. And how much of those dramatic savings would be eaten up by the need for all trains on the line to be battery fitted?

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, although in this particular case I believe even non-continuous electrification was shown to be a non starter, owing to the sheer number of low bridges and the short distances between them. And how much of those dramatic savings would be eaten up by the need for all trains on the line to be battery fitted?

From a look at an OS map most of the bridges are either footpaths or minor roads. Some would be able to be closed, leaving the cost of replacing some of them probably not too excessive compared with the general cost of the wires.

 

[PaulHarding150]

Here it is: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=415097030319871
I have to say the interior looks absolutely stunning.

The comments are quite something. Some people just ooze negativity.
''What's the point of them or the metro. What will they be coming to Cardiff for it's like a ghost City. Switzerland should have kept them at least they run on time there.Not impressed''
''They look nice but you need to put more carriages on as when I go to wales in the morning theres two carriages and I sometimes have to stand''
''Metro more like a bus isn't it.which stops at small stations not just the main stations''
''Yeah soo good they don't even have toilets'' (They do have toilets)
''Nowt for Northwales southwales changing its name Drakeford land'' (North Wales will also have almost all brand new trains or refurbished Mark 4s)
''Shame it'll be stopped cause of leaves''

A DMU has an life of, what, 40 years? How likely is it the core 197 routes will be electrified in the coming decades?
SWML to Swansea - Reasonable
West of Swansea - Zero
The Marches - Very low
Cambrian Line - Zero
Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton - Very low.
North Wales Mainline - Very low.
Conwy Valley Line - Zero.

I would like to see many of these lines electrified, but it just realistically isn't going to happen. The 197 is fine for all of these routes (even if I would prefer more of the stunning Flirts that were on display today).

Currently Cardiff-Newport and Crewe-Manchester is electrified which is over an hour each way on the Manchester route (plus as you say a good chance of Cardiff-Swansea getting wires at some point in the next let’s say 25-30 years which would make it two hours each way)

Plus Wolverhampton(?) to Birmingham is too. (And I accept that no part of the Cambrian will be done) so there’s already a good chunck of track under the wires, and significant savings could be made in terms of power costs and certainly in air pollution - but the the bulk of those savings would be in England and that’s not something to WG care about, so that’s probably why it wasn’t done, but I still think it was a mistake.

 

[craigybagel]

From a look at an OS map most of the bridges are either footpaths or minor roads. Some would be able to be closed, leaving the cost of replacing some of them probably not too excessive compared with the general cost of the wires.

What do you want to replace them with? Most of those bridges exist for a reason.

Currently Cardiff-Newport and Crewe-Manchester is electrified which is over an hour each way on the Manchester route (plus as you say a good chance of Cardiff-Swansea getting wires at some point in the next let’s say 25-30 years which would make it two hours each way)

Plus Wolverhampton(?) to Birmingham is too. (And I accept that no part of the Cambrian will be done) so there’s already a good chunck of track under the wires, and significant savings could be made in terms of power costs and certainly in air pollution - but the the bulk of those savings would be in England and that’s not something to WG care about, so that’s probably why it wasn’t done, but I still think it was a mistake.

Which of the planned timetable expansions would you like to cancel to pay for using Bi-modes?
It's nothing to do with an England Vs Wales thing and everything to do with the fact it's a very heavily subsidised franchise and that the extra cost of getting Bi-modes just doesn't add up when the current electrified milage is so small.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you want to replace them with?

Higher bridges, with some consolidation, as per East West Rail.

 

[craigybagel]

Higher bridges, with some consolidation, as per East West Rail.

Good. Perfectly sensible. Problem is, that's also expensive.

I'm not saying it can't be done - just that it's going to be expensive, like the North Wales coast - which is why I don't think it's likely to happen and time soon.

 

[PaulHarding150]

Which of the planned timetable expansions would you like to cancel to pay for using Bi-modes?
It's nothing to do with an England Vs Wales thing and everything to do with the fact it's a very heavily subsidised franchise and that the extra cost of getting Bi-modes just doesn't add up when the current electrified milage is so small.

None.

Ignore covid for a moment, as the rolling stock order was agreed at the tail end of 2018. These trains will be fairly unique in the UK as being owned by the Welsh Govt / TfW and I do think it was exceptionally short sighted of the WG to order a massive order of diesel only trains rather than hybrids and that’s just thinking about the future supply of fuel and me ignoring carbon emissions/climate change for a moment

 

[Rhydgaled]

These trains will be fairly unique in the UK as being owned by the Welsh Govt / TfW and I do think it was exceptionally short sighted of the WG to order a massive order of diesel only trains rather than hybrids and that’s just thinking about the future supply of fuel and me ignoring carbon emissions/climate change for a moment

Somebody was certainly very short sighted, but I don't think it was the Welsh Government who ordered them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Welsh Government appointed KeolisAmey to run the franchise and KeolisAmey ordered the new fleets under leasing deals, not from one of the three main ROSCOs but from a number of Special Purpose Ventures (SPVs) set up to own each fleet. There are four SPVs owned by SMBC Leasing which, judging by the names (Valley Rail Leasing 1&2 and Cambrian Rail Leasing 1&2), are the ones owning the new TfW fleets.

On the 'heavily subsidised franchise' point a policy of quality rather than quantity for the new builds, with the class 158s and 175s retained, would on the surface appear to make sense financially as well as from a future-proofing perspective. Unfortunately the fact that trains are leased clouds the picture on the financial side, how does the monthly lease cost of a 195/197 compare to a 755/231/756 or 158/175?

 

[craigybagel]

None.

Ignore covid for a moment, as the rolling stock order was agreed at the tail end of 2018. These trains will be fairly unique in the UK as being owned by the Welsh Govt / TfW and I do think it was exceptionally short sighted of the WG to order a massive order of diesel only trains rather than hybrids and that’s just thinking about the future supply of fuel and me ignoring carbon emissions/climate change for a moment

Ok, so where do you think the extra money should come from? Bi - modes cost more. If you want the new timetable, and the extra units required to run it, then you need to find the extra money somewhere to pay for it

And before Rhydgaled jumps in to suggest holding on to the existing units and only ordering enough units to expand the fleet large enough for the new timetable, that's still going to cost more as you lose the economics of scale - and leaves you with 3 different types of long distance DMU within the fleet, one of which will still need replacing before the franchise ends anyway.

On the 'heavily subsidised franchise' point a policy of quality rather than quantity for the new builds, with the class 158s and 175s retained, would on the surface appear to make sense financially as well as from a future-proofing perspective. Unfortunately the fact that trains are leased clouds the picture on the financial side, how does the monthly lease cost of a 195/197 compare to a 755/231/756 or 158/175?

Ah, you did get there before me.

As I've pointed out several times before, holding onto the existing units and only ordering enough extra units to cover the expanded timetable will cost more in the long term. Nobody who's in a position to comment publicly can confirm the lease costs, but simple economics of scale show you that having 3 separate and incompatible fleets will cost you more to run than 1 larger all encompassing fleet. It's also just kicking the can down the road a few years to when the 158s need replacing - replacements that will cost more.

If there were signs a large scale electrification programme for Wales was on the way, then it might make more sense. But such a change of direction by HM Government would be pretty unprecedented - and any TOC would be mad to hold off on fleet replacement in the expectation just in case such a change actually happens.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Ok, so where do you think the extra money should come from? Bi - modes cost more. If you want the new timetable, and the extra units required to run it, then you need to find the extra money somewhere to pay for it

What is not getting electrification going to cost in the long-run terms of carbon pricing and lost benefits such as cheaper maintainance? Yes bi-modes cost more in the short term, and the money to pay for them needs to come from somewhere (I'd have started by scrapping the £60m A40 Llanddewi Velfrey to Redstone Cross road project, but that ship has now sailed), but ultimately (well beyond the term of this franchise) failure to electrify ends up costing UK PLC more in the long-run. Bi-modes are expensive, but having them on Birmingham-Aberystwyth/Pwllheli/Holyhead means you could have straight EMUs on Birmingham-Shrewsbury and Manchester-Llandudno, which would be cheaper even than straight DMUs. Decarbonisation isn't something we can just say "it's too expensive" to, we have to find the money somehow.

And before Rhydgaled jumps in to suggest holding on to the existing units and only ordering enough units to expand the fleet large enough for the new timetable, that's still going to cost more as you lose the economics of scale - and leaves you with 3 different types of long distance DMU within the fleet, one of which will still need replacing before the franchise ends anyway.

Yes, you lose some economies of scale but that didn't seem to bother KeolisAmey on the Metro (3 different new fleets there) with the mark 4s, 170s and 230s in the mix as well. And how much revenue are you going to lose by replacing high-quality stock with Civities? SARPA kicked up a fuss about the 158 refurb spec and got it improved, but the 197 spec is even worse than the poor 158 refurb that SARPA got stopped.

 

[wobman]

None.

Ignore covid for a moment, as the rolling stock order was agreed at the tail end of 2018. These trains will be fairly unique in the UK as being owned by the Welsh Govt / TfW and I do think it was exceptionally short sighted of the WG to order a massive order of diesel only trains rather than hybrids and that’s just thinking about the future supply of fuel and me ignoring carbon emissions/climate change for a moment

From what ive read your incorrect, If you research the franchise documents the Welsh government signed a lease on the new rolling stock. They did a lot of work on this deal and the lease does offer some flexibility from what I've read.

 

[craigybagel]

What is not getting electrification going to cost in the long-run terms of carbon pricing and lost benefits such as cheaper maintainance? Yes bi-modes cost more in the short term, and the money to pay for them needs to come from somewhere (I'd have started by scrapping the £60m A40 Llanddewi Velfrey to Redstone Cross road project, but that ship has now sailed), but ultimately (well beyond the term of this franchise) failure to electrify ends up costing UK PLC more in the long-run. Bi-modes are expensive, but having them on Birmingham-Aberystwyth/Pwllheli/Holyhead means you could have straight EMUs on Birmingham-Shrewsbury and Manchester-Llandudno, which would be cheaper even than straight DMUs. Decarbonisation isn't something we can just say "it's too expensive" to, we have to find the money somehow.

For once I do actually agree with you. It probably will indeed cost more in the long term. Where we disagree is I don't believe there's anything we can do about that. Every British government has been a fan of short term thinking. It would be nice if things could change and I admire the fact you think it worth campaigning for change on that front - I just think it's better to make the most of the realistic limits we're stuck with. The 197s are making the most of the world where mass electrification is unrealistic.

Yes, you lose some economies of scale but that didn't seem to bother KeolisAmey on the Metro (3 different new fleets there) with the mark 4s, 170s and 230s in the mix as well. And how much revenue are you going to lose by replacing high-quality stock with Civities? SARPA kicked up a fuss about the 158 refurb spec and got it improved, but the 197 spec is even worse than the poor 158 refurb that SARPA got stopped.

Only effectively two fleets on the metro - Flirts and tram trains, which are necessary as they're serving two very different purposes. The two different Flirt fleets are similar enough that nearly all the economies of scale still apply.

The 170s are now leaving the franchise, and the 230s confined to one single route.

I personally don't believe 1p is likely to be lost in revenue by people supposedly put off by "lower quality" stock - I think there's going to be plenty who are impressed with the new trains, and that the things people are complaining about on these forums the vast majority of passengers won't care one jot about.

 

[PaulHarding150]

From what ive read your incorrect, If you research the franchise documents the Welsh government signed a lease on the new rolling stock. They did a lot of work on this deal and the lease does offer some flexibility from what I've read.

I’m happy to stand corrected and/or be educated. Who owns/will own these new trains? Is it not the WG? If not I thought that was the original plan (a good few years back now)

 

[wobman]

I’m happy to stand corrected and/or be educated. Who owns/will own these new trains? Is it not the WG? If not I thought that was the original plan (a good few years back now)

Tfw agreed a very complicated leasing contract, they used consultants to build a robust contract. They have had their fingers burnt with previous poorly planned contracts, which have been costly for tfw.

They looked at the Merseytravel style ownership but it's a very different style toc compared to how merseyrail runs its services.

 

[Dai Corner]

Tfw agreed a very complicated leasing contract, they used consultants to build a robust contract. They have had their fingers burnt with previous poorly planned contracts, which have been costly for tfw.

They looked at the Merseytravel style ownership but it's a very different style toc compared to how merseyrail runs its services.

I assumed Transport for Wales Rail Ltd inherited the leases from KeolisAmey on nationalisation? Or were they renegotiated?

Somebody was certainly very short sighted, but I don't think it was the Welsh Government who ordered them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Welsh Government appointed KeolisAmey to run the franchise and KeolisAmey ordered the new fleets under leasing deals, not from one of the three main ROSCOs but from a number of Special Purpose Ventures (SPVs) set up to own each fleet. There are four SPVs owned by SMBC Leasing which, judging by the names (Valley Rail Leasing 1&2 and Cambrian Rail Leasing 1&2), are the ones owning the new TfW fleets.

 

[PaulHarding150]

I assumed Transport for Wales Rail Ltd inherited the leases from KeolisAmey on nationalisation? Or were they renegotiated?

We/I are getting confused here.
Ignore Covid, let’s go back to 2018 when the franchise started and the orders were placed.

Were the new build trains not going to be owned by Welsh Govt / Transport for Wales (the company set up by the govt) or have I completely misunderstood?

 

[Rhydgaled]

We/I are getting confused here.
Ignore Covid, let’s go back to 2018 when the franchise started and the orders were placed.

Were the new build trains not going to be owned by Welsh Govt / Transport for Wales (the company set up by the govt) or have I completely misunderstood?

I could be wrong but I seem to recall that WG/TfW were intending to own the new stock but it turned out that leasing was more cost-effective so in the end the new trains weren't owned by WG or TfW.