CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[Rhydgaled]

The approval document (here) lists 30 two-car and 12 three-car units. The annex describes them as two-car non-ETCS units 197001,002,004-021,042-051 and three-car non-first class 197101-112.

197003 (omitted from the approval) was previously said to be an ERTMS/ETCS unit for testing purposes. I presume that the range 022-040 is earmarked for Cambrian ETCS units?

Interesting tidbits:
Maximum speed is 160kph/100mph, or 105kph/65mph is suspension is deflated.
Operation in service permitted as three coupled sets up to 9 vehicles, or 4 sets up to 12 vehicles in ECS/rescue scenarios.

Tweet says 20x two-car units authorised, but approval document says 30 two-car units. Regarding ETCS, this appears to be confirmation that 21 units would be fitted, but having 197003 out on its own rather than having a distinct subclass looks decidedly odd.

 

[Wyrleybart]

/2 Tweet says 20x two-car units authorised, but approval document says 30 two-car units. Regarding ETCS, this appears to be confirmation that 21 units would be fitted, but having 197003 out on its own rather than having a distinct subclass looks decidedly odd.

Agreed. I would have expected the 197/2 numberings to differentiate the ECTS / ERTMS fitted units for working the Cambrian lines, but depending on NR rollout, other parts of the network will see ECTS in the fullness of time

 

[craigybagel]

Tweet says 20x two-car units authorised, but approval document says 30 two-car units. Regarding ETCS, this appears to be confirmation that 21 units would be fitted, but having 197003 out on its own rather than having a distinct subclass looks decidedly odd.

Agreed. I would have expected the 197/2 numberings to differentiate the ECTS / ERTMS fitted units for working the Cambrian lines, but depending on NR rollout, other parts of the network will see ECTS in the fullness of time

Don't take this as gospel, but it wouldn't surprise me if 003 has only been fitted with ERTMS temporarily, to get a head start on testing and making sure ERTMS on 197s works. All the sets are future proofed for an easy conversion if needs be - so it might be that after tests are complete we see 003 return to CAF for a conventional cab to be fitted, with the ERTMS equipment removed and fitted to one of the permanent ERTMS sets.

Like I said, I've no source for this - it's just a theory.

 

[Bob Price]

A 197 seems to be trial running between Crewe and Wilmslow today being driven by Freightliner. Code 5Q61. ROG are taking one to Llandudno as usual on 593W.

Look like 197002 is doing the Wilmslow shuttle

 

[wobman]

A 197 seems to be trial running between Crewe and Wilmslow today being driven by Freightliner. Code 5Q61. ROG are taking one to Llandudno as usual on 593W.

Look like 197002 is doing the Wilmslow shuttle

They must be in a rush to get them passed onto tfw asap

 

[craigybagel]

AIUI, Freightliner are responsible for shunting the units around Crewe (between the newly refurbished sidings at Gresty and the Arriva Train Care maintenance depot) as well as the delivery movements, so there may be a degree of training taking place associated with that.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Tweet says 20x two-car units authorised, but approval document says 30 two-car units. Regarding ETCS, this appears to be confirmation that 21 units would be fitted, but having 197003 out on its own rather than having a distinct subclass looks decidedly odd.

Agreed. I would have expected the 197/2 numberings to differentiate the ECTS / ERTMS fitted units for working the Cambrian lines, but depending on NR rollout, other parts of the network will see ECTS in the fullness of time

Don't take this as gospel, but it wouldn't surprise me if 003 has only been fitted with ERTMS temporarily, to get a head start on testing and making sure ERTMS on 197s works. All the sets are future proofed for an easy conversion if needs be - so it might be that after tests are complete we see 003 return to CAF for a conventional cab to be fitted, with the ERTMS equipment removed and fitted to one of the permanent ERTMS sets.

Like I said, I've no source for this - it's just a theory.

Assuming the tweet is wrong and ORR has approved 30 of the 51 two-car units ordered, there are only 21 two-car units that have not received ORR approval, which includes 003. If ETCS is removed from 003 then a unit which has already received ORR approval as a non-ETCS fitted unit would need to be have ETCS installed in order to reach the expected total of 21 units.

If that's what they are planning, and given that there is a gap in the numbering of the units that have left Newport (either 005 or 009 hasn't appeared yet) so far, why did they not just jump from 002 to 022 and then back to 004 rather than go to the trouble of moving ETCS kit between units?

 

[Dai Corner]

Assuming the tweet is wrong and ORR has approved 30 of the 51 two-car units ordered, there are only 21 two-car units that have not received ORR approval, which includes 003. If ETCS is removed from 003 then a unit which has already received ORR approval as a non-ETCS fitted unit would need to be have ETCS installed in order to reach the expected total of 21 units.

If that's what they are planning, and given that there is a gap in the numbering of the units that have left Newport (either 005 or 009 hasn't appeared yet) so far, why did they not just jump from 002 to 022 and then back to 004 rather than go to the trouble of moving ETCS kit between units?

Dunno. Maybe it's thought moving ETCS kit from one unit to another is a useful exercise in itself? It's something that may be required some time in the future and knowing that it can be done and exactly how to do it would be helpful.

 

[craigybagel]

If nothing else, it might ease some of the worries of those convinced the Cambrian is condemned to suffer for the rest of all time because they don't think TfW have specified enough sets with ERTMS from day one.

 

[wobman]

If nothing else, it might ease some of the worries of those convinced the Cambrian is condemned to suffer for the rest of all time because they don't think TfW have specified enough sets with ERTMS from day one.

Especially if an extra order is made for a rural line having its own specific rolling stock issues, if tfw order 4 or 5 extra for that route until merseyrail take over.
The ertms units changing would make sense, it's an interesting theory.

 

[Bikeman78]

GTR and WMT units came with proper built in PIS systems from day one. TfW are stuck with an aftermarket system (Train FX) and you only have to search through these forums to see how well they've worked at every TOC who's been stuck with them.

The guards are doing their best, as do the station staff at Shrewsbury and Machy where most of these issues come up - but there's only so much they can do, and they're up against the twin terrors of awful equipment and a well meaning public who occasionally make odd decisions.

I've dealt with many different TOCs across my Railway career, and passengers ending up in the wrong place are hardly unique to TfW.

Back in the day, the evening XX:32 from Victoria used to split at Three Bridges, front four Brighton, rear four Bognor Regis. The guards would always announce this, especially after Redhill as the splitting point approached. Once the split occurred, the guard in the rear four would announce "if you can hear this you are in the Bognor Regis train," after which there was a stampede to the front four. Made me chuckle every time. The 700s have excellent announcements regarding short platforms, but loads of people still get caught out.

By next week there’s should also be training diagrams on Crewe to Shrewsbury as well as North Wales coast, there are meant to be 4 units out each day once that starts fully.

That's good news. Extra units can't come soon enough.

 

[tomuk]

So 003 and 022-041 are the Cambrian units. Why aren't they numbered as a separate subclass eg 301-321? Having them mixed could cause issues at Shrewsbury when units get swapped round. A non ECTS ends up in the circuit and all is well until departure for Aber and it is realised they have the wrong sort.

 

[Anonymous10]

So 003 and 022-041 are the Cambrian units. Why aren't they numbered as a separate subclass eg 301-321? Having them mixed could cause issues at Shrewsbury when units get swapped round. A non ECTS ends up in the circuit and all is well until departure for Aber and it is realised they have the wrong sort.

this could yet happen remember they haven't tested ects on the class yet

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If nothing else, it might ease some of the worries of those convinced the Cambrian is condemned to suffer for the rest of all time because they don't think TfW have specified enough sets with ERTMS from day one.

There's also the issue that the existing Cambrian ETCS kit needs to be upgraded to bring it into line with the modern NR standard (as being installed on the ECML).
I can't remember if the upgrade is happening before or after 197 introduction, but it might complicate the approvals/rollout plan for the Cambrian.

 

[Doveymain158]

There's also the issue that the existing Cambrian ETCS kit needs to be upgraded to bring it into line with the modern NR standard (as being installed on the ECML).
I can't remember if the upgrade is happening before or after 197 introduction, but it might complicate the approvals/rollout plan for the Cambrian.

Upgrade I been told is backward compatible so it will work on a 158 and the new units

 

[Mollman]

I don't know why people are obsessed with the idea of a separate sub-class for ECTS fitted units. Current 158s don't have a sub-class, plus I am guessing with new units it shouldn't be that hard to swap equipment between them for example if an ECTS fitted unit hit a tree, its equipment could be swapped into a non-ECTS fitted unit whilst away for repairs.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't know why people are obsessed with the idea of a separate sub-class for ECTS fitted units. Current 158s don't have a sub-class, plus I am guessing with new units it shouldn't be that hard to swap equipment between them for example if an ECTS fitted unit hit a tree, its equipment could be swapped into a non-ECTS fitted unit whilst away for repairs.

Given that the ORR approval letter is only for non-ETCS units, and has listed the individual numbers, would it be that simple from a regulatory perspective to transfer ETCS between units?

 

[Doveymain158]

Given that the ORR approval letter is only for non-ETCS units, and has listed the individual numbers, would it be that simple from a regulatory perspective to transfer ETCS between units?

On train ETCS it’s not quite straightforward than the RETB cab display unit it replaced. You have the DMI in the cab, the on train computer and the radar droplet underneath unit. Very complex bit of kit. I do wish in the future that the system can be a portable version which can be swapped about.

 

[Bikeman78]

I don't know why people are obsessed with the idea of a separate sub-class for ECTS fitted units. Current 158s don't have a sub-class, plus I am guessing with new units it shouldn't be that hard to swap equipment between them for example if an ECTS fitted unit hit a tree, its equipment could be swapped into a non-ECTS fitted unit whilst away for repairs.

All TfW 158s have ERTMS. No chance of another 158 accidentally going down the Cambrian. A separate number series for the ERTMS class 197s would be helpful for control and train crew, amongst others. At a glance, it's not immediately obvious that 197035 has ERTMS but 197015 does not. What's to stop a non ERTMS unit going to Machynlleth on the back of another unit?

 

[Anonymous10]

All TfW 158s have ERTMS. No chance of another 158 accidentally going down the Cambrian. A separate number series for the ERTMS class 195s would be helpful for control and train crew, amongst others. At a glance, it's not immediately obvious that 195035 has ERTMS but 195015 does not. What's to stop a non ERTMS unit going to Machynlleth on the back of another unit?

you may want to edit your post to 197

 

[wobman]

All TfW 158s have ERTMS. No chance of another 158 accidentally going down the Cambrian. A separate number series for the ERTMS class 195s would be helpful for control and train crew, amongst others. At a glance, it's not immediately obvious that 195035 has ERTMS but 195015 does not. What's to stop a non ERTMS unit going to Machynlleth on the back of another unit?

Even though they would be 197s, train unit movements are planned by unit control they will know what units are on each specific route as they planned it.
Then there's the traincrew they will only take ertms units, so they will only drive an ertms equipped unit onto the cambrian as they have to set up the ertms dmi to move the units.

All of these concerns would have been addressed by the 197 integration team as part of the project planning process.

 

[Bikeman78]

Even though they would be 197s, train unit movements are planned by unit control they will know what units are on each specific route as they planned it.
Then there's the traincrew they will only take ertms units, so they will only drive an ertms equipped unit onto the cambrian as they have to set up the ertms dmi to move the units.

All of these concerns would have been addressed by the 197 integration team as part of the project planning process.

Mistakes do happen, even with different sub classes. A 377/4 tried to go to Watford Junction on the back of a 377/2 quite recently. I imagine that if the dual voltage units were also 377/4, chucked in halfway through the number series, it would happen more frequently.

 

[Dai Corner]

Will a non-ETCS 197 be allowed onto the Cambrian on the back of an ETCS one (returning on the back of the same or another ETCS unit)?

 

[krus_aragon]

Will a non-ETCS 197 be allowed onto the Cambrian on the back of an ETCS one (returning on the back of the same or another ETCS unit)?

A problem I'd foresee is that a non-ETCS on the back of the train heading to Aberystwyth would become the leading unit for the return journey. Shunting units around before departure might (?) be doable if you just need to have a suitable cab at the front, but it'd be a hassle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A problem I'd foresee is that a non-ETCS on the back of the train heading to Aberystwyth would become the leading unit for the return journey. Shunting units around before departure might (?) be doable if you just need to have a suitable cab at the front, but it'd be a hassle.

Doesn't ETCS require full train length proving? If so then an unfitted unit wouldn't work unless there is some sort of manual workaround, because if the rear part became uncoupled nothing would provide for knowing it was still in section, which could have unpleasant results.

 

[craigybagel]

A problem I'd foresee is that a non-ETCS on the back of the train heading to Aberystwyth would become the leading unit for the return journey. Shunting units around before departure might (?) be doable if you just need to have a suitable cab at the front, but it'd be a hassle.

AFAIK not possible beyond Machynlleth - the head shunts in the run round loops at Aberystwyth and Pwllheli aren't long enough to to take a 2 car unit. Might be possible to run 3 X 2 car units, with the middle unit unfitted, but whether or not that's allowed is another story

Doesn't ETCS require full train length proving? If so then an unfitted unit wouldn't work unless there is some sort of manual workaround, because if the rear part became uncoupled nothing would provide for knowing it was still in section, which could have unpleasant results.

Are there not still axle counters or some other form of physical proving? I honestly have no idea, I'd be quite curious about the practicalities of it all.

Surely though the 97 hauled infrastructure and leaf fall trains on the Cambrian don't have ERTMS fitted to the wagons as well as the locos?

 

[AlexNL]

Doesn't ETCS require full train length proving? If so then an unfitted unit wouldn't work unless there is some sort of manual workaround, because if the rear part became uncoupled nothing would provide for knowing it was still in section, which could have unpleasant results.

Train integrity proving is only a requirement with ERTMS Level 3, something which isn't in use yet because of how complicated this is - especially with freight trains.

 

[MatthewRead]

When are these going to enter service?

 

[wobman]

Will a non-ETCS 197 be allowed onto the Cambrian on the back of an ETCS one (returning on the back of the same or another ETCS unit)?

Tfw won't let that happen as it can cause logistical nightmares for them

 

[wobman]

When are these going to enter service?

The plan is may 2022 on the Chester to Liverpool route