CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[craigybagel]

To be fair, the 196s are for much more local journeys - the Herefords (about an hour and a half from Brum) are the furthest they will go, whereas the 197s will operate the Cambrian which if you go to Pwllheli is well over 4 hours. I'd venture that most passengers won't use the toilet at all on the former, as a normal, healthy person can easily last an hour and a half, but that a goodly proportion of people *will* on the longer journey as only those with the strongest bladders (or who are severely dehydrated) last 4 hours between "visits".

And I'd venture that 90% of the people using the 197s will similarly be making journeys of an hour and a half or less.

Now, can we PLEASE talk about something other than toilets?

Be careful what you wish for, we'll probably move back to a discussion on how the Corona virus, the rise and fall of Donald Trump and tonight's announcement of the creation of a European Football Super League can all be attributed to TFW opting for Fainsa Sophias.....

 

[Neptune]

Be careful what you wish for, we'll probably move back to a discussion on how the Corona virus, the rise and fall of Donald Trump and tonight's announcement of the creation of a European Football Super League can all be attributed to TFW opting for Fainsa Sophias.....

Brilliant

 

[Rhydgaled]

Let's have some positivity for a change regarding the 197's

Ok; they will have unit end gangways, plug doors and air conditioning and will be / are being assembled in Wales.

no units are perfect but in my eyes they are an upgrade from the present rolling stock.

I think we all generally agree on the facts here - the main disagreement appears to surround whether the units are an upgrade on what they are intended to replace on the routes they are intended to work. If the 197s were replacing 150s I would be inclined to agree; that would almost certainly be an upgrade. However 175s and 158s are vastly higher quality trains than 150s.

 

[bnsf734]

Last Monday (April 12 2021) I was on the M5 going south/west near Gloucester and saw a 2 car 197 set on 2 Allelys low loaders going the other way. I'm not sure of their IDs or their likely destination. I was hoping this thread may have some info, but most recent posts seem to concern toilets!

So there is at least one set out there somewhere!

Thanks to PhillipE and a couple of other messages I have found, the destination was DSDC Donnington (Telford) Freight Terminal where 197001 took to the rails and has subsequently found its way to Crewe.

 

[Envoy]

Having read about the bogie problems* that Northern are having with the 195’s, one would hope that CAF would not release any more 197’s until the design is modified. Perhaps with a better designed bogie, they could also improve the ride quality?

* https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ins-due-to-yaw-bracket-failures.216119/page-7

 

[krus_aragon]

Having read about the bogie problems* that Northern are having with the 195’s, one would hope that CAF would not release any more 197’s until the design is modified. Perhaps with a better designed bogie, they could also improve the ride quality?

* https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ins-due-to-yaw-bracket-failures.216119/page-7

One could wish so.

Alternatively, given that the issue appears to be fatigue related, the 197s are still brand spanking new, and CAF & Northern are working on solutions for the 195s, TfW could carry on accepting their initial units for the time being, get crews and fitters trained on them, and apply the fix when it's been identified (which could be done from-factory for the later units)?

Stopping the delivery process (when it's already been hindered by the pandemic) and redesigning bogies isn't going to help TfW get their required additional stock promptly. Then again, some might say that they've already show an ability to cope with delays to rolling stock deliveries (230s, 769s), so should be able to deal with a bit more waiting.

 

[43096]

One could wish so.

Alternatively, given that the issue appears to be fatigue related, the 197s are still brand spanking new, and CAF & Northern are working on solutions for the 195s, TfW could carry on accepting their initial units for the time being, get crews and fitters trained on them, and apply the fix when it's been identified (which could be done from-factory for the later units)?

Stopping the delivery process (when it's already been hindered by the pandemic) and redesigning bogies isn't going to help TfW get their required additional stock promptly. Then again, some might say that they've already show an ability to cope with delays to rolling stock deliveries (230s, 769s), so should be able to deal with a bit more waiting.

Why would you accept a train that has a known design flaw? You’re then hoping that the contract is written tightly enough to have CAF rectify them.

 

[krus_aragon]

Why would you accept a train that has a known design flaw? You’re then hoping that the contract is written tightly enough to have CAF rectify them.

I wouldn't have a problem accepting a train with a newly discovered design flaw if I knew CAF was working out how to rectify it for me, it wasn't going to be an immediate issue, and I wanted to get the use of the trains sooner rather than later. Conditional acceptance, pending rectification work, and all that.

(If it were an issue with spontaneous brake failure that was showing up on units fresh off the production line, that's be a different matter, of course.)

Teething issues on new trains are nothing new. (175s are a recent local example, or the way 158s were put in hybrid sets with 156s until issue with leaf mulch and track detection were sorted.) And it's not unique to trains: what new-build house doesn't have a snag list of things that need to be fixed?

I'm confident that whatever the contract is, it will allow TfW to get such things (that have been identified prior to fleet acceptance) sorted by CAF without using the nuclear option of refusing to accept delivery. TfW won't want to make the units' arrival any later that it needs to be, and CAF won't want to have to store all the built units pending modification, or shut down their production line while they develop and test their fix.

Of course, it's the people who have sight of that contract that wil be making the actual decision.

 

[Energy]

Conditional acceptance, pending rectification work, and all that.

Conditional acceptance could work well, accepted but there is a contract in that the fix must be implemented within a certain time frame.

 

[g_m_h_redwood]

Looks like we might see another 197 arrive at Donnington, if it's not already there.

Should be going out on Saturday unless it's like last time, so the loco will arrive on Saturday and take the 197 out on the Sunday or Monday

 

[anamyd]

Realtime Trains - FRGT 1023 Donnington Rft to Crewe C.S. (L&Nwr Site) is the link to the schedule pictured above.

 

[Envoy]

How are these new trains leaving CAF at Newport?

 

[g_m_h_redwood]

So far any that have gone to Donnington have been taken by road

 

[anthony263]

How are these new trains leaving CAF at Newport?

By road they can't leave the factory by rail

 

[Envoy]

By road they can't leave the factory by rail

Why can't they leave the factory by rail? The track into the Llanwern steel mill (from the main line) is alongside so just needs connecting.

 

[185]

Because those of us who actually work on the trains feel this is sufficient?

Whilst toilets has been done to death one here, I have to agree - it's a serious flaw and this will rumble on. Unlike other units 150, 153, 230, 769 - these trains will be used on longer, 3-6 hour journeys, and just one toilet - one of these modern ones that locks itself out even when someone trumps on it is a fairly big issue which operationally has the potential to throw 20-40 minute delays on due to staff having to do toilet stops. Making the assumption that TfW will always run 2-car sets in multiple is quite directly contradicted by the range of units arriving from Cardiff at Manchester Piccadilly including the regular (solitary) luxurious one-five-ohhh.

The whole fleet should be 3-car, and I hear the lack-of-bogs matter may have been discussed quite recently by a minister during discussion regarding the yaw brackets.​

 

[Rhydgaled]

Making the assumption that TfW will always run 2-car sets in multiple is quite directly contradicted by the range of units arriving from Cardiff at Manchester Piccadilly including the regular (solitary) luxurious one-five-ohhh.

The TfW 150s won't be able to appear at Manchester once the Stadler fleets have appeared in the Metro because then they'll be off to the scrapper (or perhaps Northern/GWR). However it is very obvious that the 2-car sets will not always run in multiple; TfW don't even pretend that 4-car workings will be a regular ocourance on the Cambrian Coast for example (and there aren't enough units for that to happen without short forms elsewhere). Besides, even if running in multiple with the 2-car units it is still 116 seats worth of potential demand for each toilet.

The whole fleet should be 3-car, and I hear the lack-of-bogs matter may have been discussed quite recently by a minister during discussion regarding the yaw brackets.

The minister needs to worry about far more than just the insufficient toilets*, but the unit length isn't one of them. There are certainly places on the TfW network (Cambrian Coast and Conwy Valley in winter, west of Carmarthen/Swansea at certain times of day/week etc.) where a 2-car unit is sufficient. There is an issue in that some of these (Cambrian Coast being the big one that comes to mind) which need 3-car in summer but this is wasteful in winter and I don't think there's anywhere on the TfW network that the 3-car units can be robbed from during the summer. What is needed is some seasonal (heritage?) stock that can be brought out in Pembrokeshire and/or on the north Wales coast during the summer to release extra units for the Cambrian coast but that's a tricky one with PRM to consider etc.

* though toilets is one of the big issues, so is decarbonisation

 

[craigybagel]

Whilst toilets has been done to death one here, I have to agree - it's a serious flaw and this will rumble on. Unlike other units 150, 153, 230, 769 - these trains will be used on longer, 3-6 hour journeys, and just one toilet - one of these modern ones that locks itself out even when someone trumps on it is a fairly big issue which operationally has the potential to throw 20-40 minute delays on due to staff having to do toilet stops. Making the assumption that TfW will always run 2-car sets in multiple is quite directly contradicted by the range of units arriving from Cardiff at Manchester Piccadilly including the regular (solitary) luxurious one-five-ohhh.

The whole fleet should be 3-car, and I hear the lack-of-bogs matter may have been discussed quite recently by a minister during discussion regarding the yaw brackets.​

You can't base your worries about fleet allocation on what happens at the moment. That's the point of this fleet, it's to stop having to run 2 car trains on routes where they are inappropriate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can't base your worries about fleet allocation on what happens at the moment. That's the point of this fleet, it's to stop having to run 2 car trains on routes where they are inappropriate.

2-car trains are planned to run on the Cambrian services that don't have a Coast portion, and on the Coast itself. These are some of TfW's longest trips, and ones where most stations have no toilet facilities.

 

[craigybagel]

2-car trains are planned to run on the Cambrian services that don't have a Coast portion, and on the Coast itself. These are some of TfW's longest trips, and ones where most stations have no toilet facilities.

As I said, routes for which 2 car trains are appropriate.

As others here have constantly been moaning about for years, trains with only one toilet have been a common appearance on TfW's longer routes for a long time. In that time I've experienced precisely zero issues with this so no amount of wailing or gnashing of teeth online is going to persuade me otherwise - so I would appeal to other posters to save your fingers and Railforums bandwidth by moving on.....

 

[PHILIPE]

Why can't they leave the factory by rail? The track into the Llanwern steel mill (from the main line) is alongside so just needs connecting.

Would the cost be value for for money if the factory is closed down after all CAF building contracts are completed. It's not just a matter of putting a set of points in when one has to consider signalling works would have to be done as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said, routes for which 2 car trains are appropriate.

But not trains with only one toilet.

Trains with only one toilet are not suitable for anything other than short commuter type routes where most stations have toilet facilities.

As others here have constantly been moaning about for years, trains with only one toilet have been a common appearance on TfW's longer routes for a long time. In that time I've experienced precisely zero issues with this so no amount of wailing or gnashing of teeth online is going to persuade me otherwise - so I would appeal to other posters to save your fingers and Railforums bandwidth by moving on.....

All of those trains have had much simpler, non-CET toilets without automatic doors or other features.

 

[Envoy]

Would the cost be value for for money if the factory is closed down after all CAF building contracts are completed. It's not just a matter of putting a set of points in when one has to consider signalling works would have to be done as well.

So, are we going to see a massive new fleet of trains built alongside a railway being transported first by road all the way to Donnington (Telford)? The line alongside the CAF plant is already signalled for the trains serving the steel mill. If they can't afford a set of points, then surely there must be a way of getting these new trains onto the rails at Llanwern?

 

[craigybagel]

But not trains with only one toilet.

Trains with only one toilet are not suitable for anything other than short commuter type routes where most stations have toilet facilities.

In your opinion. Which is clearly not going to change, but neither is mine.

All of those trains have had much simpler, non-CET toilets without automatic doors or other features.

Trust me, the non CET toilets gave a lot more trouble then the modern ones. So long as you have the facilities to empty them (which have been improved over the last few years), they're fine. You'd be amazed how often a hole in the bottom of the train can block.

I'd make reference to bashing my head against the wall again but there's not much left by now other than a bloody stump....

 

[wobman]

In your opinion. Which is clearly not going to change, but neither is mine.

Trust me, the non CET toilets gave a lot more trouble then the modern ones. So long as you have the facilities to empty them (which have been improved over the last few years), they're fine. You'd be amazed how often a hole in the bottom of the train can block.

I'd make reference to bashing my head against the wall again but there's not much left by now other than a bloody stump....

I agree with you in every way, I feel your frustration over this subject.
I've never seen this as such an issue, the modern toilets are very reliable.
People complain about lack of capacity constantly but once a solution is found it's the wrong solution.

The TFW franchise doesn't get the funds that others do unfortunately, plus the franchise has over 15 years no investment. So it's a huge catch up program, which takes lots of funding.

I know that TFW desperately needs more trains asap, this weekend has been a taste of how things are going to be this summer in the N Wales coast.

Can't wait to see the 197's in service asap & ideally the 175's would also be retained for certain longer routes but can't see that happening.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Dante's nine circles of hell (updated)

• First Circle: Limbo.
• Second Circle: Lust.
• Third Circle: Gluttony.
• Fourth Circle: Greed.
• Fifth Circle: Anger.
• Sixth Circle: Heresy.
• Seventh Circle: Violence.
• Eighth Circle: Fraud.
• Ninth Circle; Circular arguments about TFW Civity toilets.

 

[43096]

Dante's nine circles of hell (updated)

• First Circle: Limbo.
• Second Circle: Lust.
• Third Circle: Gluttony.
• Fourth Circle: Greed.
• Fifth Circle: Anger.
• Sixth Circle: Heresy.
• Seventh Circle: Violence.
• Eighth Circle: Fraud.
• Ninth Circle; Circular arguments about TFW Civity toilets.

Surely the "First Circle" is a naff Aberdeen-based public transport operator?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the "First Circle" is a naff Aberdeen-based public transport operator?

That's the "F-in-circle" isn't it?

 

[Ribbleman]

So, are we going to see a massive new fleet of trains built alongside a railway being transported first by road all the way to Donnington (Telford)? The line alongside the CAF plant is already signalled for the trains serving the steel mill. If they can't afford a set of points, then surely there must be a way of getting these new trains onto the rails at Llanwern?

It does seem incredible that a new factory, purpose built for assembling trains, is not connected to the national network. If you look on Google Earth you can see for yourselves.

 

[Wyrleybart]

It does seem incredible that a new factory, purpose built for assembling trains, is not connected to the national network. If you look on Google Earth you can see for yourselves.

I agree, but even more incredible is the rumour that 197001 was low loadered from South Wales to Donnington, railed, then loco hauled to Crewe. I am really struggling to believe that a new self powered train would need to be loco hauled, so please tell me 197001 ran under it's own power to Crewe.