LNER announce CAF fleet

[Clansman]

Taken from LNER website, link below from announcement that 10 x 10 car CAF trains will be introduced from 2027, to replace the intercity 225 and provide some extra trains.

First Tri-Mode Long Distance Trains For The East Coast Main Line

London North Eastern Railway (LNER) is pleased to confirm that CAF has been named as the successful bidder to deliver a fleet of 10 new tri-mode trains for LNER. Porterbrook has been chosen as the financier of the new fleet. The trains will be able to operate in electric, battery or diesel mode.

www.lner.co.uk

Good grief!

 

[LiftFan]

There is the option of the TfW base. The Sophia isn't that bad a seat, other than the metal bar issue, and TfW appear to have fixed that. Even if you push down on it the bar doesn't seem to be there at all.

Personally even with the TfW base I still think having a seat which is so harshly upright isn't a good idea for a long distance service. I prefer something I can relax on and sink into a little.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally even with the TfW base I still think having a seat which is so harshly upright isn't a good idea for a long distance service. I prefer something I can relax on and sink into a little.

I think you get into opinion at that point, though. I'd prefer a TfW Sophia over the Chapman I had on Chiltern last night which felt like I was lying on the floor, as these are so steeply raked.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Looks like there will be a wide front-facing PIS display, a first for LNER.
The yellow front-end is a little odd, considering the 397s do not have one.

 

[YorkRailFan]

91s seem to have a habit of surviving attempts to get rid of them. First with the initial rollout when the decision was subsequently made to keep some sets, then again in May 2021 when they returned to service at short notice during the 80x cracking saga.

I reckon they'll last until these CAF units arrive, and then be withdrawn within a couple of months max of the first CAF unit entering service.

I think it depends on the reliability of these CAF units, if there are battery issues or just reliability issues in general after these trains have entered service, the 91s could be around much longer.

Sunderland is due to loose its LNER service from Dec 2024

That's a shame as GC is very unreliable at the moment, hopefully GC will get more 221s before that happens.

 

[TreacleMiller]

91s seem to have a habit of surviving attempts to get rid of them. First with the initial rollout when the decision was subsequently made to keep some sets, then again in May 2021 when they returned to service at short notice during the 80x cracking saga.

I reckon they'll last until these CAF units arrive, and then be withdrawn within a couple of months max of the first CAF unit entering service.

The official line internally is until ERTMS is turned on.

Unofficially, spares are becoming a concern.

 

[Sorcerer]

Im not aware of any CAF trains with a cracked chassis. There was the cracking issue with the yaw dampers and I’m fairly sure these new trains will be built with the modified more substantial dampers.

The Norwegian Oaris Flytoget trains have suffered from cracks on the chassis, but it usually is the yaw dampeners. That said, even the MK5 stock has had issues with cracking on the body. It could be either one of them if the new stock suffers from that sort of issue.

As I said before there was another train which suffered the same issue (Hitachi 8xx).

As far as I am aware though these aren't a consistent problem with general Hitachi stock, or at the very least I haven't heard about as many problems, compared to CAF who have consistent cracking issues across multiple rolling stock across different countries.

 

[AM9]

The LNER chairman has said they are for London-West Riding/York services. I think that statement is quite definitive.

I think this is the most important statement in the whole release. There are few services from London to York, Leeds or Harrogate that take more than 3 hours for their complete journey, Harrogate takes 2h 49m approx). Such a service is not far from an extended regional express where good passenger accommodation is required, mostly under OLE with basic Buffet facilities. In the 10 years that I,e been a member of RUK, a topic that keeps popping up is the lack of what has been christened a 'class 344' EMU, i.e. a 25kV version of the SWR class 444s. When I travelled on a TPE class 397, it thought that with minor twitchy suspension issues, such a train had been created. The LNER requirement is effectively the same with a more flexible traction systems that allows for short off-wire route extensions using battery power, and more extended off-wire excursions, (e.g. Lincoln) using the diesel engines that are also there for recovery use.
I think that these trains are more suited those services which in passenger terms are not dissimilar to the Waterloo to Weymouth journeys. Be prepared for the changes of accommodation on services that have shorter end-to-end times than 3 hours.

 

[AdamWW]

the diesel engines that are also there for recovery use.

I thought there were two types of diesel "engine" provision on 800's - a single engine that will let a train limp along for recovery or at least keep the air conditioning on, or multiple engine provision for planned running on diesel.

Now if you are operating a battery train in hybrid mode you should need less power from the diesels, and that's how I read the press release. But someone said above that the batteries are just intended for short periods of time to get clear of stations before using the diesels.

 

[Neptune]

The Norwegian Oaris Flytoget trains have suffered from cracks on the chassis, but it usually is the yaw dampeners. That said, even the MK5 stock has had issues with cracking on the body. It could be either one of them if the new stock suffers from that sort of issue.

All these were built before the issues were known. Now they are a known issue new stock won’t be built with the same yaw dampers and will get the bigger stronger ones that are being retro-fitted to stock now. And no, none of the CAF stock has had a cracked chassis, that’s the sort of hyperbole I’d expect from the media, not an enthusiasts forum.

As far as I am aware though these aren't a consistent problem with general Hitachi stock, or at the very least I haven't heard about as many problems, compared to CAF who have consistent cracking issues across multiple rolling stock across different countries.

Do you not remember the massive issues a couple of years ago? At GWR where they had to draft in numerous 387’s from elsewhere to cover for the 800’s or the reinstatement of class 91’s to cover for LNER’s sets? The cracking was a major problem. Again, one that won’t be repeated on new builds.

 

[dk1]

But when Greater Anglia introduced the 745s and 755s they didn’t need to re-do the platforms, or relocate stations at curves.

They needed to replace the trains anyway so the additional cost over not specifying level boarding must have been quite reasonable.

Remember that well over £40m was spent on Crown Point depot to accommodate the Stadler fleet. Having low floors means most of the technical stuff on them is roof and side mounted rather than underfloor as standard UK practice.

 

[DanNCL]

This annoyed me rather more than it should have done.

Why are the classifications going up so high, so soon? If the strategy is just to go for the "catchier" ones (777, 755, 710, 720, 730 etc.) then we'll be running out of class numbers in no time, given the general reticence to "go backwards". So, my pick would be 804/806 (isn't it 8 for long-distance bi-modes?).

Numbers above 750 are for bi-modes.
8xx numbers are for high speed trains, so far only from Hitachi but nothing to say that has to stay the case.

In recent times there’s been a link between the last digits of class numbers. For example, classes 555, 745 and 755 are all from Stadler, 707 and 717 from Siemens, 710/720/730 from Bombardier/Alstom although that pattern is spoiled by 700s coming from Siemens.

I think it depends on the reliability of these CAF units, if there are battery issues or just reliability issues in general after these trains have entered service, the 91s could be around much longer.

They have to be gone by the time ERTMS is switched on south of Peterborough, regardless what the situation is with replacement stock.

The official line internally is until ERTMS is turned on.

Unofficially, spares are becoming a concern.

If it got desperate they could no doubt contact Europhoenix and attempt to recover parts from 91120 which is complete despite likely having no future beyond continued static display at Crewe Heritage Centre alongside a 43 and a 90 that have both already been stripped of mechanical and electrical components to keep classmates running. They could also stop the two closest to requiring overhaul (119 and 124?) as parts donors. There’s still quite a bit that could be done before they completely run out of parts.

One does however have to question the wisdom on Eversholt’s part of sending the 91s from Belmont Yard for scrap without recovering parts off any of them first.

 

[800001]

I thought there were two types of diesel "engine" provision on 800's - a single engine that will let a train limp along for recovery or at least keep the air conditioning on, or multiple engine provision for planned running on diesel.

Now if you are operating a battery train in hybrid mode you should need less power from the diesels, and that's how I read the press release. But someone said above that the batteries are just intended for short periods of time to get clear of stations before using the diesels.

The engines on an 800 and an 801 are exactly the same, no difference what so ever.

 

[YorkRailFan]

They have to be gone by the time ERTMS is switched on south of Peterborough, regardless what the situation is with replacement stock.

When is ERTMS switched on?

 

[DanNCL]

When is ERTMS switched off?

Provisionally 2027 or 2028.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Provisionally 2027 or 2028.

Could this be extended in the event that the CAF units are delayed? (which they likely will be as all new rolling stock is.)

 

[The_Train]

7 pages and no paint froth - I'm disappointed!

Any chance of these being in Swallow livery?

 

[Sorcerer]

All these were built before the issues were known. Now they are a known issue new stock won’t be built with the same yaw dampers and will get the bigger stronger ones that are being retro-fitted to stock now. And no, none of the CAF stock has had a cracked chassis, that’s the sort of hyperbole I’d expect from the media, not an enthusiasts forum.

CAF stock has been dealing with cracks in different places since 2014, and as recently as 2023 were body cracks discovered on the Mark 5 carriage sets. This wasn't a case of a few incidents being blown out of proportion, it's very much a thing that has happened with their trams and trains across the world. Wikipedia has a whole section of CAF's article dedicated to train defects, most of which are cracks in different areas, and yes, that does include the chassis, so your claim that the chassis have never cracked is demonstrably untrue.

Crack causes Flytoget to withdraw brand new CAF fleet from traffic

NORWEGIAN operator Flytoget has withdrawn its entire fleet of CAF Oaris EMUs following the discovery of a crack in the chassis of one of the trains.

www.railjournal.com

NORWEGIAN operator Flytoget has withdrawn its entire fleet of CAF Oaris EMUs following the discovery of a crack in the chassis of one of the trains less than a month after they entered traffic.

The trains were launched on June 5, but on June 24 Flytoget confirmed that all eight four-car class 78 trains had been withdrawn from traffic following discovery of the issue during scheduled maintenance. The operator says it has not observed the error before.

CAF Civity class 195 DMUs and class 331 EMUs used in Britain by Northern also suffered from cracks earlier this year, with more than 20 trains from a fleet of 101 withdrawn from traffic due to the fault. In addition, CAF Urbos 3 LRVs operated by West Midlands Metro have suffered from cracks with one LRV sent back to Zaragoza last year for assessment, sources have told IRJ.

Do you not remember the massive issues a couple of years ago? At GWR where they had to draft in numerous 387’s from elsewhere to cover for the 800’s or the reinstatement of class 91’s to cover for LNER’s sets? The cracking was a major problem. Again, one that won’t be repeated on new builds.

I know that some 800s have dealt with cracks, but I don't know of any other Hitachi stock elsewhere that have dealt with them. The key difference I'm talking about here is one particular set of units dealing with cracks, and an entire manufacturer with consistent defects. It's not to say that CAF are a bad manufacturer since some of their trains have been well built, but their track record on cracking compared to Hitachi doesn't do them any favours.

 

[DanNCL]

Could this be extended in the event that the CAF units are delayed? (which they likely will be as all new rolling stock is.)

No. If it was delayed it would be down to delays on Network Rail's part with the infrastructure work rather than anything to do with this new CAF fleet.

Any chance of these being in Swallow livery?

No

I know that some 800s have dealt with cracks, but I don't know of any other Hitachi stock elsewhere that have dealt with them. The key difference I'm talking about here is one particular set of units dealing with cracks, and an entire manufacturer with consistent defects. It's not to say that CAF are a bad manufacturer since some of their trains have been well built, but their track record on cracking compared to Hitachi doesn't do them any favours.

385s and 395s have both had cracks too albeit not on a scale sufficient enough to require the grounding of either fleet.

 

[AdamWW]

The engines on an 800 and an 801 are exactly the same, no difference what so ever.

But the provision is different - the "bi-modes" have multiple engines not just one.

I.e. there is a difference between providing diesel power for recovery in emergency and for full diesel operation.

 

[Sorcerer]

385s and 395s have both had cracks too albeit not on a scale sufficient enough to require the grounding of either fleet.

Perhaps that's why there wasn't as much attention given to them compared to the 800s and why I hadn't heard of it before. If it was as a big deal back then though then I must've been living under a rock when it happened.

 

[AdamWW]

No. If it was delayed it would be down to delays on Network Rail's part with the infrastructure work rather than anything to do with this new CAF fleet.

So if the new trains aren't ready that's just tough - reduced services until there are enough trains to cope with the signalling?

 

[DanNCL]

So if the new trains aren't ready that's just tough - reduced services until there are enough trains to cope with the signalling?

Basically yes. Although in practice it would be more short-formed 5-car 80x worked services rather than services being cut entirely.

Perhaps that's why there wasn't as much attention given to them compared to the 800s.

385s were discovered at the same time as the 800s and is the same issue just not on the same scale. 395s were with the obstacle deflectors if I recall correctly so not too major an issue.

 

[YorkRailFan]

No

Going to be a fun few years when the CAF units are inevitably delayed.

 

[Sorcerer]

385s were discovered at the same time as the 800s and is the same issue just not on the same scale. 395s were with the obstacle deflectors if I recall correctly so not too major an issue.

Thank you for bringing me up to speed that then! Of course I still stand by my original point that CAF stock is worse for cracking, but really this discussion mostly stemmed from a joke asking how long before LNER's new fleet suffered the same issue. I'm hoping it won't be an actual issue, and since the new stock design is based on the 397, it might just as well not be seeing as those units have done good so far.

 

[AdamWW]

I think the battery powered mode here means it can run a meaningful distance with battery power to claim themselves tri-mode?
Otherwise the Lumo Class 803 could claim themselves bi-mode (it might have 50 miles range on battery)

We'll see.

If as suggested above it's just to prevent them from polluting stations with diesel fumes then it doesn't sound much different to that.

 

[superalbs]

Yeh just the livery makes it look refreshingly new and almost like a mix of the two classes.

I really like the way they've applied the livery to the 397's shape.

 

[Snow1964]

Each unit will consist of 10 cars, based on CAF’s Civity UK platform: A train designed for intercity services which is fitted out with state-of-the-art safety technology. It also meets the most stringent requirements in terms of interior design and customer comfort.

CAF SELECTED BY THE BRITISH OPERATOR LONDON NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY TO SUPPLY FIRST TRI-MODE UK INTERCITY FLEET

The operator London North Eastern Railway (LNER) has selected CAF as the preferred bidder for the project to supply 10 tri-mode trains,...

www.caf.net

Civity is a family of modular low-floor trains designed for regional and commuter services. The modular nature of the trains allows them to be precisely adapted to meet the individual needs of each customer.

Both exterior and interior arrangement are tailored to customer specific requirements. Furthermore, unit configurations can be changed quickly and simply by adding or removing intermediate cars.

Civity trains comply with current TSIs and the most demanding EN standards.

Civity, a family of trains for commuter and regional services - CAF

Civity is the family of trains from CAF designed for commuter and regional services. They excel for their modularity and their traction options

www.caf.net

What am I missing, the Civity is for commuter services and regional services, it is not their high speed offering Oaris.

So is this basically a fast outer suburban rather than an intercity train

 

[YorkRailFan]

Probably in a few decades time, only being installed now

Don't you mean ETCS?

 

[43096]

When is ERTMS switched off?

You mean “on”, I assume?