Rank new CAF stock

[NewClee153]

Sorry if this thread has already been made, but a lot of CAF stock has joined the network recently, and I haven’t seen this thread around. Rank all of the modern CAF stock from best to worst.

I’ll go first:
1. 196 - to me, this isn’t even a conversation, I was really nervous after riding my first class 195 and anticipating these to be just as bad if not worse, but I’ve been pleasant surprised. Comfortable seating, acceptable ride quality, 2 toilets on board (if it’s a /1), reasonable sized tables with a fair spread of airline and table seats, vibrant lighting and uninstrusive announcements, vastly improving on the comfort and ride quality of its northern counterpart

2. MK5 coaches - whilst these coaches have the bog standard awful ride quality, the quality of the cabins more than makes up for it

3. 197 - it’s very hard not to see these as a 195 with an end gangway, the one thing it has over it’s northern sister are comfortable seats, but the ride quality, the huge galley, the long overdrawn dual English and Welsh announcements ruin any great potential these units had for me personally, especially given that these will be used on long distance services

4. 397 (Nova 2) - while I’m not a huge fan of these by any means, the aesthetic beauty of this train is enough to give it 4th spot, wood furnishing on the vestibules is a lovely touch, and the large windows lend itself to a lovely journey along the Lake District. However, the overstated ride quality and extremely uncomfortable seating make the journey on these trains unbearable at the best of times

5. Nova 3 - just take what I said about the 397, and apply it to the Nova 3, the saving graces being the beast class 68 push/pulling these sets along and the soon withdrawal of these sets

6. 195/331 - bottom of the barrel for me, I’ve never been so disappointed with new stock - for reference, I live in the midlands, not the north. I remember getting on a 195 for the first time at Leeds to Manchester Victoria, being hugely disappointed by the lack of class 158 allocation. Admittedly, I sat near the end of the carriage, but throughout the journey, I was accompanied by this loud and obnoxious knocking, jolting and clanging, which actually had me worried for the state of the unit, then I got to Bradford Interchange, and by then, I’d had enough of the uncomfortable seats, and had to make a conscious effort to lean forward to give my back some relief, only to find an off putting, disgusting “crumb gap” between my table and the window panel. One thing I’ll give these trains credit, is the impressive acceleration, which must be very useful for short/stopping services, but I think I would rather make several changes than endure one of these between York and Blackpool, it still boggles my mind that they’re used on such services

 

[Bletchleyite]

397 > 197 > 195/331 > 196 > Mk5a.

Can't really compare CS Mk5 as (a) I've not used them yet, and (b) they have a very different purpose to the others.

The 196 has a high quality ambiance but the legroom is very poor compared to the others and the windows are very small, so I can't rate it very highly overall.

The Mk5as, other than First Class, are just rubbish. Poor window alignment, small windows, short vehicles, bad seats, not enough airline seats.

 

[RailWonderer]

Mk5 People mention awful ride quality but they don't operate high speed stretches for very long so hard to judge for me. York - Leeds a couple of times felt very smooth for me, just a soft push/pull and no underfloor engines
> 397s felt jolty on the WCML but partly because they don't tilt. At lower speeds on better track they're fine, just with the awful Fainsa ironing boards the IETs have
> 196 These have the FISA lean seats that are hard now but will soften considerably like those on the GA Stadlers did after a year or so, plus their dimmer ambience than the rest of the fleet. They don't operate at higher speeds anywhere to ride quality hard to gauge
> 197 same thing but harder seats and harsher lighting (the only one here I have not been on yet, have not had the chance so this may change).
> 195. Just awful, cheap feeling all the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Sophia isn't an "ironing board", even though it (other than TfW's modified cushion) is a bad seat. The Fainsa Comrail used in the 195/331 is (though again it's not a bad seat with the modified base cushion). It's called that because of the shape.

 

[AJDesiro]

> 197 same thing but harder seats and harsher lighting (the only one here I have not been on yet, have not had the chance so this may change).

The 197s don’t have terrible seats, surprisingly, the modified cushions make the seats very comfortable, much better than the Sophia seats as they are on the IETs/397s. But they are effectively just gangwayed 195s with different seats.

I might even go as far as saying I’d love a 196 with 197 seats.

 

[jfollows]

I initially thought the first word in the thread title was an adjective, not a verb.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 197s don’t have terrible seats, surprisingly, the modified cushions make the seats very comfortable, much better than the Sophia seats as they are on the IETs/397s. But they are effectively just gangwayed 195s with different seats.

I might even go as far as saying I’d love a 196 with 197 seats.

Small windows though. I'd rather a 197 with the 196 indirect lighting, spots and colour scheme.

 

[Flying Snail]

I initially thought the first word in the thread title was an adjective, not a verb.

You aren't the only one, and I fully agreed with the statement.

 

[GWVillager]

You aren't the only one, and I fully agreed with the statement.

I third that!



1. 397
They’re fast, stylish and make sense, they fulfil a role and do it well. The interior ambiance is almost perfect, and if it weren’t for the seats and ride quality I think they’d be my favourite units in the UK.

2. 196
They’re not great. I’d go as far to say they’re bad, it’s just that the other ones are worse! The lighting is lovely and the capacity is welcome on their routes, but everything else is very disappointing (including the ride quality, I’m not sure why some people think it’s any better than other Civities).

3. 195/331
I don’t hate these as much as some. They’re not perfect trains by any means, but they’re much better than Pacers and Sprinters (not 158s, obviously). Keep them off mid-long distance traffic and they’re fine.

4. 197
They’re like the 196s but a bit better, mainly due to their proper tables and very comfortable seats. But they’re inappropriate for their routes, making their flaws harder to forgive.

5. Mk5a
Standard CAF, they’re bad, except this time they don’t even look good. The interior does, though.

6. Mk5 (CS)
Whoever thought that CAF inside-framed bogies would be a good idea for a sleeper train needs to have a talking to. It’s a shame, as they’re in theory fantastic, but I just can’t sleep in them, which sort of undermines their whole purpose.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I can't review as much as everyone else here but I'll review what I've been on
1 - 397 - Great window alignment, lots of tables, if quiet is very nice.
2 - 331 - Great acceleration, work very well for the Castlefield corridor.
3 - 195 - Those two ^ are better for the reasons listed, along with being electric rather than diesel, for reference, I rank 195s above all 15x (and miss the one that used to run on my line)

 

[aem7ac]

Whoever thought that CAF inside-framed bogies would be a good idea for a sleeper train needs to have a talking to. It’s a shame, as they’re in theory fantastic, but I just can’t sleep in them, which sort of undermines their whole purpose.

100% in agreement... my night on the CS in June was horrible and I didn't get any good sleep because of the ride quality.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Small windows though. I'd rather a 197 with the 196 indirect lighting, spots and colour scheme.

Me too!

I've only travelled on 331s (which I did on their first day in service),195s, and mk5a sets- so my rating of others won't be fully informed. Therefore I'll be giving each a rating out of ten rather than "ranking" them.

195s- these are perfectly adequate units for the services they were originally planned to operate, though I'd have rather they had gangways and/or all been 3-cars minimum. From a performance point of view they're more suited to stopping services due to their quick acceleration, so a more high-density layout for at least some of the units might have been better. 7/10.

331s- these have the same issue as the 195s with regard to the layout not being optimised to the sort of work they're doing, but more so at least for the West Yorkshire sets. The low density layout largely nullifies the advantage that the six-car workings will provide when compared to the units they've replaced. Once six-car workings start, the lack of gangways will really be felt. Those qualms aside, they are quite nice to travel on when they're not overcrowded. 6/10.

Mk5a sets- the 68s sound fantastic to me, and my offer to swap homes with anyone annoyed by them at Scarborough TMD still stands!
Being serious, I had high hopes for these sets when announced, and it's disappointing that they haven't worked out. Some daft decisions on the seat positions (and the UK's silly obsession with putting reservation displays on the walls rather than on the seats themselves) haven't helped, and the ride can be a little firm at times, but they're a bit more interesting than the wall-to-wall Hitachi junk we have everywhere else. 5/10.

196s/197s- They're basically just a 195 but with a gangway (yes, I know there are a few other differences) so they automatically score an extra point for that alone. 8/10.

397s- These seem to be what the mk5s and 802s could and should have been. Main criticism is that there aren't many of them and they work on a very niche set of services that I'm unlikely to get chance to use. 9/10.

 

[JD2168]

I have mainly used the Northern Class 195 versions I find these to be quite decent. The seats & table seats should have been aligned with the windows much better & the seated capacity at time’s feels lower than the Class 158 they replaced on the Leeds to Lincoln/Nottingham via Sheffield service which can be noticeable at busy times. The seats could have done with more padding & at times the noise from the underside can be noticeable at times.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Am I the only one to have initially misunderstood the meaning of the thread title?

 

[GWVillager]

I have mainly used the Northern Class 195 versions I find these to be quite decent. The seats & table seats should have been aligned with the windows much better & the seated capacity at time’s feels lower than the Class 158 they replaced on the Leeds to Lincoln/Nottingham via Sheffield service which can be noticeable at busy times. The seats could have done with more padding & at times the noise from the underside can be noticeable at times.

More than "feels" - A 2 coach Northern 158 has 138 or 142 seats, and a 195/0 has 124.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

More than "feels" - A 2 coach Northern 158 has 138 or 142 seats, and a 195/0 has 124.

Although how does it score on "comfortable" standing room.
I'd guess a 195 could probably fit more people stood up than the 158s.

 

[GWVillager]

Although how does it score on "comfortable" standing room.
I'd guess a 195 could probably fit more people stood up than the 158s.

Oh, definitely. But JD was referring to seating capacity specifically.

 

[37166]

Am I the only one to have initially misunderstood the meaning of the thread title?

No!, Isnt all CAF stock Rank?

 

[Rail Quest]

I see a lot of love for the 196s here but I personally didn't like riding on them. Its the lack of armrests. When I did the full New Street to Shrewsbury journey on them, I was far more uncomfortable on the 196 than on a 195 on a journey of comparable length as sitting without an armrest just doesn't feel natural to me (even if the window ledges on the units are somewhat of a supplement). I'll be honest, I don't mind any of the CAF products as such as I'd take any of them over the sprinters on my local line any day of the week but non of them strike me as good units by any means. My rankings from "favourite" to least favourite would be:

1) 331 (I've never found the seats to be much of an issue for the journeys and the acceleration is quite enjoyable to experience IMO)
2) 197 (armrests are too low, other than that - decent units and what I'd consider to be a direct upgrade to 195s/196s. Still not diagrammed with enough carriages though but I don't consider that a problem with the unit)
3) 397 (these felt quite cheap last time I rode one. Seats aren't massively comfy either but overall I don't mind taking one of these)
4) mk5a (never been on a Caledonian sleeper coach so can't comment on them. As for the TPE carriages, opinion is the same as the 397)
5) 195 (controversially, I don't mind these as much as everyone else but maybe that's because they're drastically better IMO than sprinters that I'm stuck with)
6) 196 (no armrests are a massive and confusing loss. I also don't particularly like the seat shaping, doesn't suit someone of my height, 6 foot 2)

 

[Lurcheroo]

There seems to be some opinion that some of the 19x’s have better ride quality than other 19x’s. My understanding was that underneath, these are ultimately the same trains. So, same wheels, same bogies, same suspension components etc. and would therefore all have the same ride quality. Can anyone confirm this 100% ?

If they are all the same then I suspect the big difference that people are actually noticing is the difference in track quality. They are very smooth over CWR but jointed track they feel very rough.
When they were tested on the Cambrian, the DI onboard told me that the CAF engineer thought they had de-railed at one point because the track is incredibly rough to ride over, even so on a 158.

Of course seats are different between units with 197’s having pretty reasonable seats in my opinion. Certainly no complaints from me or the wife on a 2 hour journey. I don’t think I’d feel the same about the 196 seats, but being with WMT, I think they’re doing more commuter type services than long distance like TFW ?

 

[Rail Quest]

If they are all the same then I suspect the big difference that people are actually noticing is the difference in track quality. They are very smooth over CWR but jointed track they feel very rough.

Interesting point tbf. I couldn't confirm if they're the same but I used to use the 195s mainly on CLC (manchester-Liverpool via warrington) which was CWR. The most rough they felt was over the points at Trafford Park freight terminal though I found this varied from unit to unit.

 

[CAF397]

If they are all the same then I suspect the big difference that people are actually noticing is the difference in track quality. They are very smooth over CWR but jointed track they feel very rough.

This is a very good point. I travelled to York last week on a TPE Mk5a train. They have just relayed some track between Church Fenton and Colton Jn. The linespeed is 100mph. The ride quality was silky smooth. Compare it to some sections of 75mph track and you can see that whilst there are questions around the suspension, it is often the quality of the track that affects how a vehicle rides.

 

[L401CJF]

Ive only experienced 195/197/331s.

Generally I prefer the 197 over the Northern stock for a few reasons. The seats are a bit more comfortable (low armrests aside). I dislike Northerns interior colour scheme in general - harsh lighting with clinical white wash walls combined with the bright blue seats and odd dark blue walls they don't feel particularly "cozy".

197 obviously has the awful downside that is the waste of space catering fridge thing, and the toilets are extremely unreliable.

I don't really use the Northern fleet much as it is but can't say I've had a bad experience on their CAFs in my limited use.

I've clocked up a lot of miles on 197s now, I'm still not a fan of any CAF stock - the ride quality isn't exactly refined on any of them! Work a shift on CAFs then get a rare 175 and it's like a luxury upgrade - able to fill in my paperwork with handwriting that is actually legible unlike on a wobbly banging CAF

Generally, the non enthusiast public however do very much like the 197s compared to the old stock. The lack of luggage space is a letdown though.

 

[Lurcheroo]

The linespeed is 100mph. The ride quality was silky smooth. Compare it to some sections of 75mph track and you can see that whilst there are questions around the suspension, it is often the quality of the track that affects how a vehicle rides.

One easy to see difference is that the suspension airbags are smaller on the 197’s when compared with 158’s, so they just don’t absorb rougher track as well as the older BR stuff but when on CWR they work perfectly well.

197 obviously has the awful downside that is the waste of space catering fridge thing

It’s a shame really, I could totally get behind it, if it was (or will in the future be) providing an improved catering service for passengers provided that there are additional carriages so there’s no over crowding.
Unfortunately it just seems that services will keep a bog standard trolley service where the steward has the choice between going through the train or remaining stationary.

 

[Irascible]

On brand new freshly tamped CWR anything would ride well. There needs to be an acceptance body who've got a test track set up to represent a well used secondary line...

 

[Bletchleyite]

On brand new freshly tamped CWR anything would ride well. There needs to be an acceptance body who've got a test track set up to represent a well used secondary line...

Used a 195 from Marple-Manchester-Rose Hill at the weekend and it was absolutely fine for that purpose - ideal, one might say. Sure, they were ordered for something else, but "new Northern" seems to be using some sense in how they are deployed. In particular the otherwise-a-bit-short 2-car sets seem to be a perfect fit for Rose Hill - enough seats for everyone off peak, and easily able to swallow a standing load in the peak.

They add a bit of quality and acceleration to local services (has a definitely more European feel to it than when it was rotting Pacers) as well as dealing well with big crowds.