What are the chances of them being back up and running for Wednesday and Thursday though?
Could be that the 196s will be back in service tomorrow and dropped again the next day. Its teething problems that is all. Most likely they will be out and about soon (maybe even one tonight - at a guess).
It was 102 that failed at Sandwell (I was on it!), again 108 went out of service at BHM. I travelled on 110 as well and it seemed to be running fine, the lengthy delays it incurred were nothing to do with the train but rather complications with some wheelchair users requiring the ramp but no station staff being available to deploy it. 102 was clearly not operating as intended though, there were some problems with the announcements and of course it was taken out of service at Sandwell. Not sure exactly what caused it to cancel however.
They are all broken bar 101 at the moment.
If you are talking about the end door, I agree. If you are talking about the inter- carriage gangway, it is like it on all D/EMU'S I can think of.
They've had a number of issues with them and removed from use. It's not one single problem or fault unfortunately so they will be out some days, removed during service on others and not out some days for the time being.
Ouch, it sounds like it will be a while yet until they'll be fully safe and properly reliable. Once they are, I'd like to ride on my first one(s).
A lot of work to do then!
I agree with you that "running miles" is not comprehensive enough, and it seems to happen so often. A new train will be built and will have a FFM plan often worked by freight drivers. That plan in most cases seems to purely ramp up miles without actually simulating station stop, door open, door close, depart.
It is bad, when I am being discreetly informed that the door panel issues feel as if the electronics/sensors have worn out, and that the computer which controls the whole machine seems to find bugs and issues all of the time. Or that the cabs have been badly designed for guards.
Well even if they do, the 170s are moving one a week to EMR until Christmas so it's too late now. It maybe should have been considered though as it's what ScotRail did
The gearboxes were an issue on first delivery which slowed down the completion of the FFM in the first place. The other stuff really should've been picked up during testing too but I guess testing is purely done from a driving point of view which is clearly the reason these types of incidents are happening.
Yes, and I can personally attest to this having happened at one of the busiest stations on the network - Birmingham New Street! Driver had walked off straight from the stopping and apparently only turned back to realise, when he saw the crowds of people not moving. Poor guard had been trying the door panels for two three minutes in vain.
Could not agree more. Running them around for 18 months with staff from CAF dressed in orange looking at laptops does nothing to see whether or not the train is fit for purpose when in passenger service, being actually used as a passenger train.
If I remember correctly, anit they the same gear boxes which are on the 172s too aswell as other Civity trains?
all the same basic thing, but the manufacturer (ZF) updates them over the years. I believe the 172s (or some of them) are only 5-speed with the Civitys being 6-speed, but it's possible that further changes were made since the 195s.
Honestly couldn't tell you, but gearboxes were an issue when they were running on the north Warwick back in 2020. I had hoped it was all sorted but seems like it's not the case.
