CAF Civity UK family of trains 

I tend to agree 170s are better, but WMR's ex 170 are in dire need of refurbishment, at least the one I rode on was in a bad way with collapsed seats.

Let's just hope there are no cracks 😉😅.

The 307s are great, completely unlike the other Civity units, just a shame the seats are firm.

397* 😅

Is there a DMU other than the 185 that isn't slow?

the 195, 196, and 197 is quicker than the 185 in acceleration@@mrvwbug4423 Also the 220/1/2 and 180 are also a higher top speed. The 158 and 159 I'd say in acceleration is on par with the 185.

They'll probably be around for 5 to 10 years. Northern already have plans to replace theirs, but they'll probably take TfW's in the meantime.

​@@Rail_Focus I'd happily see GWR have some, they don't have enough, running 165s and 166s on the Cardiff to Portsmouth line is ridiculous.

I'm sure the Aussie versions will be very different. If I remember correctly, the Caeldonian sleeper is the UKs only sleeper train, it's a loco hauled train not a MU. Are those supposed to replace the HPTs on the Sydney to Melbourne line?

@mrvwbug4423 yes these will be to replace the XPT.

Unfortunately CAF aren't known for their quality, although the Class 397 EMUs seem to be quite good. The 19X DMUs however are not great, the ride is harsh.

I think providing accessible toilets and space for wheelchairs absolutely should be provided as a minimum. The cost of which is negligible vs the £4-5m cost of the trains themselves. Making trains inaccessible is a sure fire way to discourage train travel by those who use wheelchairs or are simply less mobile.

@@Rail_Focus Thank you for your reply. Is the cost of space taken up by these facilities taken into account when you made your calculation? would you consider it necessary if no one ever used them? You probably think I'm a terrible person as critical thinking is frowned upon these days but I believe these are issues hat need discussing before opening other people's money.

Not a case of critical thinking being frowned upon, it's not unreasonable to ask questions about value for money. But PRM requirements are a moot point, as it's just operators fulfilling their legal requirements, so they have little choice as it's a Europe wide law that was written into UK law. And I reiterate the cost including within new rolling stock is negligible when compared to the cost of the train itself. The only one argument you could have made 5 years ago is, is it worth it to retrofit existing trains, which clearly did add additional costs to refurbishments. But let's not forget able bodied people can use PRM compliant toilets, so they're a benefit to everyone and I'd argue there are a lot more pleasant than the tiny, cramped non-PRM compliant toilets that some units are also fitted with. And wheelchair spaces when not occupied by wheelchair uses can be used by parents with prams.

@@Rail_Focus To clarify in case I did not make my point earlier, my criticism was indeed regarding the law and the implementation thereof, not of the train operators/fleet owners themselves as they were, as you point out, complying with the law. My frustration is at the RU-vidrs (maybe not you) who fetishize such arrangements, turning them from reasonable adjustments that practically all can agree are a fine improvement, into 'about time this backward and biggoted nation finally did something for those poor people that it crippled in an act of rage' and who, for instance, argue that one PRM enabled toilet/ticket gate/elevator isn't enough, nor even 2 or 3 (in the case of Gatwick Airport station) as there can never ben enough of these things (that are little used for their advertised specialized purpose) and I'm not footing the bill so install another 7 and then I'll complain about something else. How many genders are represented by the symbols at the bathrooms in your stations? You need to repaint them every time Meta discovers a new gender; bathroom signage should be like the Forth Bridge, you can never stop repairing it. That last point is a 'minor' exaggeration but give it about 2 more years and that'll be their cause.

@@Rail_Focus You make a very good point that PRM requirements benefit far more than just wheelchair users, even just those with large luggage too. This is true also for step free access in stations etc. I don't really understand why anyone would have a problem with it, the costs are not huge in the scheme of things.

They're definitely built to a price, but unfortunately with so many 40 year old DMUs on the network there isn't much choice but to order more.

There are other good DMUs out there. The bombardier vlocity 160 DMU has been around for 20 years now and still being produced in Australia.

Seems like they're able to crank them out quickly, which is at least one thing going in their favor. And the Civity MUs definitely look more British than something like a Stadler FLIRT, which are mostly intended as low floor trains for the continent without much consideration for things like accessibility (look at the stepped floors in a FLIRt, good luck getting a wheelchair in there). Though it does appear that the TfW FLIRTs have UK height boarding and better acessibility than their counterparts on the continent.

@@nickhiscock8948 Erm... ...Bombardier went out of business back in 2020. And the VLocity were custom-developed for the Australian state of Victoria. Bombardier didn't offer them in any tender bid beyond Australia, they would either offer the Talent series or something to the local specifications (example being turbostar). You may not include low price and speed of delivery in your criteria of "better"; but public transport operators don't always have the luxury of a lot of funds and time available to get replacement stock. And CAF are among the smaller rolling stock builders who're willing to bid for tenders of smaller numbers of stock, such as the one meeting Transpennine's requirements.

Just to correct you; CAF for most of its history did build metro trains, but they didn't get into trams until about the turn of the century. For most of its history; CAF made trains for metro systems (especially in Madrid and Barcelona) and they also made multiple units for the suburban and commuter services into Spanish cities. It wasn't until this century that they got into trams and intercity & long distance trains. Traditionally in Spain those trains were built by an entirely different company: Talgo.