Other than the WAG Express, though, I can't see a single ATW long-distance service (and many of the non-long-distance ones too) for which a Class 170 wouldn't be suitable. None of them are true InterCity in the manner of something like VTWC, they are really tri-purpose services - local/commuter, regional and IC - and so a unit like a Class 170 (or 185 subject to the weight being an issue, or 195, or whatever Stadler might come up with) with a commuter door layout for fast boarding and alighting but an InterCity quality seating arrangement and ample luggage stacks would be just about perfect
If 175s aren't suitable for the Llandudno services because of the door arrangement and narrow vestibules clogging things up at Oxford Road and Chester, then you can make the same case for the Manchester-South Wales services too at Crewe and Shrewsbury. I can't comment on the stations further down. I think people make a mistake in classing the Manchester-South Wales as an intercity service, it isn't: it is in the regional express category yes but it very much serves as a commuter service too during the peak hours, e.g. Manchester-Crewe-Shrewsbury, Hereford-Newport-Cardiff. So a 185 would have its own advantages over the 175 even for this route.
I very much disagree. Yes the franchise's Regional Express routes (and yes, only Gerald is
INTERCITY) do serve commuter markets
but:
- you could perhaps make the same argument for some INTERCITY services, like Bristol-Paddington (which also carries a fair number of commuters from Reading to London I believe)
- I feel that, where a train serves different markets, the standard of rolling stock should be designed to cater for the market with the HIGHEST comfort requirements. Using outer-suburban stock like 170s or 185s on Regional Express services is a 'lowest common denominator'* approach and I disagree with it
* not sure that's the expression I'm looking for, but it's what came to mind.
Nottingham-Cardiff is certainly in the same catagory as Manchester-Cardiff/Swansea; both are regional express and serve commuter markets, and it was a journey from Cardiff to Nottingham that set me against 170s and the like (and not my experience either, but one of my brothers (who is
not a railway enthusist) who came back after that journey and told me 'the doors were in the wrong place').
I think people unnecessarily get hung up about door positions. It's the rest of the interior that's more important - good, supportive and soft enough seating and comfortable spacing, plenty of tables and seatback tables in airline seating - not the doors.
It's harder to do all those things, plus ensuring the seats are aligned with windows and getting a good number of seats in each carriage, when you have wide doors interrupting the saloon. You need to worry about dwell times when you are calling at every station, the route has lots of them and alot of them aren't just rural halts with one or two pax getting on/off; it should not be a concern with limited-stop services.
Punctuality nose dives due to extended station dwell as soon as you get 158 formations dropping down to 2 car, but that's more of a quantity of rolling stock issue though. I traveled a lot to Cardiff on the 0719 ex Shrewsbury (0425 ex Holyhead) it was diagrammed a 3 car Class 175 and the six doors usually did the business fine at Ludlow and Leominster when the educational commuters got on in force.
Thank you; if you really have problems with dwell time on regional express services chances are you need longer trains, not a suburban door layout.
which is worse politically, getting rid of all Pacers by 2019 by throwing in a few 230s to make up the numbers, or running a bunch of Pacers with the toilets locked out?
Tricky question; what about the third option of having a plan to replace Pacers with 769s but the 769s arrive late and the Pacers are granted a derrogation (allowing the toilets to remain unlocked) until enough 769s are available? None are going to be politically attractive, but which is the least bad option?