CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[Rhydgaled]

175s are leaving the TfW network (or were due to do so under the K-A franchise).

Yes, TfW are/were planning to ditch the 175s. I was replying to a post that was suggesting seats should not be taken out of class 197s to allow the remaining seats to align with windows. The intention of my post was to point out that TfW didn't have to decide to ditch the 175s (sadly they did, and I'm campaigning to reverse that decision and to keep the 158s as well). If they change course and keep the 175s, they would have better window alignment without losing seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say that TfW didn't have to ditch the 175s, but TfW Rail did, because that does what TfW says (!)

Personally I don't think, whatever you think of the actual Class 197 product, TfW have ordered enough of them, so I think something will need to be retained otherwise there will be a capacity crunch, even post-COVID. There isn't really much that a lone 2-car DMU is suitable for other than the Conwy Valley and Borderlands.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I would say that TfW didn't have to ditch the 175s, but TfW Rail did, because that does what TfW says (!)

My guess would be that there was a badly written 'quality' score system (based on either average age of fleet or number of brand new vehicles) in the bid evaluation which incentivised lots of cheap, poorly specified, new trains. I could be wrong though, maybe TfW really did say that the existing fleet must be completely replaced.

Personally I don't think, whatever you think of the actual Class 197 product, TfW have ordered enough of them, so I think something will need to be retained otherwise there will be a capacity crunch, even post-COVID. There isn't really much that a lone 2-car DMU is suitable for other than the Conwy Valley and Borderlands.

I would say that a suitably specified 2-car DMU would also be ok for Machynlleth to Aberystwyth (off-peak in hours with a Pwllheli portion, with 3-car in peaks and on services without a Pwllheli portion), Machynlleth to Pwllheli (in winter), Swansea to Fishguard (not including boat trains which should run to and from Cardiff), Heart Of Wales and Swansea to Pembroke Dock services west of Carmarthen (except on some workings in summer).

Interestingly it appears TfW plans to use 3-car 170s either on the HOWL or to Pembroke Dock, with the buiser route to Haverfordwest (Milford Haven services) possibly planned to drop from a mix of 2 and 3 car 175s to exclusively 2-car 197s. However, given that the class 197s are poorly specified and diesel-only I would say that far too many have been ordered and that we should have just a small number of them to supplement the 158s and 175s.

A key problem is that Pembroke Dock and the Cambrian Coast need 3 coaches only at certain times of year; do you cart fresh air the rest of the time? A neat solution (apart from the PRM issue) would be to have a route which is operated as a heritage railway in the high season and using modern stock the rest of the time. That modern stock would thus be made available to strengthen other routes in summer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A key problem is that Pembroke Dock and the Cambrian Coast need 3 coaches only at certain times of year; do you cart fresh air the rest of the time? A neat solution (apart from the PRM issue) would be to have a route which is operated as a heritage railway in the high season and using modern stock the rest of the time. That modern stock would thus be made available to strengthen other routes in summer.

The obvious answer, at least pre-COVID, is to swap some of the 2s and the 3s over in summer due to reduced commuter demand which coincides with increased holiday demand (this would require SDO or local door on the Coast, I guess, but there can't be a major infrastructure issue as 3-car has worked there before). The trouble with that is ETCS - some of the 3s would need to be fitted - and the First Class.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The obvious answer, at least pre-COVID, is to swap some of the 2s and the 3s over in summer due to reduced commuter demand which coincides with increased holiday demand (this would require SDO or local door on the Coast, I guess, but there can't be a major infrastructure issue as 3-car has worked there before). The trouble with that is ETCS - some of the 3s would need to be fitted - and the First Class.

Not sure commuter demand falls off enough to justify cutting a coach on any of the mainline routes. I imagine leisure traffic on the long-distance services increases to offset any reduction in commuter traffic (although the commuter peak would be less pronounced). The order for 3-car 197s is split into two batches anyway, only 14 of them are planned to have first class the other 12 units are specified as standard only. If those 12 were fitted with ETCS (in addition to the 21 two-car units actually planned for the Cambrian) it would provide some flexibility as you proposed, however we we don't know where TfW planned to use the standard-only 3-car units. If, for example, they were put on Liverpool-Cardiff and Manchester-Bangor would either of those routes cope with being reduced from 3 coaches to 2 in summer? I suppose given the disregard for passenger comfort they might disuade enough pepole from travelling by rail to make a 2-car unit work.

 

[Caaardiff]

The obvious answer, at least pre-COVID, is to swap some of the 2s and the 3s over in summer due to reduced commuter demand which coincides with increased holiday demand (this would require SDO or local door on the Coast, I guess, but there can't be a major infrastructure issue as 3-car has worked there before). The trouble with that is ETCS - some of the 3s would need to be fitted - and the First Class.

Someone once mentioned to me that there's a few crossings on the Pwllheli line where anything over 2 car would overhang over the crossing whilst at a station. I don't know the technicalities behind that, but it may influence why only 2 cars go up there. SDO should resolve any issues with short platforms. End of Winter/early spring can also be busy on the Coast line with the free over 50's travel scheme. So ideally yes, 3 cars would be a good fit most of the year, just not sure it's operationally possible

I've attached the original Franchise agreement from TfWRS and a comparison of units & vehicles of the current fleet and long term new fleet.

So as to not go too off topic, I'll only summarise the difference between 197's and current mainline fleet. It's still difficult to work out what exactly is going where. In the document the "South Wales Metro" is described as South East Wales, Valleys, as well as Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Severn Tunnel and beyond (Gloucester) which is where the Flirts are being deployed.
170's will be cascaded to West Wales/HOWL. 230's will be on Bidston and likely either Blaenau or Chester-Crewe.
The combined number of vehicles of new fleet on mainline - 170's(32), 230's(15) and 197(180) is 227

Currently (under reduced covid timetable) there's only 8 150 diagrams on mainline and no more than 8 153 diagrams. So 24 vehicles in use. For argument sake you could round that up to 30 for normal timetable.
Based on that, the current combined number of vehicles for mainline - 150's + 153's(30), 158's(48), 170's(32) and 175's(70) is 180.

So there's an increase in the new fleet of 47 vehicles.

The 197's should start arriving the end of next year, with the 175's to be phased out by May 2022 and 158's by the end of 2022.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone once mentioned to me that there's a few crossings on the Pwllheli line where anything over 2 car would overhang over the crossing whilst at a station. I don't know the technicalities behind that, but it may influence why only 2 cars go up there.

3 cars (156+153 usually) used to go up there in Central Trains days - has something changed about these crossings? Could a stop board off the end of the platform be placed and local door used, perhaps? Sure I've seen that elsewhere.

 

[craigybagel]

Someone once mentioned to me that there's a few crossings on the Pwllheli line where anything over 2 car would overhang over the crossing whilst at a station. I don't know the technicalities behind that, but it may influence why only 2 cars go up there. SDO should resolve any issues with short platforms. End of Winter/early spring can also be busy on the Coast line with the free over 50's travel scheme. So ideally yes, 3 cars would be a good fit most of the year, just not sure it's operationally possible

Anything more then 2 cars is currently banned on Cambrian coast but I believe this is fixable if ever required. With regards to the units being fitted with ERTMS the last I heard this wasn't set it stone.

I would also keep an eye out on the Birmingham - Holyhead service. It's not been confirmed if that will continue in the new franchise. At the moment it ties up several ERTMS fitted units going down the coast. If there are changed to it in the future it would free up more units for the Cambrian. I don't know what the plan is exactly but it was noticeably absent from any of the published information at the start of the franchise.

I've attached the original Franchise agreement from TfWRS and a comparison of units & vehicles of the current fleet and long term new fleet.

So as to not go too off topic, I'll only summarise the difference between 197's and current mainline fleet. It's still difficult to work out what exactly is going where. In the document the "South Wales Metro" is described as South East Wales, Valleys, as well as Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Severn Tunnel and beyond (Gloucester) which is where the Flirts are being deployed.
170's will be cascaded to West Wales/HOWL. 230's will be on Bidston and likely either Blaenau or Chester-Crewe.
The combined number of vehicles of new fleet on mainline - 170's(32), 230's(15) and 197(180) is 227

Currently (under reduced covid timetable) there's only 8 150 diagrams on mainline and no more than 8 153 diagrams. So 24 vehicles in use. For argument sake you could round that up to 30 for normal timetable.
Based on that, the current combined number of vehicles for mainline - 150's + 153's(30), 158's(48), 170's(32) and 175's(70) is 180.

So there's an increase in the new fleet of 47 vehicles.

The 197's should start arriving the end of next year, with the 175's to be phased out by May 2022 and 158's by the end of 2022.

170s are also expected to go on to the Crewe - Shrewsbury local service.

230s are a bit more of a mystery. Blaneau is seemingly a definite no. Crewe - Chester has never been officially cancelled but there are so many hurdles to it happening that nobody is expecting it to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

230s are a bit more of a mystery. Blaneau is seemingly a definite no. Crewe - Chester has never been officially cancelled but there are so many hurdles to it happening that nobody is expecting it to happen.

They need all of them (plus one spare) for the increased Borderlands service, don't they?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I would also keep an eye out on the Birmingham - Holyhead service. It's not been confirmed if that will continue in the new franchise. At the moment it ties up several ERTMS fitted units going down the coast. If there are changed to it in the future it would free up more units for the Cambrian. I don't know what the plan is exactly but it was noticeably absent from any of the published information at the start of the franchise.

Noticeably absent from everything else yes, but the full Train Service Requirements (TSR) for the franchise have been published (go to the documents tab here). There are seperate documents for SO, SX and SU services for December 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 timetables. The Dec 2024 SX TSR (I've not looked at the others) specifies the following through services (among others):

• 15 trains per day between Cardiff and Manchester
• 8 trains per day between Cardiff and Llandudno Junction, at least 7 of which must continue to Holyhead
• 12 trains per day between Swansea and Manchester/Chester
• 5 trains per day between Birmingham New Street and Llandudno Junction, at least 4 of which must continue to Holyhead
• 8 trains per day between Birmingham New Street and Aberystwyth

However, they could still avoid sending ETCS-fitted units to Holyhead (at the cost of increasing the total number of units involved) by attaching an extra unit (which wouldn't be ETCS-fitted) between Birmingham and Shrewsbury.

They need all of them (plus one spare) for the increased Borderlands service, don't they?

Yes, but the 230s were originally due to have arrived long before the frequency increase. Hence the plan (since abandoned I believe) to use 2 on Borderlands and 2 elsewhere until all 4 were required for Borderlands. The plan to put 230s on Blaneau Ffestiniog and Crewe - Chester was only ever temporary use.

 

[craigybagel]

[

Noticeably absent from everything else yes, but the full Train Service Requirements (TSR) for the franchise have been published (go to the documents tab here). There are seperate documents for SO, SX and SU services for December 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 timetables. The Dec 2024 SX TSR (I've not looked at the others) specifies the following through services (among others):

• 15 trains per day between Cardiff and Manchester
• 8 trains per day between Cardiff and Llandudno Junction, at least 7 of which must continue to Holyhead
• 12 trains per day between Swansea and Manchester/Chester
• 5 trains per day between Birmingham New Street and Llandudno Junction, at least 4 of which must continue to Holyhead
• 8 trains per day between Birmingham New Street and Aberystwyth

However, they could still avoid sending ETCS-fitted units to Holyhead (at the cost of increasing the total number of units involved) by attaching an extra unit (which wouldn't be ETCS-fitted) between Birmingham and Shrewsbury.

Ah good spot, thanks for that. I'm hoping they have something creative planned for that to keep ERTMS units away from the coast. They also wont need to send them to South Wales any more either, whereas at present the small amount of 158s that go down there are handy for keeping Cardiff and Carmarthen crew competent on them

They need all of them (plus one spare) for the increased Borderlands service, don't they?

Yes, but the 230s were originally due to have arrived long before the frequency increase. Hence the plan (since abandoned I believe) to use 2 on Borderlands and 2 elsewhere until all 4 were required for Borderlands. The plan to put 230s on Blaneau Ffestiniog and Crewe - Chester was only ever temporary use.

Correct - plan was in the short term to have 2 on Bidston (using the current timetable), 1 on Blaneau and 1 on Crewe - Chester, with the 5th spare. When the CAFs arrive, they were meant to replace the Blaneau and Crewe - Chester sets, meaning the entire 230 fleet could be used on Bidston, at which point the service level would double.

However, even aside from the delays with the 230s there are other issues that make them problematic on those other temporary routes, which is why there may need to be a change of plan. And as I've said many times before, once thing TFW are proving themselves a lot more adept at then their predecessors is their ability to change plans.

 

[Bikeman78]

True, though I think the IC-like layout will be fine for Aberystwyth as that's gaining capacity by increasing the frequency. The Coast is getting no frequency increase (and there are limits as it's a single line) yet units with lower capacity than the current ones, which is unacceptable.



I've not seen a seating plan but these pictures:

Side view of Class 196 vehicle - from WMT website

Class 196 interior showing seats aligned to windows - from Twitter

...should give you an idea.

Thanks. That looks quite good. Proves that it can be done sensibly.

Anything more then 2 cars is currently banned on Cambrian coast but I believe this is fixable if ever required. With regards to the units being fitted with ERTMS the last I heard this wasn't set it stone.

I would also keep an eye out on the Birmingham - Holyhead service. It's not been confirmed if that will continue in the new franchise. At the moment it ties up several ERTMS fitted units going down the coast. If there are changed to it in the future it would free up more units for the Cambrian. I don't know what the plan is exactly but it was noticeably absent from any of the published information at the start of the franchise.

I hope that ERTMS is fitted to all the two cars. It will make the fleet a lot more flexible. Easier to put it in on day one than try and retrofit it later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I hope that ERTMS is fitted to all the two cars. It will make the fleet a lot more flexible. Easier to put it in on day one than try and retrofit it later.

I'd like to see it fitted to the whole Class 197 fleet, to be honest. Ultimate flexibility, then, to move stuff about with demand, e.g. during holiday periods.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'd like to see it fitted to the whole Class 197 fleet, to be honest. Ultimate flexibility, then, to move stuff about with demand, e.g. during holiday periods.

I'd like to see the very idea of ETCS-fitted class 197s dropped altogether; they are completely inappropriate for the Cambrian and I'm not aware of any plans to fit any other unelectrified routes with ETCS. If however the 197s were what I thought a 197 should be (a hybrid of 196s and 397s, with better seats) then I'd agree that the whole fleet should be fitted with ETCS.

If you were going to fit ETCS to some units but not all, 20-24 two-car units PLUS the 12 standard-only 3-car units would be the best approach I reckon, but the design is so fatally flawed there's no point having anywhere near 77 of them.

 

[Wyrleybart]

If you were going to fit ETCS to some units but not all, 20-24 two-car units PLUS the 12 standard-only 3-car units would be the best approach I reckon, but the design is so fatally flawed there's no point having anywhere near 77 of them.

Can you please explain what (you believe) the fatal flaw is in the class 197 ?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Can you please explain what (you believe) the fatal flaw is in the class 197 ?

It's not really a single flaw, but a particular combination of design elements which are fine in the right circumstances but put them all together in one product and you end up with something that's fatally flawed. Like a Voyager - there's nothing wrong with the concept of a 4-car unit, but combine that with a 125mph top speed and you have a fatally flawed product.

With the class 197, you have double-width doors at thirds and relatively few toilets given the seating capacity of the train. Nothing wrong with that for a suburban train, but couple those features with diesel engines and mechanical transmission (making electrification useless to these units) and in my view you have a fatally flawed product because there aren't enough suburban routes which aren't either electrified or high on the list to be electrified. If all 77 class 197s are built, I believe there will be 161 Civity DMUs in Britain. Add the 172s and you have 200 DMUs of a similar specification. Far more than is required in my view.

Taking the routes NOT recomended for electrification in the TDNS, where could these DMUs be used? I've identified some possibilities, but I doubt the total number of diagrams required is anywhere near 150.

All that said, for the routes TfW ordered them for the key issue is that the doors are too wide for a long-distance train. A long-distance train needs to do much more to ensure a pleasant journey; passenger comfort should be a priority and standing space on a long-distance train shouldn't be counted as capacity. Thus you need to ensure good legroom (comfort), plenty of seats (capacity), good views out of the window (contributing to a pleasant journey) and plenty of toilets (comfort). Adding the necessary extra toilet into a 197 would reduce seating capacity below that of a 175, while still providing less legroom and fewer table bays. We need to take floor space away from something else, and the standing room created by the wide doors seems the obvious thing to do away with. As I said above, the wide doors by themselves aren't a fatal flaw, they just make the train unsuitable for the specific routes TfW intended to use them on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see any reason why the doors make them unsuitable for the routes concerned; Class 170s (if they had gangways) would be ideal. Let's not let criticism of the other poor aspects of the design and construction of these units be clouded by door-position prejudice.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't see any reason why the doors make them unsuitable for the routes concerned; Class 170s (if they had gangways) would be ideal.

Would that be the 170s with fewer seats than a 175, or the ones with no toilet in the centre car? 170s with gangways would be a big improvement on a 197 but the wider doors still create additional standing room, which on a long-distance service should not be needed. Long-distance trains should be optimised for a pleasant journey, 170s are reasonable in some respects but still sub-optimal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would that be the 170s with fewer seats than a 175, or the ones with no toilet in the centre car? 170s with gangways would be a big improvement on a 197 but the wider doors still create additional standing room, which on a long-distance service should not be needed. Long-distance trains should be optimised for a pleasant journey, 170s are reasonable in some respects but still sub-optimal.

Other than possibly the son-of-Gerald, TfW don't operate any InterCity services, everything else is either local or regional express. So the wide doors do indeed facilitate easy access and standing for people doing short journeys (of which plenty of people do on the North Wales Coast and Cambrian), but the quality seating in a 170 (which is typically well aligned to big picture windows unless you're unfortunate enough to come across one of the ex-MML units with an extra row crammed in) well-suited to longer journeys on scenic routes.

The two places where CAF's product wins out over 170s are the massive overhead luggage racks and gangways.

 

[craigybagel]

Other than possibly the son-of-Gerald, TfW don't operate any InterCity services, everything else is either local or regional express. So the wide doors do indeed facilitate easy access and standing for people doing short journeys (of which plenty of people do on the North Wales Coast and Cambrian), but the quality seating in a 170 (which is typically well aligned to big picture windows unless you're unfortunate enough to come across one of the ex-MML units with an extra row crammed in) well-suited to longer journeys on scenic routes.

That's exactly it. Whilst there are some long journeys within the TfW network, very few people actually travel that far - and if you designed a train to cater for the handful of people traveling from Birmingham to Pwlheli or Manchester to Milford it would be to the detriment of the majority of passengers who make shorter journeys, usually involving the busy urban areas. The 158s and 175s really struggle at times around Manchester, Birmingham and Cardiff - and even in less built up areas like the North Wales coast or around Hereford.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's exactly it. Whilst there are some long journeys within the TfW network, very few people actually travel that far - and if you designed a train to cater for the handful of people traveling from Birmingham to Pwlheli or Manchester to Milford it would be to the detriment of the majority of passengers who make shorter journeys, usually involving the busy urban areas. The 158s and 175s really struggle at times around Manchester, Birmingham and Cardiff - and even in less built up areas like the North Wales coast or around Hereford.

Exactly. So we're just back to the 197 being a slightly rubbish version of the 170, which wouldn't be that hard or expensive to fix (besides the build quality issues which we'll be stuck with). Plus the need for 3-car sets to have ETCS and some form of SDO (or local door) for summer Pwllhelis.

 

[craigybagel]

Exactly. So we're just back to the 197 being a slightly rubbish version of the 170, which wouldn't be that hard or expensive to fix (besides the build quality issues which we'll be stuck with). Plus the need for 3-car sets to have ETCS and some form of SDO (or local door) for summer Pwllhelis.

In many ways they should be an improvement on 170s. They'll certainly out perform them for a start, curing what is arguably the biggest weakness of the Turbostar family - their sluggishness. Derby built trains are hardly a byword for quality so I'm not entirely convinced by the build quality argument (170s may ride better but so many of them rattle something terrible). I believe the provision of SDO is a given on these units - the Manchester - Swansea runs will be very awkward without it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In many ways they should be an improvement on 170s. They'll certainly out perform them for a start, curing what is arguably the biggest weakness of the Turbostar family - their sluggishness. Derby built trains are hardly a byword for quality so I'm not entirely convinced by the build quality argument (170s may ride better but so many of them rattle something terrible). I believe the provision of SDO is a given on these units - the Manchester - Swansea runs will be very awkward without it.

Yes, true, they do perform very much like EMUs and could allow the timetable on stopping services like the Cambrian and Conwy Valley to be improved considerably.

The issues seem to basically be:
- Seat type (matter of opinion; I know some people love them!)
- Window alignment (just lazy)
- Poor build quality (which yes, to be fair, 170s do also suffer to some extent)
- Not a bi-mode (but Wales isn't going to electrify any time soon)
- Inadequate toilet facilities in a 2-car set (so fit another one)
- Capacity (difficult to solve in a properly PRMed unit)

 

[Class172]

In many ways they should be an improvement on 170s. They'll certainly out perform them for a start, curing what is arguably the biggest weakness of the Turbostar family - their sluggishness. Derby built trains are hardly a byword for quality so I'm not entirely convinced by the build quality argument (170s may ride better but so many of them rattle something terrible). I believe the provision of SDO is a given on these units - the Manchester - Swansea runs will be very awkward without it.

Not all members of the Turbostar family are sluggish. The 172s are no slouches and indeed share a similar mechanical configuration to the Civity DMUs (I believe the latter have slightly more powerful engines).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not all members of the Turbostar family are sluggish. The 172s are no slouches and indeed share a similar mechanical configuration to the Civity DMUs (I believe the latter have slightly more powerful engines).

172s also have significantly better build quality than 170s. I think Bombardier must have kicked some proverbial backside over Adtranz's sloppiness.

I suppose a 197 is a poor-man's 172 in some ways too then

 

[craigybagel]

Not all members of the Turbostar family are sluggish. The 172s are no slouches and indeed share a similar mechanical configuration to the Civity DMUs (I believe the latter have slightly more powerful engines).

172s also have significantly better build quality than 170s. I think Bombardier must have kicked some proverbial backside over Adtranz's sloppiness.

I suppose a 197 is a poor-man's 172 in some ways too then

That is true - I did have the original 170s in mind when I said Turbostar family rather then the 172s which are much better. I've not travelled on 172s enough lately to see how their build quality is doing - but for all people (rightly) criticise CAF for some of the things they've been producing of late, most trains coming out of Derby over the last few years have been pretty awful as well.

I'm not entirely convinced by the toilet argument either to be honest. I know it's a reduction on the current provision levels, but I've worked 150s with their single toilets on these routes and there's rarely been a queue for the toilets. Plus you'd be surprised by how few people even realise the small toilets on the 175s exist - because it's a 180 degree turn once you come out of the saloon, and if you're in coach B (or coach C on a 2 car) you see the PRM toilet in coach A straight in front of you and gravitate towards that. The amount of times people have been surprised when they've asked about toilets and I've told them there's one right behind them is astounding.

I know there are some aspects of the 197 design that seem odd on paper, but based on my experience of working as a guard and driver over many of the lines they'll be working over, I'm personally feeling a lot more excited than worried over what is to come.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main concern about toilets, to me, is that if there's only one it may be out of use. Though railway toilet availability seems to be better of late than it has been in the past.

 

[Rhydgaled]

That's exactly it. Whilst there are some long journeys within the TfW network, very few people actually travel that far - and if you designed a train to cater for the handful of people traveling from Birmingham to Pwlheli or Manchester to Milford it would be to the detriment of the majority of passengers who make shorter journeys, usually involving the busy urban areas.

Other than possibly the son-of-Gerald, TfW don't operate any InterCity services, everything else is either local or regional express. So the wide doors do indeed facilitate easy access and standing for people doing short journeys (of which plenty of people do on the North Wales Coast and Cambrian), but the quality seating in a 170 (which is typically well aligned to big picture windows unless you're unfortunate enough to come across one of the ex-MML units with an extra row crammed in) well-suited to longer journeys on scenic routes.

I'd argue that nearly all the proposed class 197 routes are 'regional express' expect perhaps Manchester-Swansea which, if anything, is more InterCity than most Holyhead-Cardiffs. While Craigybagel is right that very few will actually be doing Manchester to Milford or Birmingham-Pwllheli, Regional Express means, to me at least, that stops (on the 'express' part at least) are far enough apart that passengers should not be expected to stand. On the Cambrian for example, it's over 20 minutes from Shrewsbury to Welshpool, and nearer half an hour from Caersws to Machynlleth. If I had to guess, I'd suggest the average journey time on the Cambrian was at least 1 hour but I've no figures to back them up and anyway I don't really care what the average is. To me the fact that it is the best public transport available for journies considerably longer than 1 hour means comfort should be a massive priority.

On the 'Regional' part (like the Cambrian Coast) stops may be close together but most of them are request stops or otherwise lightly used meaning few passengers will be doing short hops between them and in any case there is no alternative service for the passengers who are doing the longer journeys.

The two places where CAF's product wins out over 170s are the massive overhead luggage racks and gangways.

I can agree with that.

- Not a bi-mode (but Wales isn't going to electrify any time soon)

Not if they end up with 77 class 197s, but the Welsh Government still seem to be asking the UK government for wires at every opertunity, and there's some interest from Midlands Connect and at least one of the relevant MPs in electrification of Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd argue that nearly all the proposed class 197 routes are 'regional express' expect perhaps Manchester-Swansea which, if anything, is more InterCity than most Holyhead-Cardiffs. While Craigybagel is right that very few will actually be doing Manchester to Milford or Birmingham-Pwllheli, Regional Express means, to me at least, that stops (on the 'express' part at least) are far enough apart that passengers should not be expected to stand.

I mostly use the German definitions for this sort of thing, so to me regional express just means "a regional train that doesn't stop at all stations". (Indeed Germany sometimes uses RE for all stations stoppers that are "im Takt", but that's a bit of an edge case). A long distance train with infrequent stops that doesn't particularly carry much in the way of short distance flows is what I'd call IR or IC. RE is a broad church - a Southport that doesn't do Hoscar, New Lane and Bescar Lane would be RE, but so would TPE Liverpool-Newcastle.

I'm not familiar with Manchester-Swansea, to be fair, never used it other than between Manchester and Crewe. Maybe that (and only that) should use more Mk4s instead.

But even using your definition it would be unrealistic to have TPE seat everyone for Huddersfield-Vic arriving at 8:30am, just as Avanti cram the standees on southbound from MKC in the rush hour.

Back on say the Cambrian I don't really see a huge issue with having the odd standee in August doing a short journey on the Coast back to their campsite. (One of the request stops carries quite significant numbers for that sort of journey as it basically directly serves a campsite and not much else). What you really must avoid on an infrequent rural service like that is leaving people behind even if someone shows up with, for example 20 Scouts and a pile of Family Railcards, and the 197's layout makes that far easier to avoid than a 158.

 

[samuelmorris]

The main concern about toilets, to me, is that if there's only one it may be out of use. Though railway toilet availability seems to be better of late than it has been in the past.

Agree. Particularly since CETs were introduced, the likelihood of a train toilet being out of use is probably 50/50 in many cases. There being another available is very useful just for that reason alone.