Fair enough, I'll change my question then. Was the decision to order 158s, 170s and 175s idiotic?
Good question; that's a hard one, particularly in the case of the 158s. Would it have been feasible to build bi-mode units back then? I'm guessing not - in which case perhaps the answer is that building some was sensible but far fewer DMUs should have been needed than what BR ending up having to order. I guess the 197s, 196s, 195s, 175s and 170s can all be considered in the same way; that it is idiotic that we are in a position that ordering DMUs even needs to be considered but one can understand some of the reasons why those ordering them made the decisions they did. In 1981, BR wanted Aberdeen to Penzance wired by 2001, which I suspect would have rendered most if not all of the Turbostar orders unecessary. If they had been ordered at the same time as the 170s, I think the class 197s/196s are a less idiotic design than the 170s - the Civities combine rapid dwell times and rapid acceleration, making them ideal for stopping services, whereas the 170s apparently are not geared optimumly for such work.
158 - 134 seats 0 tip up (Total 134) / 59 standing room
175-2 car - 118 seats 16 tip up (Total 134) / 58 standing room
175-3 car - 186 seats 20 tip up (Total 206) / 91 standing room
197-2 car - 116 seats 5 tip up (Total 121) / 79 standing room
197-3 car standard - 186 seats 8 tip up (Total 194) / 118 standing room
197-3 car with First - 158 standard 16 First 8 tip up (Total 182) / 120 standing room
So an overall drop in seating capacity of 12/13 seats by each type but more standing capacity
If I put aside the issue of failure to electrify, this is the crux of matter in my view. The 197s were ordered to work long-distance services where passengers should not be expected to stand. And yet, facilities that would be useful to long distance passengers (seats, toilets, tables, legroom) are reduced and standing capacity increased and for what? To reduce dwell times, yes, but these are regional
express services - they are typically not stopping every five minutes and where they are (eg. the Cambrian Coast) many of the stations are lightly used. So the total impact of increased dwell times along the whole route is much less that it would be for a metro service. The 197s were ordered to do a very different job to the 196s, so why is the door width the same? 444s are very different to 450s. If I continue to ignore the issue of the power source I would welcome the 197s if they were to be used on short-distance stoppers (for example - to introduce a metro system around Swansea).
likely an increase in capacity on those workings with First that will likely be 5 car for most if not all of the journey.
I think the order was for 14 units with first class. I think Swansea-Manchester requires 9 or 10 diagrams. Nine units would I think only be requiring about 64% availability from the fleet and ten units would be around 71% - I suspect therefore that they were intending either to run the 3-car unit through to Milford Haven (possibly declassifying first class) or using them on Holyhead-Cardiff which I'm guessing would just be the 3-car unit (with 1st class) by itself. Admittedly we don't know what the balance of the first class diagrams would be used for.
Don't forget the Welsh angle as well - the large order helped justify CAF opening a factory in Newport. It's hard to see that happening without the big order
Did all the franchise bidders have something from CAF in their plans then? The factory was
already under construction in Jan 2018 and the franchise wasn't awarded until May 2018.
A: A large uniform fleet with gangways is necessary for the massive timetable improvements planned.
B: You get much more efficiencies through training and maintenance with a uniform fleet
C: It's likely there was a discount for buying in bulk
D: The existing units are going to need replacing sooner rather then later, especially the 158s. Doing it now is much cheaper in the long run then kicking the can for a few more years
I wouldn't say a uniform fleet is necessary for the timetable improvements, but it's helpful. I fully agree with items B and C and partially with item D. Kicking the can a few years would however have given time for an outbreak of sense to emerge and electrification to go ahead.
All new rolling stock have problems
Agreed, I expect there will be teething problems with the FLIRTs as well; they are just far better suited to their intended role than the 197s.
the existing rolling stock needs replacing, they are at the end of their lifespans now & do not give the passengers a good experience whilst travelling.
I don't agree here; the 158s aren't far off the end of their lifespan (I'd give them until 2030) but they can give the passengers a good experience. The 175s aren't so near the end of their lives (I might give them until 2040) and they can also give the passengers a good experience in the right circumstances.