The thing about TfW is that it doesn't have any pure express services. In Wales those are provided solely by Avanti and GWR's incursions. Everything else is a regional train or regional express, which are service concepts that involve both short and long distance travel, so everything is a compromise. Standing space therefore is needed for when you get high loadings over short sections of route. It happens on XC too, and the 22x are spectacularly unsuited to it (as will be the Mk4s).
I agree that they're not pure express services, but I disagree that standing space is needed on regional and regional express services. On the buiser parts of the network (eg. around Cardiff, Birmingham and Manchester) TfW's regional express services stop no more frequently than GWR's and Avanti's
INTERCITY trains. Furthermore, in December 2018 TfW claimed to "have forecast future demand and designed our fleet to provide a seat to all passengers on long distance trains" which suggests that they are in agreement that nobody should have to stand on these services.
My main issue with the 197s is that they're pure diesel in times when diesel needs phasing out.
Yes, that's probably the biggest issue and for me is the other big one alongside the suburban door configuration (which is probably more about the width of the doors than their position). However, the reason I tend to go ballistic regarding the class 197s is the fact that the design has these factors
in combination. Something like class 350/450 (with a sensible interior layout) is a perfectly sensible design for a given set of services - suburban door configurations have their place. It's much harder to justify a diesel-only train, but the interim TDNS does show a handful of routes where no significant electrification is recommended on any part of the route so pure DMUs in very limited numbers* may be utilised**.
But, (the vast majority of)
these are NOT the routes where a suburban door configuration is ideal. Admittedly, on some of the shorter ones (those that take under an hour, perhaps the Conwy valley or the Looe branch) it's not a big deal but those passengers would still be better off with a train with narrow doors.
If the specification of class 197s were exactly as it is from a passenger's perspective but was flexible in terms of power source I would be campaigning for one or more of the following rather than for cancellation of units not yet built:
- the units to be delivered as battery-electric-diesel tri-modes (similar to the 756s) for use on Rhymney - Penarth/Barry and Swanline services, with the 756s instead deployed on Treherebert/Merthyr Tydfil/Aberdare - Barry services and the tram-trains on Coryton-Radyr and Taffs Well - Heath - Cardiff Bay (extended round to Cardiff Parkway via freight lines and new on-street route)
- the units to be delivered as bi-modes and used to make a start on the new Swansea Metro
In other words, a electric version of the 197 would be perfectly acceptable as a unit for the south Wales metro, but the higher probability of electrification in that area means that diesel-only is completely unsuitable (it is also completely unsuitable for the Cambrian and north Wales coast lines dues to the need for electrification of routes such as Birmingham-Shrewsbury).
* this is why you don't see me complaining about the 196s much; there are only going to be 26 of them which you might just be able to cascade out of the way of any electrification schemes to avoid jepordising those schemes - but once you've done that you've used up all the routes that even the TDNS can't justify electrifying and there's no where left to put the other 100 odd Civity DMUs that UK PLC has stupidly landed itself with
** with the exception of the routes out of Norwich (where hydrogen is recommended and which already have bi-modes despite wires only being available in Norwich station) the TDNS proposes battery operation for these but with no possibility of on-the-move charging due to the lack of OHLE I see these as being the last bastions of diesel operation
What an awful seat layout, looks very cramped too. I fear they've fallen into the temptation of squashing an extra row into the central section like the 350s which gives extremely poor legroom and poor window alignment.
I cannot see anything in the photo that invalidates the detailed seat plan I posted previously, so I assume that is still current and therefore we know what the seat pitches are on the 197s:
- Standard airline: 820mm
- Standard Priority airline: 870mm
- First class airline: 1125mm (these are all priority seats)
- Standard bay: 1840mm
- First class bay: 2050mm
This seems to be consistent throughout the unit, the central section is no tigher than the rest. The window alignment is indeed poor.
If I lived on the Cambrian I'd be screaming to keep the 158s!
Thank you; I'm not going mad then. Where I live I have a choice of the Cambrian (normally the better option for Birmingham and anywhere north thereof) or the Pembrokeshire network. Now that the 170s are going it looks like TfW is planning for me to have no choice but to sit in a Sophia for the best part of two hours in either case - no thanks.
I get the impression some people have already made their mind up about the 197's, no matter what people that have in depth knowledge of them say.
Yes, it doesn't matter what anyone says - the last time anything changed my opinion on them was the publication of the interim TDNS report. Prior to that, in the wake of electrification being 'Graylinged', I think I was in favour of TfW obtaining a small number of DMUs (with narrow doors, not double width doors-at-thirds) to suplement the 158s/175s (and possibly even replace one of those two types). However, since the TDNS rekindled some hope of electrification I have been of the view that procurement of diesel-only units should have been banned and the less new DMUs we build the better. It doesn't matter what you do to the interiors, nothing will change my opinion on that -
we have to minimise stock that could last beyond 2050 and not be able to utilise electrification infrustructure.
The air con and heating are excellent compared to the terrible 158s system, thr PIS is amazing compared to the 158s terrible train fx system.
I found the seat alignment was OK, the windows are bigger and the customer experience is a real upgrade
The 158's aircon system is terrible yes, but I can't recall any trouble with the heating system being reported. As for windows and opportunities for gazing out of them...
Also, the windows are huge. It gives them a really good feeling of air and light.
Isn't the class 197 bodyshell, aside from the cabs, the same as the 195s? If so, I've measured the windows on a 195 and they are 130cm by 76.5cm. The vertical dimension is indeed an improvement over the 158s and 175s, which is perhaps why you get that light and airy feel on the new units. However, on the 175s the horrizontal dimension is 154cm (I
think on a 158 it is 137cm but I'm struggling to read my own handwritting on that one). As a result, the 175's windows are actually a slightly larger area.
The pillars on both 175s and 158s are only about 39cm thick compared to about 48cm on a 195, so there's more solid wall to look round if the seat isn't perfectly aligned. I think the TfW 158s have 15 tables with unobstructed views (plus one that isn't so well aligned). The 2-car class 197s only have 10 tables to begin with, only four of which appear to offer unobstructed views according to the interior layout diagram.
I'd already previously commented that there are racks, contrary to your suggestion that there aren't.
According to the interior layout diagram, there is one 650mm luggage stack in the MSL and DMSL vehicles on the class 197s. The DMS vehicle has a slightly larger one, at 844mm while the composite vehicle has no luggage stacks in standard and two 494mm ones in first. That's a total of 1494mm of luggage stack in a 2-car unit. According to my notes from a trip with a tape measure, the TfW 158s have 5 luggage stacks per unit totalling about 3790mm and the class 175/0s have 2 luggage stacks per coach totalling 2480-2720mm across the unit as a whole.
The 185 is an example of a train which ticks both boxes for efficient loading/unloading because of door positioning, as well as excellent passenger comfort and leg room. If the 197 proves to be as good as the 185 in both areas, then it will be an improvement on the 175.
Time for another table I think:
Train Type | Standard Seats | First Class Seats | Table Bays | Toilets | Total Seats |
|---|
| Class 175/1 (as-is) | 186 | 0 | 20 | 3 | 186 |
| Class 175/1 (with 1st*) | 166* | 15* | 20 | 3 | 181* |
| Class 185 | 154 | 15 | 25 | 2 | 169 |
| Class 197/1 (std only) | 188 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 188 |
| Class 197/1 (with 1st) | 158 | 16 | 18 | 2 | 174 |
* this is a rather crude estimate, I simply reduced part of the unit from 2+2 to 2+1 seating with no other adjustments, which obviously isn't quite what would happen but having a section of 2+1 makes for a slightly less unfair comparison with the 185.
While the class 185s are fairly high-spec as suburban units go, notice that you still lose a toilet and a handful of seats when compared with a 175 (I don't know what the seat pitch is on a 185, but I'm guessing it's not as good as a 175 either). What do you think is more useful to a long-distance passenger, wider doors (standing room) or less risk of having to queue to access a toilet and a slightly better chance of a seat?
