I'm sure the class 197s could be converted to hybrid technology, after all the 230s for Wrexham-Bidston are already hybrids with a prototype retro-fit to be done on a 165, a 168 and an 802. However, a hybrid still would not be able to make use of the electrification that already exists (eg. Crewe-Manchester and Wolverhampton-Birmingham) or future extensions (eg. Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury). For that you need a bi-mode and if that's what you wanted you wouldn't start with a 197. Mechanical transmission works against it and apparently one of the problems with Project Thor was that Voyagers (which are one step closer to bi-mode than a 197 by virtue of being diesel-electric) have no means of sharing traction power between vehicles. If one engine on a Voyager is out the traction motor(s) on that coach are dead; you cannot power the motors from the engine on an adjacent coach. Sure they could have added traction power cabling between vehicles, but it was a big enough problem that it didn't happen.
I suspect that if that had been the only problem they would have added cables. It's not exactly a difficult problem. Crikey, Pendolinos have a 25kV bus bar along most of the roofline, and this would be low(er) voltage. There were lots of issues with Project Thor which meant that building new Class 80x make more sense than doing it.
Voyagers were a first go at a 125mph InterCity DEMU. They made a lot of mistakes while being that, as a "first go" typically does, but fixing all of them would be too prohibitive.
Popularity? Really? No backlash from ironing board seats and scant toilet provision?
The only place I hear backlash against ironing board seats is on here, particularly given that the variant they used has a different (thicker and contoured) seat base and is thus nothing like the Thameslink one (say). It's actually a very comfortable seat (by modern standards) that by its simplicity suits people of lots of different shapes and sizes. To me it's vastly better than a Sophia (which is why I think TfW made the wrong choice there) though that's my opinion and not everyone agrees.
Most Northern routes are fairly short, and as such most people travelling on them don't use the toilet, though I'm conscious of them being out of order the newest design of module seems to be much more reliable than the older ones (which were mostly door faults). The longest routes these operate on are the Barrows and Windermeres, but most people aren't using them end to end. I do think they need a second toilet, particularly the Welsh ones, but really to condemn a whole unit to being rubbish solely on being a bog short (given that 158s are the only units Northern operate to have two) is a bit silly.
If you ask me the 195s are even worse than 197s, if it wasn't for the embedded carbon instead of saying cancel the 197s I would be saying send them to Northern and scrap the 195s. If people actually want to use 195s then maybe car makers should start putting blocks of wood in instead of padded seats.
It would be madness to scrap the 195s. While I would still describe them as "poor man's Turbostars" they are a vast improvement on just about everything else Northern have other than 158s, and they are much more suited to busy services than end-doored units. Emptying out a full-and-standing 158 takes well upwards of 5 minutes, it's like emptying out a full single-door double decker bus. Whereas a 195 loads and empties in seconds, easily as good as a 700 despite the massively more comfortable seating layout it has.
So, in other words, you consider electrification between Cardiff and Swansea to be very much a possiblity within 20 years? And in the 15 years after that, when 197s will still be around?
They'll be about 35 years old by then. No need to get hung up on "oh, but a train has to last 50 years" like people were with say the HEx units - it doesn't, 35 is perfectly respectable. Just because the Class 101s became depot pets and enthusiasts' obsessions doesn't mean every unit has to last that long.
The way I see it, having comfortable trains is an important part of dealing with the private car issue, by tempting people to switch to rail.
It is, and most people think they
are comfortable (the 195s, I mean). The main objection is window alignment, but if you sit in the end section they are aligned, and about 50% of the seats in the middle section have a good view. Yes, it's a bit rubbish, but it's hugely better than no seats having a good view as per the 150/1.
I've heard quite few very positive comments about them. I can't recall them all, but I've certainly heard "wow, this is much nicer than the London train" from someone changing onto one at Lancaster - yes, comparing a cheapo DMU with a rather more expensive Pendolino.
Yes, OK, there's the Fainsa Sophia, but not everyone hates those. They aren't my most hated seat - the awful InterCity 70 gets that "accolade", and the collapsed Richmond seating on some of Northern's 156s hovers around there too. I do think TfW were sold a pup and should have stuck with the ironing boards, that said.
I'm also worried that rail could become environmentally unfriendly due to failure to electrify, and keeping old diesels would focus minds on doing something about it unlike having nearly-new DMUs.
I don't think it will make any difference at all. And when wires do go up, those DMUs can go and get rid of said old ones.
Didn't the latest Arriva Northern promise the 153s would go in their franchise bid? Even so, I think a pair of 153s with one PRM and one non-PRM toilet would be superior to a Civity DMU in some respects.
TfW are retaining some pairs of 153s for a bit (how long I don't know), one will have a PRM bog and one no bog.
The 3-car 197s (which will have 2 toilets) still don't meet the Rail Delivery Group's recommendations. You need one toilet per carriage
Do any 3-car UK trains have one toilet per carriage? I can't think of any. 2 in the unit is most common, one big and one small.
which then means less seats, legroom and/or tables (which the 197 already compares poorly on vs 158s and 175s). The only way to solve the problem is to change the bodyshell, you don't need room for lots of standees on a long-distance service so the doors don't need to be so wide.
Those wide doors will be an advantage on busy trains, particularly on the Cambrian Coast in summer. Though I do think they are being short-sighted by only fitting ETCS to the 2-car sets, they should fit it to all of them so 3-car units can be used up there (with ASDO if needed) in summer.
It doesn't matter where electrification happens first, and I agree most of Wales will be a way down the list. The fact is 161 Civity DMUs is a barrier to completing Network Rail's recommended electrification programme by 2050.
That is not a fact, it's your opinion, and with respect I completely disagree with it.
That happens across the board - there should be a common standard. However, it's not necessarily a block on it happening as many TOC have units which are all incompatible with each other - e.g. TPE which has four fleets, none of which can work together (one is loco-hauled so a different situation). Northern's newer fleets are also all mutually incompatible with each other.
If, as I suspect, making classes 195 and 197 compatible would just involve changing the actual coupler head, I'm sure that will be looked at. 170s have been swapped between Scharfenberg (Southern) and BSI (everyone else).