I don’t want to be “that guy” but the fact 67+MK4 sets are even running is nothing but a vanity project. More 197s would have been perfectly suitable, and arguably more so, for a totally common mainline fleet.
It's like they're trying to deliberately appease old-school enthusiasts, which if true, suggests some TOCs need to sort their priorities out, frankly.
I thought the railway was supposed to be pivoting towards leisure traffic (and away from business/commuting) post-COVID?
Informed Sources (Modern Railways said:
they need to be the 'right' trains' in terms of passenger accomodation. This ranges from seating layouts - families favour facing pairs rather than 'airline seating' - to door location and catering provision.
The class 197 design, aside perhaps from the rather odd catering provision, appears to be aimed squarely at the commuter market. There is perhaps an argument to be made that class 158s and 175s, had more of them been available, would have been a better choice than the mark 4s. However, the fact is there were no spare 158s or 175s available to deliver the necessary increase in capacity, so there isn't really an alternative to the mark 4s.
That said, perhaps TfW should have gone for an all-standard formation instead of having a first class coach, particularly given that TfW are unable to form the 2+5 sets as they wanted (with first class at one end) and instead one coach of standard will be marooned the other side of first class. This will of course create similar issues to running a pair of non-gangwayed units (such as 175s) in multiple.
RTT showing 3 car 175. Bearable - coach B will be unreserved at least.
Have TfW reinstated reservations then as the last few times I've tried to book a journey they have appeared to be unreservable throughout? At most I have been issued with a 'counted place' reservation card, never an actual seat number.