Yes. There's also a CAF Civity for TfW topic if you want to discuss it further.It looks to me that the CAF trains that TfW have ordered for their long distance routes are going to be a similar layout to the 170’s. Surely, this is going to be a downgrade from the 175's?
Well, it was a single journey that changed my opinion on them. I don't think I ever really thought about the door layout until my brother (who I think falls into the 'general public' category, he's not a rail enthusiast at all) complained about a journey on a 170. That led me to my opinion that such stock should be restricted to certain services, but I've had plenty of trips one units with doors at thirds since then (mostly class 150s, but I've also done Newport-Gloucester on an XC 170 (which was horrible, no legroom) and a few other Turbostar/Electrostar/Desiro journeys). For me, the biggest issue is the provision of standing space (due to the wider doors) which isn't/shouldn't be needed for standees; I really resent that when my knees are crushed against the seat in front. Since I've been discussing the new CAF fleet alot recently, my mother (also not an enthusiast) has brought up the issue of draughts (particularly an issue on a cold winter's evening), which I think was a more-likely explanation of my brother's complaint. The issue of the toilets is one I'd hadn't even thought of myself, I showed my grandmother the impressions of the Civity DMUs and she thought it looked like there were no toilets and asked where could they put them on a 'doors at thirds' unit. I showed her class 170 and class 185 seat plans so that she could see they do have toilets and she was disgusted at the way they just open directly into the passenger saloon.Forgive me if I'm wrong, but going on previous posts your opinion seemed to be based on one single journey - and it seems strange to me that you mage such a large issue of it when 170s (and indeed 185s, 350s and other modern, comfortable units with ⅓ ⅔ doors) have been around for years without any kind of uproar from the general public. Unless you're standing besides the doors (and rest assured, passenger numbers on the HOWL mean that won't be an issue) as far as most people are concerned there is nothing wrong with the door layout.
As for public uproar, I see to recall there was quite a vocal campaign against class 450s being put onto Portsmouth fasts. Admittedly the 2+3 seating probably has something to do with it as well, but given that the previous stock was a mix of 444s and Wessex Electrics the door layout was also a factor. I don't think there weren't similar complaints about 450s being used on the stoppers to Portsmouth (and it makes sense to me to use doors-at-thirds on that kind of service, passengers making longer trips will probably be on the faster services).
Indeed they will be a game-changer; on the Maesteg-Cheltenhams they are very close to what I would deem ideal and on the Heart Of Wales they'll be replacing the woeful class 150s and inadequate single 153s so there are benifits as well as drawbacks. Also, as Ian Walmsley has pointed out several times in Modern Railways passengers aren't particularly inclined to complain about uncomfortable seats. Quite understandably I would think since by the time the passengers are on the trains it's too late to do anything about them until the next refurbishment. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar 'suffering in silence' applies to other quality features. In a recent issue he also said something along the lines of 'expectations are being managed downwards train-by-train, but this doesn't work for motorists trying a train for the first time in a long while'. Since his Turbostar trip, I cannot think of another occasion that my brother has been on a train. I'm not saying the 170 put him off rail travel (I don't think he was keen anyway), but it may have done. That's why I bang on about wanting trains to be as good as they can be; if someone who wouldn't normally use the train has to for some reason I want them to be pleasantly surprised. That way, they might choose to travel by train again in future.170s will be a massive game changer on these lines, and I'd be amazed if any of the regular passengers find reason to complain about them.
Almost, but not quite. The 175 is a 100mph unit. That might impact on fuel economy and/or acceleration away from the may stops on the Heart Of Wales compared to a 75mph unit like the class 156.Isn't the 175 exactly what you described? Even built in the same factory as the 156s!