There may be a good reason why the UK no longer builds trains with small doors. Mostly because we have very few true Intercity services and those we do have all got their fleets replaced.
Alternatively, it could be because BR's 153/155, 156 and 158/159 had not yet fallen due for replacement and the Turbostar family (which I don't think had provision for alternative door layouts) was the only compatible product for fleet expansion? BR presumably knew about the dwell time implications by the time they ordered the 158s, if not well before, so the idea that such layouts are only for 'true Intercity services' doesn't 'hold water'.
CrossCountry and Midland Mainline are a funny case. Midland Mainline got a new fleet with end doors. CrossCountry probably just needs more of the same. But both predominantly serve journeys of 2 hours maximum (or at a push something like Birmingham to Leeds/York which is closer to 3)
MML and XC are still the principal fast service for the journeys they serve, even if that's only a 2hr trip. While I am opposed to XC getting new 125mph bi-modes, because of the impact on electrification, I do agree that class 800s/802s/810s would be a good choice for XC (through cascades) excluding the BHM-NOT/LEI/Stansted services.
It isn't practical or sensible on our busy network to be able to completely segregate short and long distance travellers.
Fairly sure I have never suggested segregating short and long distance passengers. Avoiding calls at closely-spaced local commuter type stations on long-distance services yes, but even where this is possible there will normally still be relatively short-distance passengers using the long-distance services. Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway and Neath are all relatively close together, but I would only suggest omitting any of them from Swansea services if it was necessary to provide passengers with a reasonable expectation of a seat. Wimslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly are also close and yet even the InterCity services call at both intermediate stops.
Like many passengers, I'd rather stand by the door if I'm going a single stop, even if seats are available
You could still stand in a smaller vestibule. True fewer other passengers could join you; but how many would actually want to depends on the journey time. You said you would stand for a single stop, but that could be Port Talbot to Neath (6 minutes), Cardiff Central to Bridgend (19 minutes) or even longer. You might have a fair bit of company between Port Talbot and Neath, but how many would stand from Cardiff Central to Bridgend
by choice?
Especially when there's a partial divider fitted, I prefer the ambience of the shorter passenger compartments, much quieter and more intimate having around a 7m long compartment rather than a big 21m saloon which is bound to have someone noisy in it! People have less far to move in it, so they can more quickly find their seats. Also, shorter dwell times reduces draughts, 4 doors open for 2 minutes = less cold air than 2 doors for 5!
In principle I have little or nothing against splitting the 20+ metre saloon into smaller sections by moving at least one set of doors inwards. The 'in principle' bit is because I have no experience of what this could be like if done well. Done (as is typical in Britain) with double-width doors and no internal partition doors, the experience is unsatisfactory. One possible issue is that smaller 'compartments' mean the cold draughts when the doors are open at each stop are more likely to reach those passengers sitting towards the middle. The addition of internal partition doors between vestibules and saloons would probably mitigate that, but that is something I've no experience of so I cannot say for certain.
If there aren't enough seats, add an extra carriage to the train, the foyers are very useful space and should stay!
At least we can agree on one thing; extra carriages should be added where there aren't enough seats. Both 197s and 175s average around 60 seats per carriage (60.8 for a 5-car formation to be precise - slightly fewer for 2-car units, slightly more for 3-car);
the question is whether the wider vestibules on the 197s are more useful than the extra features on a 175. The answer to this will be different in different situations of course.
XC is generally overlapping shorter journeys.
Almost everything is, but even then something like Whitland to Cardiff Central (a tiny portion of the full Milford to Manchester run) is a good 2 hour treck. I don't think the comfort of such passengers should be ignored just because they aren't going to be on the train for 5 hours or more. After all, a 2 hour journey by road (car) is unlikely to involve poor legroom or having to stand still for long periods of time.
9-car 80x would be fine, but the interior isn't suitable for 5+ hour journeys.
The standard class seats aren't suitable for even a 2 hour journey in my view. Other than that I agree that the class 80x fleet, with an appropriate interior refit, would be fine for the InterCity stuff, but this are getting away from the inter-urban services I created this topic to discuss.
I'd also spruce up the interior a bit - the scheme is incredibly drab. An easy improvement would be to print some vinyls of Welsh scenery and stick them on the boring grey vehicle ends. Would also discourage graffiti. For bonus points, theme them on each unit and name it after that. Once the GWR Castle HSTs go, they could even be Castle class - Wales has enough of them!
They don't even need to wait for the Castle HSTs to go; GWR still have the 57/6s don't they? But please, can somebody (perhaps the rail industry's new 'guiding mind') put a stop to the idea of naming multiple units (rather than individual vehicles eg. locos, 1st class Pullman cars and GWR class 800/802 driving vehicles) - otherwise it's not clear whether a name applies to a vehicle or the whole unit.
I'd say the 197 is the best of the three CAF DMUs, certainly (the 196 the worst due to the small windows and poor legroom, despite having a very classy interior look).
Apart perhaps from the catering cupboard (if it is indeed welded in) I would agree that the 197s are the least bad of the CAF UK DMU designs. I would however say the 195s are the worst, due to the lack of end gangways, and the 196s were the only ones with a sensible order quanity (ie. very few). All three types were a mistake in one way or another though.
