True; that's a large part of it. There's also the problem that I don't think this is the right time to be doing a full fleet replacement due to the current uncertainty regarding future electrification. Building a large fleet that presumes little or no future electrification cannot be good for the prospects of electrification. If the class 197s, above the floor, were exactly what I wanted but still diesel-only under the floor I would probably still be concerned about building so many of them. But I would probably have given up my campaign against them by now if they were either a worthy DMU successor to 158s/175s or were bi-modes but otherwise exactly as TfW have specified them (in the latter case I'd be trying to get them cascade them elsewhere).
I don't think there's a whole lot of uncertainly. Recent studies have shown their is no financial case for extending electrification in Wales. No Westminster government is likely to go against that for several decades and no Cardiff government has the money to do anything about it.
I agree the acceleration performance of the class 197s should be quite impressive. However, and appologies in advance for this pedantic point, but saying the 197s have lighter bodies may not be completely true. I'm not sure how much the 197s weigh, but Wikipedia gives the axle weights of a 195. Multiplying these figures by 4 axles gives 87.4t for a 2-car and 128.36t for a 3-car unit. I'm not sure whether that's metric or imperial, but according to TfW's datasheets a 158 is 77 tonnes, a 170 is 91.4 (or 133.7 for 3-car) tonnes a 175/0 is 99.2 tonnes and a 175/1 is 146.7 tonnes. That suggests a 195 is lighter than a Turbostar or 175 but heavier than a 158.
True, the 158s are lighter. But given they're all Perkins engined the performance is pretty awful. You need a pretty long bit of flat track to get to 90. It's not hard to see the CAFs being better. I suspect also the TfW weight figures were before the toilet tanks were fitted.
As for the environment, if human health in the short term is your number 1 priority then getting rid of the 158s would almost certainly be the right thing to do. However, the position regarding greenhouse gases is far less clear. If all 77 class 197s are built then the most likely outcome in my opinion is a later elimination of fossil fuel trains and a delay to electrification with less of the network electrified by 2050 than would otherwise be the case. IF building all 77 class 197s does not reduce electrification and results in the TfW 158s and 175s going for scrap immediately this MAY result in lower total emissions than if the 197s were not built, but I think that is a fairly unlikely scenario.
See above - the railways in Wales are so far down the list of priorities for electrification to improve the environment you'd just end up with trying to order more diesels in 10 years. Which may prove impossible.
The 150s are going anyway, the Stadlers on the Metro (with help from the 230s) will see to that. I agree that they have had their day.
And yet there were 5 of them on the Marches yesterday. There's no cascading from the Valleys that can help release those sets
he 158s might have been described by some at BR as "Garden Shed Engineering" but I'm sure a 'Pan-Up' column in Modern Railways described the 158s as the 'best DMU ever' and, as you point out, the engineers can work wonders on them.
With all due respect to the esteemed journalists at Modern Railways, I think the opinions of the staff at British Rail are more reliable and relevant. They have first hand experience. As do myself and several of my colleagues on this thread who work on these units and are trying to tell you that they're not that good
Salisburyry depot even manages to get them to beat many EMU fleets in the golden spanners. The 158s are nearing retirement age but they are not quite there yet, particularly while Northern and GWR are still running 150s.
Two important differences. Salisbury is only dealing with Cummins engines, which seem to be more reliable. Also, given how frequently SWT were able to loan out units to other TOCs, and the fact they were much more of a commuter peak based railway I suspect they have a lot more slack in their fleet availability for maintenance. As has been shown for several years at Arriva and TfW, there just isn't any downtime with the 158s
This is about the one thing that TfW's rolling stock policy outside the Metros has going for it. But 197s are one of these modern types (like the 175s) that won't multi with anything else (except perhaps 196s in the 197's case) which makes cascading part of the fleet elsewhere to allow electrification and bringing in bi-modes or EMUs more problematic. The new bi-mode stock at TfW would break TfW's uniform fleet and the incoming 197s would be a similar problem for GWR (who could use them to get rid of their 150s) and possibly could be an issue for Northern (I suppose they might be able to modify the 195s to be compatible).
But if you kept the 158s and 175s you'd make things even worse then they are now. You're worrying about a hypothetical future that isn't very likely.
Officially deemed suitable for IETs? By whom? There are plenty of people who don't think they are suitable for IETs, to the extent that at least one of Avanti and EMR have made a point of saying they won't be using the same unpopular seats on their new Hitachi units. The latest version of the Rail Delivery Group's Key Train Requirements provides two objective (or at least less-subjective) means of evaluating seat comfort - unfortunately nobody is releasing the scores of any train seats.
Officially deemed suitable by the companies who've ordered them, and who haven't ripped them out to replace them with something else. And as we all agree, seats are so subjective there really is no point arguing about them.
No, it's not. The Rail Delivery Group's Key Train Requirements states that, for a long-distance service, the ratio of seats to toilets should not exceed 85 seats per toilet. I seem to recall it also states that all multiple units should contain at least two toilets. Even the 3-car units with first class (which consequentially have fewer seats) come out at 87 seats per toilet. While that could be considered a quibble, the ratio given for a short-distance commuter unit is 125 seats per toilet and the 2-car class 197s are nearer to breaching that threshold than they are to being compliant with the long-distance best-practice.
The RDG can say what they want, what I'm saying is based on first hand experience. It's also based on the fact that these services are much closer to short distance commuter then long distance for the vast majority of people using them, and that there are plenty of units up and down the country with a similar ratio where there haven't been any problems.
You say virtually all the toilet issues are the tank being full. 150s have only recently been fitted with CET tanks, so for much of their lives the risk of a toilet being out-of-order and therefore a second toilet being needed was much lower.
I should have said most of the toilet issues on 175s were tank issues. The old toilets on sprinters used to block all the time, despite them being a glorified hole in the bottom of the train. The fitters at Shrewsbury even have a dedicated stick at the ready for unblocking them.
Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge I've yet to work a single CET fitted 150 with the toilet not working.
No. I am seriously proposing cancelation of the majority (not all) of a new fleet that is already in production (there's no point cancelling an order for units that have already been built). The reason I am doing it is because of my opinion but the reason I think I have a (very slim) chance of success is because that new fleet is directly opposed to elements of the Welsh Government's stated policy on rail and their new transport strategy, and because at least two rail user groups appear to share my opinion that the new trains are not suitable for long distance services. I am under no illusions that the most likely outcome by along way is that 77 class 197s will be built and displace the 158s and 175s, but in my opinion that is not yet 100% certain. I'd say it was 90-99% certain. If you felt strongly enough about something, wouldn't you fight to the bitter end?
You have zero chance. The lawsuits would probably bankrupt TfW, even if there was any desire for them to abandon their shiny new Welsh built fleet - which there isn't
Buying the 197s now wont delay electrification. Outside the valleys electrification won't happen for 20 years. At that point the 197s will be half life and their depreciated value will be even more negligible than it is now when considering the costs of electrification.
In the end all this nonsense about toilets, electrification and seats is a distraction from a certain posters obsession about door positions.
Do you have anything to back that claim up, or are you simply trying to discount others' opinions by making accusations?
The user in question has a very long history of such posts to be fair. And many of us have tried patiently in that time to explain that the arrival of the 197s really won't mean Armageddon for the Welsh railway network.
Can you not see how only 1 toilet on the Cambrian is a very serious issue?
As I said above, I genuinely don't see it being an issue no. And I've spoken to guards with more experience of the Cambrian then me and they agree.
I note that when a 150 has been used on the long distance Marches route, that it tends to keep to time. Does this mean that the timetable on this line is set for 75 mph max and not the higher speeds that can be attained by a 175? That being so, and with the 197’s coming with their 100 mph max and better acceleration, will that mean a speeded up timetable? (Yes, I do know that the maximum speed on The Marches is 90 mph though between Manchester & Crewe it surely is higher and it is 100 mph for a short bit between Bridgend & Port Talbot and 95 between Cardiff & Newport).
There are a few factors. A 150s acceleration is slightly better then a 175 up to about 60mph. Dwell times are better by a large magnitude. And from South of Shrewsbury all the way to Swansea the 90mph or higher sections are all relatively short so time spent at that speed is limited. West of Swansea is 75max so no issues there. The only section where the difference is obvious is the long 100mph run from Crewe to Wilmslow, but many services are timetabled for 19 or even 20 minutes to do this run, when a 175 can easily do it 15. There is similar padding all across the network, meaning that the 150s hold their own pretty ok.
There is of course a big recast of the Welsh timetable coming in a few years when the CAFs have all arrived and hopefully that will utilise the CAFs abilities better.
But you are one person, travelling on one route. I think it's a little tenuous to claim that you know all there is to know about the comfort and suitablilty of the seats.
Your evidence is purely anecdotal and, in whatever case, I don't think arguing over anecdotal evidence is at all productive.
A far more comprehensive survey would need to be carried out, asking plenty of regular passengers (not just enthusiasts), to work out whether the seats are, overall, considered satisfactory by the public.
Personally I find them uncomfortable, but far from the *most* uncomfortable.
This is indeed the problem we keep coming to. You'll never find a seat that everyone agrees on - and arguing over person A says this but person B says that is clearly a waste of time. But I do think it's a bit much to condemn the whole fleet over a seat that nobody has even seen yet, never mind sat in. We don't know if it's going to be standard Sophias (which some like and some don't) or an improved version. Until we do, the circles we've been going around in will only be even faster!
