Class 197 Civity DMUs for TfW - alternatives and speculation

[Rhydgaled]

We're getting told off on the main class 197 topic so I've created this one for speculative stuff like alternatives.

Good luck getting a follow on order in 2030, let alone 2035-40. Other trains have had their production lines restart, but the gap between the 350/2s and the 3/4s was only 5/6 years apart. Similar thing with the electrostars, their production line was still open with not much gap between orders. I heavily doubt we will see the 197 line stay open.

In Ireland, the InterCity Railcars are getting new intermediate vehicles built after eight years, and the bi-modes that I propose should have been built instead of 197s could have variants built for Northern as well in the meantime. The follow-on order needn't be exactly the same spec as the originals, just as long as they are compatible as far as multiple working is concerned and don't need significantly different maintainance procedures or sets of spares; a 375 isn't exactly the same as a 379 built 10 years later but I assume there are more similarities than differences.

But what bi-mode options are there with end gangways? And how do they compare to the suitability of TfWs network?
You're spouting out that the 197s are unsuitable and have an extensive list of requirements, but have yet to give an example of a train you think is suitable that is available on the market.

The bi-mode Aventra is the obvious answer to that. Although the bi-mode itself hasn't been pictured with end-gangways, the Aventra family is presumably modular meaning they could supply the end-gangways found on the class 730. It's also possible that CAF could deliver a Civity variant that meets the bill, they have shown they can do end-gangways (196 and 197), 100mph EMUs (class 331) and single-width passenger doors in various positions (class 397). What is less clear is whether they can do a bi-mode, the CAF website does advertise a bi-mode Civity but it's not clear whether they offer that for the UK variant.

I would imagine it is the standard Sophia with a better cushion, TPE has similar units to the GWR ones probably because they were needed by TPE pretty quickly.

If TfW had specified significant changes, wouldn't they have made that clear? I admit that it is possible they have changed the specification of the Sophia but I think it is rather unlikely.

How much exactly do you think that your cancellation would cost? The ROSCO has a contract in place with CAF and would be liable for serious damages if they break it. Similarly TfW has a contract in place with the ROSCO....

A lot; likely slightly less than the ongoing leasing costs of the class 197 fleet. This might be slightly mitigated by the fact that I would accept all units that have already been built plus the balance needed to make a fleet but it would still be very expensive. My original hope was that COVID might put the other parties in breach of the 197 contract as well, allowing the whole thing to be nullified as a mutually breached contract, but now that TfW has taken the franchise in house that hope is now gone, the UK taxpayer will pretty much have to pay for them whether they are built or not.

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.

Even if there was zero prospect of electrification anywhere on the TfW network outside of the Metro for another 20 years, the 197s would still have another 10-20 years of life remaining which could push the prospects of electrification further back from 20 years away to 30, 35 or even 40 years away. If all 77 class 197s are built then I believe electrification will indeed be at least 20 years away, but without the class 197s the prospects of some electrification within the next 10 years is better than nill. The draft Welsh Government transport strategy lists elimination of diesel traction by 2040 as an objective (although this does seem to be worded to allow alternative fuels like vegi-oil to be burnt in formerly diesel trains) and that they will work with the UK Government over the next five years to improve rail infrastructure across Wales including rolling out rail electrification schemes across Wales. Now, within 5 years that is unlikely to get beyond the design stage even if the UK Government is game, but I think Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury by 2030 would be a realistic ambition in a world with less than 30 class 197s in it.

In the end all this nonsense about toilets, electrification and seats is a distraction from a certain posters obsession about door positions.

If you are talking about me, my obsession is not about door positions as such. I am of the opinion that the product offering (particularly on long-distance routes) should be a pleasant, even enjoyable, journey. Not a service that passengers can just about put up with but one that they might recommend to their friends and thereby atract modal shift. As a perfectionist, I have noted various complaints from various sources and my idea of a perfect train is one that avoids all of them. I have quickly knocked up a rough drawing in Paint to illustrate possible door positioning for a new fleet for Regional Express services (the cab doors are visible at the extreme ends - I cropped off the rest of the cab because this was a drawing of a 195 and I don't have a drawing of a gangwayed cab to drop in there). The wheelchair symbol indicates that a UAT would go there, the bike symbols indicate a bike space on one side of the train and a normal small toilet on the other. This drawing has NOT been done to exact dimensions, the number, size and spacing of windows might be a bit out and so on. This is simply to illustrate a possible door positioning that, with appropriate interior features, I think may have the potential to be a perfect train for Regional Express services. The key thing to note is the doors are single, not double, width.

Oh no - not IAN WALMSLEY?!

Why on earth is his opinion any more important that anyone else’s?

He is a fairly well respected rail industry person, not a random enthusaist on a web forum who hasn't set foot on a train since 2019, so I thought his opinion may be considered more worthy of listening to. By the way, the random enthusaist I am talking about here is me, not you.

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.

Recent studies? Network Rail did a study recently (the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy) which shows that, for most of the routes the class 197s were ordered to run, electrification is the most efficient means of decarbonisation (off the top of my head, only the Cambrian and Conwy Valley would have 197s and aren't recommended for electrification - even then Cambrian services would be under the wires east of Shrewsbury). No financial case maybe but if the UK Government is serious about decarbonising rail the alternatives presumably have an even worse case or Network Rail wouldn't have recommended electrification. And if the UK Government is not serious about decarbonising rail...

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.

Well no; not directly. But if we're not serious about decarbonising rail what else aren't we serious about decarbonising? The arrival of the class 197s isn't armageddon, but exceeding 2 degrees of warming might well be. The arrival of the class 197s doesn't necessarily lead to the other but it increases the risk of it which is why I think it is worth arguing despite the overwelming odds that are stacked against me.

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

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

I agree, Salisbury has advantages which means TfW will never get the Welsh units up to that level of reliability but I still think the performance many engineers are managing to get from the 158s shows that they are not nearly as awful as you seem to be trying to make out. I'm pretty sure the article that crowned the 158s as the best DMU ever was written by Ian Walmsley who before working for Porterbrook "worked in South Wales for 11 years, mainly at Cardiff Canton but also at Landore and Cathays" so may very well have worked on 158s (not sure if his time at Canton coincided with 158s being based there).

With all due respect, some of those journalists are highly experienced railway engineers.

I think Ian Walmsley falls firmly into that category.

There is always a lot of complains about the number of toilets on the 197, but from what I can see it's the best spec'd train from its close relatives.

Pretty sure the 195 have only one toilet on the 2 car and 3 car units. The 196's have one toilet on the 2 car and two on the 4 car. The 197's have one toilet on the 2 car and two on a 3 car. Don't see the issue myself.

Better spec than the diesel Civity units yes, but inferior to 158s, 175s and all three of TPE's Nova fleets.

 

[Neptune]

As the original thread went round and round in circles for a hell of a long time with nothing new added after a very short time can you say that this thread will be any different.

I think we all know your opinion and those of the majority of the other posters.

Will anything different be said that already hasn’t.

 

[Energy]

If TfW had specified significant changes, wouldn't they have made that clear? I admit that it is possible they have changed the specification of the Sophia but I think it is rather unlikely.

Is increasing the thickness of the cushion a significant change? Sophias are already used in Europe with very different cushions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is increasing the thickness of the cushion a significant change? Sophias are already used in Europe with very different cushions.

Also in 1st on Thameslink and ScotRail. I'm still no fan but you can't feel the frame through the base on either of those.

By the way @Rhydgaled, what you appear to have drawn above is a Class 444.

 

[Energy]

If you are talking about me, my obsession is not about door positions as such. I am of the opinion that the product offering (particularly on long-distance routes) should be a pleasant, even enjoyable, journey. Not a service that passengers can just about put up with but one that they might recommend to their friends and thereby atract modal shift. As a perfectionist, I have noted various complaints from various sources and my idea of a perfect train is one that avoids all of them. I have quickly knocked up a rough drawing in Paint to illustrate possible door positioning for a new fleet for Regional Express services (the cab doors are visible at the extreme ends - I cropped off the rest of the cab because this was a drawing of a 195 and I don't have a drawing of a gangwayed cab to drop in there). The wheelchair symbol indicates that a UAT would go there, the bike symbols indicate a bike space on one side of the train and a normal small toilet on the other. This drawing has NOT been done to exact dimensions, the number, size and spacing of windows might be a bit out and so on. This is simply to illustrate a possible door positioning that, with appropriate interior features, I think may have the potential to be a perfect train for Regional Express services. The key thing to note is the doors are single, not double, width.
View attachment 91307

I suggest you look at the new trains for South Wales, Australia. They are also built by CAF but are bimode and have doors at the end of the vehicles.

CAF consortium wins New South Wales regional fleet renewal contract | International Railway Journal (railjournal.com)

 

[Rhydgaled]

By the way @Rhydgaled, what you appear to have drawn above is a Class 444.

Yes and no. The 444 has one coach somewhat like this and four coaches with end doors; my drawing has the compromise door layout on all three coaches.

I suggest you look at the new trains for South Wales, Australia. They are also built by CAF but are bimode and have doors at the end of the vehicles.

CAF consortium wins New South Wales regional fleet renewal contract | International Railway Journal (railjournal.com)

Thanks for reminding me of those, but I cannot say for sure whether they would be compatible with the UK infrustructure and the class 196/197 gangwayed cab.

In an ideal world TFW would have ordered Stadler Bimodel units, but ordering 77 of these would have been at a huge cost.
Unfortunately Wales doesn't get the budgets that London would command, just look the money thrown at crossrail as an example.

Does Stadler offer unit-end gangways? If not, that would not be an ideal solution for TfW at all, even if it could be afforded.

But if people speak to the general public & listen to what they want, the 197's more than fit the bill. The units are being built & the order won't be changed that the WAG have paid for. no matter how much complaining people do, the toilet situation won't change & the units being DMU's won't change.

Aye, the toilet suituation won't change and they will be DMUs, that's why I think the best outcome now is for only 20-30 of them to be built instead of 77. As for speaking to the general public, when I have mentioned the reduced toilet provision to people they have agreed with me that this is a bad move.

Some positives over the 158's will be more modern customer information displays, which are desperately needed.

Didn't ATW fit modern LED information displays in their refurb?

The 197's will be more economical / faster / euro 5 engines far better for the environment.

More economical than 175s (not sure about 158s which I don't have a comparable figure for but I understand are more economical than 175s) yes but not necessarily better for the environment because either the 175s will be cascaded elsewhere and continue burning fuel (in which case a greater total amount of diesel is burnt each year) or the 175s will be scrapped after only 20 years service which is wasteful in terms of the signficant GHG emissions involved in the manufacture of new trains. For the same reason scrapping 197s after 15-20 years to permit electrification (eg. Wolves-Shrewsbury) would be wasteful.

 

[greatvoyager]

More economical than 175s (not sure about 158s which I don't have a comparable figure for but I understand are more economical than 175s) yes but not necessarily better for the environment because either the 175s will be cascaded elsewhere and continue burning fuel (in which case a greater total amount of diesel is burnt each year) or the 175s will be scrapped after only 20 years service which is wasteful in terms of the signficant GHG emissions involved in the manufacture of new trains. For the same reason scrapping 197s after 15-20 years to permit electrification (eg. Wolves-Shrewsbury) would be wasteful.

Surely 175s being cascaded to other operators would be replacing even older units with worse fuel burn?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Surely 175s being cascaded to other operators would be replacing even older units with worse fuel burn?

As noted above, I'm fairly sure 158s are more efficient than 175s. I think the early 2000s units (170s, 175s and 185s) are the least efficient DMUs (excluding 125mph stock).

 

[greatvoyager]

As noted above, I'm fairly sure 158s are more efficient than 175s. I think the early 2000s units (170s, 175s and 185s) are the least efficient DMUs (excluding 125mph stock).

I was thinking more in comparison to 150s or 153s.

Personally I’m going to wait to travel on a 197 and see what it’s like.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As noted above, I'm fairly sure 158s are more efficient than 175s. I think the early 2000s units (170s, 175s and 185s) are the least efficient DMUs (excluding 125mph stock).

This depends on what you mean by "efficient". 170s are inefficient when used on local stopping services because they aren't designed for that, the speed at which the transmission goes into direct drive is too high. I don't entirely understand why TOCs using them on such services don't have them regeared to 75mph or even changed to ZF mechanical transmission like the 19x, it must be costing a fortune in burning diesel to keep transmission oil nice and warm.

 

[Envoy]

I take it that you have all read about the treatment of the underside of the bridge carrying the valley lines over the mainline at Cardiff? With this way of preventing arcing to bridge structures and the consequent fact that many bridges would not need replacing for electrification, perhaps it will result in a greater roll out of electrification sooner rather than later? Something to consider when new fleets are ordered!

Cardiff bridge avoids £40m demolition thanks to electric resistant paint

In a world first, electric resistant paint combined with voltage-controlled clearance (VCC) has helped make a Victorian railway bridge usable by new electric trains, avoiding weeks of passenger disruption and train delays in the process.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

 

[craigybagel]

As the original thread went round and round in circles for a hell of a long time with nothing new added after a very short time can you say that this thread will be any different.

I think we all know your opinion and those of the majority of the other posters.

Will anything different be said that already hasn’t.

Indeed which is why I'm not biting this time. When I get told that I and my colleagues know less about our jobs then a journalist and a guy who hasn't been on a train since 2019 it's probably a good time to leave.

 

[Energy]

On the whole door thing, doors at the end of the carriages make it feel like a long metal tube, I actually like the bit of separation doors at thirds bring. Arguably 395s do it best by having doors at the centre which don't eat too much capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the whole door thing, doors at the end of the carriages make it feel like a long metal tube, I actually like the bit of separation doors at thirds bring. Arguably 395s do it best by having doors at the centre which don't eat too much capacity.

395s have doors at thirds, they're just narrower and single-leaf. No stock tends to have centre doors as at curved platforms it can mean a very large gap. That was I think why BR sealed up the middle doors on Mk1s and early Mk2s.

 

[Energy]

395s have doors at thirds, they're just narrower and single-leaf. No stock tends to have centre doors as at curved platforms it can mean a very large gap. That was I think why BR sealed up the middle doors on Mk1s and early Mk2s.

By centre I mean not at the end

 

[Bletchleyite]

By centre I mean not at the end

Ah, fair enough.

Class 345s have centre doors, as do the end vehicles of Merseyrail 777s (I guess they get around the big gap by having the automatic gap filler devices). I don't think anything else does in the UK.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I was thinking more in comparison to 150s or 153s.

Which are less-powerful than a 158 and, just like a 158, significantly lighter than things like 170s and 175s.

Indeed which is why I'm not biting this time. When I get told that I and my colleagues know less about our jobs then a journalist and a guy who hasn't been on a train since 2019 it's probably a good time to leave.

My appologies, I certainly have not intended to claim that I know more about your job than you do. I know my knowlege is limited which is why I use comments made by a journalist who has many years of rail industry experience to back up my arguments, most of which do not relate to your job anyway (if I recall correctly you are a train guard but I'm not sure on that). I'm sure that the class 197s would make your job much easier, which is a point in their favour, but there are also elements which are not in their favour. From my point of view, as a former passenger who would very much like the suituation to return to one where I want to travel by train again, keeping the class 158s for a short while longer and the 175s a fair while longer would be a better outcome. I can understand that from other perspectives a different outcome is more attractive - which persepective is more important? I don't know that.

 

[greatvoyager]

Getting back on topic, is there any word on any subclasses yet?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Getting back on topic, is there any word on any subclasses yet?

Potentially four, given the range of subtypes:

• 2-car units with ETCS
• 2-car units without ETCS
• 3-car units
• 3-car units with first class section

Wonder if they are planning subclasses for all those variations.

 

[craigybagel]

Which are less-powerful than a 158 and, just like a 158, significantly lighter than things like 170s and 175s.


My appologies, I certainly have not intended to claim that I know more about your job than you do. I know my knowlege is limited which is why I use comments made by a journalist who has many years of rail industry experience to back up my arguments, most of which do not relate to your job anyway (if I recall correctly you are a train guard but I'm not sure on that). I'm sure that the class 197s would make your job much easier, which is a point in their favour, but there are also elements which are not in their favour. From my point of view, as a former passenger who would very much like the suituation to return to one where I want to travel by train again, keeping the class 158s for a short while longer and the 175s a fair while longer would be a better outcome. I can understand that from other perspectives a different outcome is more attractive - which persepective is more important? I don't know that.

Whilst your apology is appreciated and accepted, and I know you weren't questioning my job skills directly - but please bear in mind that when myself and my colleagues have been patiently trying to explain to you why the CAFs design features are better suited to the TfW network then the units they're replacing, as we have been doing to you for several years now, that it's based not on personal opinions but on decades of experience between us of working as drivers and/or guards all across the TfW network.

The fact that we're all pretty united in our beliefs that the trains are the right design surely counts for something? Obviously you have the right to disagree, it's a free country after all - but you've been flat out telling us that we're all wrong, which for me anyway does get a little tiresome.

 

[greatvoyager]

Potentially four, given the range of subtypes:

• 2-car units with ETCS
• 2-car units without ETCS
• 3-car units
• 3-car units with first class section

Wonder if they are planning subclasses for all those variations.

Ah okay, thanks.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Ah okay, thanks.

Just to be clear, I have no idea whether there WILL be subclasses for all of those, there are several variants of 158s that haven't been given subclasses, but at least 4 different versions of the 197s were ordered.

 

[greatvoyager]

Just to be clear, I have no idea whether there WILL be subclasses for all of those, there are several variants of 158s that haven't been given subclasses, but at least 4 different versions of the 197s were ordered.

I guessed, as your last sentence was that you wonder if there would be subclasses.
Thanks for the info.

 

[Mrs. Fortescue]

Indeed which is why I'm not biting this time. When I get told that I and my colleagues know less about our jobs then a journalist and a guy who hasn't been on a train since 2019 it's probably a good time to leave.

*applause*

 

[superalbs]

Does anyone know what first class seat is going to be used?

 

[PHILIPE]

Does anyone know what first class seat is going to be used?

I presume he same as the rest of the train.

All the discussion, and plenty of it, on the seats is to be found here in the main thread:-

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/caf-civity-for-tfw.182501/page-35

 

[Rhydgaled]

Some more replies to borderline off-topic aspects of the main thread. Personaly I think the future of decarbonisation is relevant to the purchase of a new diesel-only fleet.

If by 2040 electrifying the North Wales coast is the only thing that can save the railways from deep decline, then the battle has probably already been lost.

I should add, I'm not against it being electrified by any means. I just can't see any British government being prepared to pay for it, especially when there are other lower hanging fruits out there. I don't necessarily agree with that choice, I'm just being realistic.

By 2040, if nothing changes, sales of new petrol and diesel cars will have been illegal in Britain for 10 years. A quick Google suggests that over 2m new cars are registered each year and there were 38.4 million licensed vehicles in Great Britain in March 2019. Thus by 2040 it seems likely that at least half the licensed cars in the UK will be electric or hybrid. The specifics of which routes are wired by then don't matter, and you're right that there are far bigger priorities, but the rail industry will look VERY outdated by 2040 if the government doesn't authorise widespread electrification in the early 2020s, preferably this year.

Surely as someone living in rural Wales you can accept that there's always going to be a need for road based transport? Besides, again no government is likely to be brave enough to defund a majority of road users just so a minority of railway users can have their journey powered by electricity rather then diesel, especially when it will be using the same trains!

Again, I'm not saying I agree with these things, I'm just being realistic.

I didn't say close the roads, or stop maintaining them. I said stop building extra road capacity - the roads we have can stay but by not building things like the second M4 around Newport, a tunnel past Stonehendge or a new 3-lane A40 between Llandewi Velfrey and Redstone Cross we can save money. There will always be a need for road-based transport, but we need to REDUCE road traffic so making space for more road traffic is just a waste of money.

 

[squizzler]

By 2040, if nothing changes, sales of new petrol and diesel cars will have been illegal in Britain for 10 years. A quick Google suggests that over 2m new cars are registered each year and there were 38.4 million licensed vehicles in Great Britain in March 2019. Thus by 2040 it seems likely that at least half the licensed cars in the UK will be electric or hybrid. The specifics of which routes are wired by then don't matter, and you're right that there are far bigger priorities, but the rail industry will look VERY outdated by 2040 if the government doesn't authorise widespread electrification in the early 2020s, preferably this year.

The replacement of motorcars has its own set of challenges. Even making the assumption that nothing else changes in the car ownership experience than the form of traction, the difference in life expectancy of cars and trains is not as big as many think - possibly double.

In 2015 the average motor age was 14 years at the time of scrapping (average age of those on the street was 8 years), with a rising trend in both cases. In the pandemic there would be little replacement of the car fleet since few were sold and there was an MOT holiday (I think MOT the main trigger for cars getting scrapped), so it can probably be assumed the average life for a car is 15 years. If a train lasts 30 years on average, that is not such as massive difference as people make out it to be.

The shift to electrify motoring comes in the middle of an unprecedented global economic depression. I just don't see Britain becoming this Jetsons world that many here like to speculate where the railways will be made obsolete by driverless cars, personal jetpacks and hyperloop, and we have a new Beeching Axe. Rather, the UK, with its current government and Brexit, may be even more cut off from the global trade. I think cars will be made to last even longer than previously, and the UK will be just like Cuba is now with ancient cars all over the place in twenty years time. Under that scenario, the railways will be sitting pretty with all these new trains ordered just before what is likely to be a period of make do and mend. Passengers in such a scenario are not likely to care less what is under the train making it go.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The shift to electrify motoring comes in the middle of an unprecedented global economic depression. I just don't see Britain becoming this Jetsons world that many here like to speculate where the railways will be made obsolete by driverless cars, personal jetpacks and hyperloop, and we have a new Beeching Axe.

I do worry about driverless cars; they don't seem to be all that far away (unlike jetpacks and hyperloop) and could be a serious threat to mode share for sustainable transport unless private ownership of them is disallowed and they function as the 'last mile', connecting into and out of public transport, in some form of mobility as a service solution.

Rather, the UK, with its current government and Brexit, may be even more cut off from the global trade. I think cars will be made to last even longer than previously, and the UK will be just like Cuba is now with ancient cars all over the place in twenty years time. Under that scenario, the railways will be sitting pretty with all these new trains ordered just before what is likely to be a period of make do and mend. Passengers in such a scenario are not likely to care less what is under the train making it go.

True; in that scenario a Beeching Axe is unlikely and passengers won't be deserting rail because they think their cars are 'greener', but the laws of physics don't care about economic depression. That scenario looks to me like a failure to decarbonise and that will have consequences; we* cannot afford us to end up there.

* on behalf of a large proportion of life on Earth

 

[37424]

I do worry about driverless cars; they don't seem to be all that far away (unlike jetpacks and hyperloop) and could be a serious threat to mode share for sustainable transport unless private ownership of them is disallowed and they function as the 'last mile', connecting into and out of public transport, in some form of mobility as a service solution.

True; in that scenario a Beeching Axe is unlikely and passengers won't be deserting rail because they think their cars are 'greener', but the laws of physics don't care about economic depression. That scenario looks to me like a failure to decarbonise and that will have consequences; we* cannot afford us to end up there.

* on behalf of a large proportion of life on Earth

I'm not convinced FSD is anywhere near yet. I watch the US Tesla FSD Beta testers and while they are good on the Motorways they still make significant mistakes on normal roads and hand control back to the driver when they cannot handle the situation, and US roads tend to have a fairly simplistic design where as UK roads tend to be more difficult in a number of ways. OK there are other companies besides Tesla working on FSD but its a big step to be reliable enough to take the driver out of the car, and of course convince the regulators and insurance companies etc that its good enough.

That said if we do get to that stage at some point then I don't have a problem with them being used as a potential replacement for some rural bus and train services with what could be a more cost effective solution.

Getting back to the 197's given the current lack of electrification on lines that these trains will be used on makes them a reasonably good choice in my view and personally doubt that vast amount of the routes that these will be used on will be electrified in the next 20 years, and while they are Diesel they will meet the latest emission standards which by all accounts are pretty good at eliminating harmful emissions, but many don't want to listen to that due to the demonisation of diesel by the government and the various diesel gate scandals from the car companies.