Is Transport for Wales' new intercity fleet any good?

[@noahbowie5985]

Having travelled on a 2 car Class 197 between Manchester and Warrington I do find the 2 car variant to be woefully small for some of the routes it operates

[@goatgamer001]

At least it can be combine in groups of two or three and emulate a longer unit

[@mrvwbug4423]

And they'll use these same units for Holyhead>Cardiff, even with the frequently broken toilets.

[@noahbowie5985]

@@goatgamer001 having travelled on a 2 car during a northern strike day it was awful

[@noahbowie5985]

@@mrvwbug4423 I can admire them for trying to come up with a modern solution but the 197 was not it. Ideally they needed a modern recreation of the 158 which is not what we got

[@LemoncloudGT]

@@goatgamer001 so could the 150s

[@hoof2001]

looking at the Caledonian Sleeper sets, also a CAF offer, it makes you wonder if anyone actually assesses quality or if it’s all just about ‘cheap’. As the old adage has it, buy cheap, pay twice

[@OkenWS]

Spot on. Honestly it's a wonder GA and TfW even considered Stadler. CAF offered much more suitable (cheap and plastic) infrastructure options for this miserable country!

[@pokeboi5438]

@@OkenWSThank goodness GA went with FLIRTs because the Aventras are not great

[@SonnyHorrocks]

@@OkenWSCAF might be the worst train company in the uk currently none of their trains are acceptable

[@GarethJonesPilipala]

I’m not a fan of CAF rolling stock. The 197s are made to look worse when compared to the superb Stadler units in use on Valley lines.

[@martinbond5166]

As I live on the Cardiff- Manchester line there are a numbe of points I would like to make. The door spacing on 197 is what is wanted. It is a bit misleading to refer to the route as inter City, with most trains calling at numerous small stations between Crewe and Newport. It was this misconception that produced the 175 with its end doors. I can vouch that trying to get bicycles and pushchairs on and off at the frequent stops was frustrating. The wide doors on the197 are much more practical. This highlights the issue of 67 reliability. Partly it comes from pairing them up with Mk4 coaches, for which they were not designed. But also putting them on routes with such frequent stopping and starting was never a good idea. They were not designed for these stresses. As you say, operating the loco hauled sets on solely limited stop services (calling only at Shrewsbury and Hereford between Crewe and Newport) would improve reliability and mitigate their slower acceleration.

[@mrvwbug4423]

As slow as line speeds are between Crewe and Cardiff, they could just as well stick a class 66 on the head end, it's 75mph top speed wouldn't be much of an issue on a line where the 67s are only tickling 80mph sometimes. It's almost comical to see the 140mph intercity 225 coaches being run this slow

[@Cross_Trainspotting]

I’m a huge fan of the TfW Mk4s as they provide a nice treat for Trainspotting. They are some of the best trains I have ever travelled on.

[@thetransporthub]

fideo da iawn! ordering a full fleet of stadlers really should have been the plan from the start, much better trains and a full fleet consistency

[@GWVillager]

Diolch!

[@ianburnley6873]

I think some people need to remember Tfw is highly subsidised, the Stadlers are expensive compared to the cheap and cheerful Spanish Junk, the Loco Hauled are probably also a Luxury it shouldn't have. Lucky they are getting largely new trains while Northern still has a large junk fleet which will likely be around for some time.

[@RainShadow-yi3xr]

@@ianburnley6873how are they a luxury they're nearly 40 year old coaches with glorified freight diesels

[@Slaithyte]

@@GWVillager hey mate, I can't get into the discord server after getting locked out since it doesnt allow new accounts

[@GWVillager]

@@Slaithyte It does, it just doesn't allow accounts with no profile picture. I'll see if I can change it, sorry about that.

[@shogun2215]

I use the Class 197s to get to Cardiff on a journey of about an hour. They are a massive improvement over the old trains we used to get; quieter, more comfortable, more space and much brighter. I am glad to see the back of the godawful Sprinters.

[@iskra1234]

197's freezing in winter due to door layout, but otherwise okay. Mk4's some of the best rolling stock on the network and the first class catering offering is excellent.

[@mrvwbug4423]

Don't forget how noisy 197s are, especially during braking with that extremely loud air compressor under the floor

[@dgattenb]

went to Manchester from Cardiff last month with the family. Had split ticket second class , upgraded to a price that was the same as a normal 2nd class ticket :) food is 22 quid for a 3 course meal.. that was stunning.. We were lucky enough ( lots of planning ) to get a M4s there and back .. stunning sevice !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what a train should be

[@colinlambert882]

Sounds a real bargain! GWR charges £37 for 2 courses and £44 for 3 on its occasional (six trains a day) Pullman dining to and from Paddington. Very poor value for money in comparison.

[@railquest]

Cracking video. TfW are so hit and miss at the moment its hilariously tragic. Still though, their situation is a lot better now than it was when the 175s first started doing impersonations of explosive devices! As for the 67s, I honestly the 68s would be a great option. I don't think the implementation of bi-mode loco hauled stock is really necessary given the lack of wires on most of the route and the extremely hilly nature of the welsh marches. Perhaps the case is different with Holyhead-Cardiff services post north wales electrification but thats probably a long way away haha.

[@mrvwbug4423]

Honestly TfW should snag the Nova 3 sets and class 68s that TPE just phased out

[@peterharris3563]

That big step up from the platform into the 197 would be enough to deter me from using any TfW service. Do the folks who draw up the specifications for new trains actually consider the needs of mobility impaired passengers? or is it always the case that the cheapest and nastiest option will always win out.

[@GWVillager]

Sadly, that is largely the case. If you need assistance with that step, though, call up Passenger Assist and they should be able to arrange a ramp. It’s not an ideal solution, of course, but at least people can travel.

[@stevenjames3455]

Thank you for this video! It cleared up a lot I didn't know about Transport for Wales, and it was pleasant hearing your thoughts. Interested in what happens next for TfW and very eager to try long distance on the Mark 4s. :)

[@thetrainspotter43]

Fantastic video once again, interesting to see how the passenger experience has (somewhat) improved in a short space of time. I do think the ex-LNER mk4 sets offer a more comfortable experience for the passenger, but I am probably one of few, with favour falling to the ex-Grand Central sets.

[@Eric_Hunt194]

My only exposure to these is the footage/photos from this video... but the ex GC interior looks far classier than the tacky ex Virgin red on the LNER ones.

[@thetrainspotter43]

@@Eric_Hunt194 I think you have to experience them to get a good view

[@GWOperator]

A major issue for the 67s is their route availability. Due to the fact they only have 4 axles and weigh like 80 tonnes, various weight restrictions on bridges and viaducts etc have limited the number of routes they can be used on. If they were replaced with a 6 axle loco (like the class 57s they replaced back in 2012) then TfW could expand their premier service to more lines such as Fishguard or Pembroke and maybe a Liverpool to Cardiff service in the future?

[@mrvwbug4423]

I still can't figure out why the 67s are so unreliable, must have been Alstom's side of the equation, the engine, alternator, control electronics and traction motors are directly off the incredibly reliable class 66, which itself is a UK spec version of an EMD SD40 which is probably one of the most reliable locomotives ever built.

[@GWOperator]

@@mrvwbug4423 it’s because Alstom don’t know how to build a train that doesn’t break down constantly, have faulty software, spontaneously combust or have awful shitty engines. (Or any combination of the above)

[@mrvwbug4423]

@@GWOperatorThat sounds like the class 175 in a single paragraph haha, which of course was an Alstom product haha.

[@anthonywarrener1881]

@@mrvwbug4423here here! The EMD engine is virtually indestructible, but as you say the ancillary items are still causing problems. With DRS now having several unused Class 68s from TPE usage, surely TfW could do a sensible deal to hire them !

[@bfapple]

If - big IF - Welsh electrification does happen in a big way, it might be possible for the Class 197s to be passed on to Northern, and replaced in Wales by bi or trio-mode units.

[@officialmcdeath]

Any time I'm on a 1/3 2/3 unit I make sure to be on the lefthand side of the vehicle just ahead of the vestibule bulkhead - that way the inevitable blast of cold air misses me when the doors open \m/

[@EngineNumber99]

The 197s are absolutely packed with people on the trains to Llandudno,they need to make longer consists

[@sterlinghartley2165]

I always missed the Mk4 coach between Cardiff and Manchester, it seems much more appropriate for that route than whatever showed up to take me to Shrewsbury. I think the main issue that's cause this short sightedness is bluntly money, Cymru just doesn't get the money it needs for trains (or really anything tbh), I'd personally would have liked there new fleet to include a more mid-length train than just 2-3 cars and the MK4s, the current fleet always feels packed because there isn't much room for everyone on board.

[@GWVillager]

Fortunately, the plan is to run the 197-operated Manchester services as 5 car sets (a 2 car coupled to a 3 car with standard plus). But in the meantime, things can get cosy!

[@huwsalway4099]

That’s the fault of the Welsh govt for not banging the central govts door for the £billion odd quid they should have had for rail investment - somehow Westminster thought Wales would benefit from HS2 so got fuck all. Absolute jokers down the bay again

[@Jack-ly1sw]

I often travel to and from Crewe and Shrewsbury and so far I've had no luck finding a class 67 accept for the one that was out of service in Crewe. I'd love to ride on it one day so does anyone know the departure times from Crewe to Shrewsbury that's exclusively the class 67?

[@GWVillager]

No services are guaranteed them, but it's generally services leaving Crewe South on odd hours. There are none after the 1710.

[@thomasmahoney4991]

I'm sure someone will shoot me down but I always wondered why they didn't bring class 180s onto the Welsh Marches route as a sort of middleman between the two trains in this video? They can do above 100mph, they're more spacious but also not massive, yes they're old but they're a whole lot newer than a pair of 153s! I suppose there's probably a reason why they got scrapped... just thought they'd have been a better investment ? I'm no expert though (as is probably apparent)

[@GWVillager]

There aren’t really any available, but they’re woefully unreliable anyway. Grand Central have really been struggling with them, and I doubt they’ll ever see use after GC. I have heard some rumours that Arriva Trains Wales considered them for the Gerald but (of course) they went with the Mk2/3s in the end.

[@thomasmahoney4991]

@@GWVillager fairs !

[@stevieinselby]

The main reason is probably that they are crap. When they were with Hull Trains, they were so unreliable that HT had to hire in a couple of IC125s to bolster the fleet, and they've spent the last 23 years being passed quickly from one operator to another like a grenade with the pin out. (There's a good reason why no-one else in the world has built a 125mph DMMU!)

[@terrymoore9388]

Having travelled on 197's i find them great.

[@uncipaws7643]

2:34 Seats with no window. During the day I would find that very annoying. And it's curious that Siemens and Alstom who both produce bimode locomotives on the continent don't have anything comparable for Britain, leaving the market to Stadler.

[@mattevans4377]

What exactly would have been wrong with ordering only 3 car trains? Are there so many places that can't take 6 cars?

[@GWVillager]

Yes! Some aren’t even cleared to 5, and there are relatively few routes on which 6 is necessary.

[@stevieinselby]

I don't know how often they will need a 5-car combo, but if it's rare that they do then they might have been better ordering 3s and 4s with the intention of only running solo sets. I guess the Cambrian might have to be an exception there if they want to retain through workings to both Aberystwyth and Pwllheli. (The coast line already has to contend with short platforms at a number of stations, but there appear to be very few that can accommodate a 2-car but not a 3-car, so in practical terms it wouldn't mkae much of a difference).

[@michaeljohnson9421]

It's interesting to compare the Class 197 trains with West Midland's Class 196 fleet - essentially the same train, but with very different interiors. One thing I've noticed is how much more internal signage TfW has applied to their trains. Every interior surface on the 197s has signs and notices and stickers of one sort or another plastered all over it. Compare the strip over the window, which is a forest of fussy decals on the 197s, but completely clear on the 196s.

[@Jay-ll1kc]

Late to the party I know, but the MK4s having a Chef and a Firat Class host as well as a buffet attendant is ideal. If you lose a crew member you'll find service speeds with drop and the additional product with suffer as a result. Just look at mainline operators on the weekdays vs the weekends when they drop a crew member

[@breeze1472]

be nice if TFW acquired some of the redundant Trans Pennine trains i think they`re Novas?

[@fredphipps9452]

I found the 197's plasticy and ergonomically very unsatisfactory. Tops of windows too low, clumsy relationship between windows and seating, side destination screens blocking out window light, not to mention the sliding door vestibules. When travelling through beautiful Welsh countryside it's a struggle to view it properly. The announcement speaker is a pain in the neck but that's a problem on many trains in the UK. Miss the 175's

[@iman2341]

Really love the idea of expanding the Mk4 fleet with the soon to be withdrawn LNER sets, though I suspect TfW shouldn’t wait for that to replace the 67s with the obvious replacements, 68s! TPE just got rid of theirs after all!

[@GWVillager]

I'm not sure there will be enough of them, to be honest.

[@lonun67]

These trains are definitely perfect for these services. As for the locomotives, it can be replaced by 14 ex TPE class 68s as TPE no longer uses them. But will the mark 5s can be reactivated to supplement the mark 4s on the premier service?

[@TheSouthWalesRailGuy]

I was watching the old one a matter of a few hours ago and was wondering on what your new opinions were, and I am not surprised by most of your new judgements, yes the 67 reliabilities are pretty awful, especially when you pair 67008 with HD02! That hasn't ended well on a few occasions... Also when the MK4s for LNER do eventually go, I think it would be smart to gather more sets, also why don't the MK4s go to Swansea more? I don't see any problems unless they need something done at Canton, which wouldn't make sense as MK4s do run down to Swansea and back up on a Sunday, but what do I know? Anyways, great video mate and I hope to see more.

[@GWVillager]

67008+HD02 certainly seems like a cursed combination! I believe the reason more don’t go to Swansea is that there simply aren’t enough of them - if they ran all the way they’d need more diagrams than they can support.

[@TheSouthWalesRailGuy]

certainly gives a reason for your judgement of if there were more sets, more diagrams can be extended to Swansea

[@arwelp]

For me, when I first used the 197’s on the north coast last summer, the thing that was driving me nuts was the automated announcements after every stop. Depending on the service pattern, the announcement in Welsh was often missing out the verb! This is incredibly annoying if you actually understand the language, and I actually made an official complaint because it was meaningless - I was told that “this has already been reported!” and they do seem to have fixed them now.

[@LemoncloudGT]

we need the TFW seats on northern Cvities as northerns r ironing board

[@lonun67]

Also, they can maybe add some voyagers to displace some 2 car 197s to replace the classes 153 and 230.

[@timlewis1165]

Please god no. Horrible trains, and tbh not that much more seating than a three car sprinter construct or 197. Just had the misfortune of playing sardines next to a malfunctioning chemical toilet, one to many times

[@mt5144]

The Class 67 & DVT Now with 5 Carriage's being fitted are an amazing replacement for TFW, I catch the service from Man Picc- South Wales on a regular basis & TFW 1st Class Carriage is a breath of fresh air fitted with comfortable Large Leather Seats, Tea & Snacks are free & They also have a travelling Chef on board & you can purchase a 3 course Lunch for £22 which is a Bargain, the Food is Extremely Good & the Breakfast in the Morning is also perfect, I could not recommend this service enough in-fact its probably the best first class on the UK Rail Lines at Present, The Class 197 in which TFW are using a 2 carriage units mainly on this line are a good improvement to the 175's & compare to a Class 150 there a Vast Improvement as the 150 is slow, uncomfortable & not fit for Main Line services, Probably be better if the Stadler class 231 units were used on this South Wales to Manchester Piccadilly (instead of the 197's) service as they are 4 car units with a lot more space & plenty more seats.

[@StarbitTrainspots]

Great vid! One time at night, I actually did see a diagram of a 67 set! I think there were 4! Unfortunately the 5 car sets did show as 4 cars but the 4 cars were 4 cars still! I think the day after there was another time where it was a 150! What do you think a TFW liveried and interior would look like? Hopefully, TFW do refurbish their mk4s so that it’s not just ex LNER and ex grand central! Thanks again for the vid GWVillager!❤❤

[@GWVillager]

I doubt there will be TfW interiors, but I've heard that the livery will be black with red doors.

[@Pulsarnix]

Having been on one both types of train very recently I agree with this. The Mk4 premier service is absolutely brilliant, with the only problem being their reliability. I still can't decide if the ex-LNER sets or the ex-GC sets are better. The LNER ones might be more comfortable, but the GC ones have a better interior ambience with the brown seats. I'll need to do first class and get a meal next time.

[@Eric_Hunt194]

It's a shame that DRS are unlikely to have spare 68s (if the ex TPE ones go to Chiltern as rumoured) as these are much quicker accelerating than the 67s. They wouldn't have the 110mph top speed, but the acceleration would probably compensate. No doubt some would complain about the noise anyway.

[@Scotty8472]

couldn't they take the 91s from the mk4s as well?

[@True_NOON]

Well theyd need to make a sandwich with a class 19 DX

[@stationshunter]

All I understand there's almost no electrification in Wales.

[@monoonyx]

Lack of spares as well as an extremely expensive heavy overhaul are already why LNER are limiting the miles of the 91s, so Id imagine it wouldnt a worth while investment to pick them up after leaving service on the east coast.

[@Scotty8472]

@@stationshunter I forgot they were Electrics XD

[@stevieinselby]

And do what with them, have a static display of "this is what your train _could_ look like if the government had electrified the railways in Wales"? 😆

[@maerlusiq]

why would they replace 230s, tfw have spent loads on them and they arent on a lease, and it would be politcally unpopular to get rid of new trains

[@SuperLuke2334]

The 93s are trimode... also have batteries!

[@GWVillager]

Ok fair enough. In that case they're even more unique to Stadler!

[@EuroDC1990]

The 197s are nice trains, but woefully inadequate for intercity travel. If the aim was to improve capacity then replacing a 2 car 158/175 with a 2 car 197 (or indeed a 3 car 175 with a 3 car 197) does the opposite. The seats are comfortable enough but for me they're still less comfortable than the 175s. As you say there's lots of wasted space and window alignment is awful. I can't for the life of me understand why we can't get decent window alignment these days, surely it's not beyond the realms of possibility? Good trains, but not good InterCity trains. The Mk4s on the other hand have the best ambience of any train in the UK, they're simply fantastic. My only complaint with them is that legroom is a little limited because the seats, though fairly comfortable, are very bulky. Ultimately what TfW needs (much like TPE and CrossCountry) is a proper intercity fleet of maybe 7 or 8 coach trains which can increase capacity in busy periods, make travel more comfortable and reduce station dwell time, and encourage more people onto the railways.

[@joshlikescola]

195s and 331s have been great for Northern (even if 195s are too short), but the 197 fleet is comical. Completely unsuitable for long distance services. 197s could probably find a place somewhere else on TFWs network - perhaps Manchester to Chester/Wrexham?

[@stevieinselby]

TfW made such a slew of bad decisions when getting the 197s... ℹ Diesel only, and not bi-mode, when many of the routes they will be serving are already partially electrified (Newport to Cardiff, Wolverhampton to International, Manchester Airport to Acton Grange) and further routes are almost certain to be wired up before the units are mid-life (North Wales, South Wales and Wolv-Shrewsbury being the most likely candidates). Particularly inexplicable when as part of the same upgrade programme they _did_ get some bi-mode trains. As you say, I think the Flirts were just too expensive up front, although lifetime ownership costs would look a lot more favourable! ℹ Not going for level boarding, when their acquisition of Flirts and Citylinks suggests that they do consider this to be a serious issue. Again, going for a cheap and cheerful off-the-shelf product has compromised the accessibility of the fleet for the long term. ℹ Having catering facilities on the 2-car units seems like a mistake. A train running a long enough and busy enough route to justify catering shouldn't be using a 2-car set! ℹ That said, having 2-car sets at all seems like a mistake. If they're working on seeing passenger growth then they will need to be able to accommodate that, and apart from on the Heart of Wales that's going to be a problem on 2-car sets. ℹ While the ⅓ - ⅔ door arrangement isn't ideal for long-distance trains, and especially on routes like the Cambrian Coast with frequent stops, we've seen the same setup on Turbostars and Pennines for the last 20+ years without the world ending, and it _does_ make the trains a lot more accessible to people in wheelchairs and with buggies or bikes. On the plus side, they _did_ get the trains specced with end gangways, unlike Northern who didn't bother with them but have been running them doubled up since day 1.

[@WellHelloThere_Donny44]

Lets just hope class 197's are compatible with 231's and 756's

[@GWVillager]

They're not.

[@samuelfitzgerald2025]

The catering cupboards on the 197s is ridiculous, not only taking up a lot of room but also quite unpleasant to sit next to.

[@dylanstrainvideos2712]

First 😎, love transport for wales, love wales 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

[@JackGourdon-je4ze]

GWV, Class 67s can go 125mph like the 43, 91, 220, 221 and 180.

[@GWVillager]

That was their design speed. But they have never reached 125mph in service and are limited to 110mph.

[@JackGourdon-je4ze]

@@GWVillager well according to info about the loco i have seen on instagram, the max speed was 125mph and is then a high speed locomotive. anyways good video!

[@gb9727]

Short answer: yes

[@knownothing5518]

To be frank, when I sit in the 197 seats, I really start loving the 158s more. They have the best seats out of many operators in the UK.

[@mrvwbug4423]

IMHO, TfW should snag the ex-TPE Nova 3 sets and class 68s. That is basically a modernization of what they're currently running. This also brings up the issue where there is a shortage of passenger locomotives in the UK, especially diesels. I suppose if the lines between Holyhead, Cardiff and Crewe are electrified they could pick up ex-LNER class 91s to pull their MkIVs (and make those sets whole again as they were normally hauled by 91s). And I agree, the 197s are total rubbish, the one I rode on last week had a broken toilet and they were originally going to do the entire Holyhead>Cardiff service with no toilet, but managed to find a last minute replacement in Chester. The 158s are better trains despite being over 30 years old.

[@joemercedeschannel196]

Awesome video. I don't really agree on the comfort of the 197's. They are very uncomfortable and the first time when I rode a 197 I was disappointed. Now they do perform decently for shorter journeys but on Regional Services? Well ofc not. They don't really have any upgrade from the previous trains that they are currently replacing (Except the 150 since I hate them)

[@Tom-bs1em]

I used to travel from Chester-Bangor semi-regularly on the 197s - the trolley service never ran, nor did any other features. Often it would be standing room only all the way there because they only used 2 car sets. I got on a class 158 once and it seemed much more spacious

[@thetrainshop]

I think the big issue with the Mk4 sets is them being let down heavily by the 67s. 67s are nearing 30 years of very hard and beat to death service. Honestly, if TfW and Wales at large would be tolerant of the noise, DRS has 68s that have been given up by TPE??

[@josephhughes1498]

Been loving your vids, I wonder if you could ever get someone on who made some decisions that you disagree with and you could have a little debate? For example maybe someone who helped design the train interior at TFW or signed off for on the strictly diesel only trains during a climate crisis. As someone who often gets frustrated at decisions in transport and planning I’m always wanting someone to make me look like a fool and restore my faith in modern Britain 🤣

[@GWVillager]

Unfortunately I don't think I'm quite big enough, but I'd love to have a few conversations with some people too. There is no doubt a lot more competence than is let out, it just seems to be concealed by poor decisions from those who aren't really familiar with the subject.

[@chloechlo-chloeloisespencer]

I really don't know how TfW can justify the operation of the mark 4 trains. 1). 6 vehicles. 2). 2.5 unproductive vehicles (class 67 locomotive, DVT, and buffet/kitchen area). 3). 3.5 productive vehicles, out of 6. 4). 1 x full (48 seats) First Class vehicle. (Spectacularly generous for a regional service. Consider that a 9 coach GWR IET only has just over 1 coach, or 70 First Class seats, but operates on Inter-City services serving London). 5). 2.5 coaches (out of a total of 6), Standard Class seating. 6). About the equivalent capacity of a 2 coach class 158, or 175 DMU. 7). Either TfW, the Welsh Assembly, (or both), must have money to burn.

[@TheGreatUnwashedThing]

I must admit I’m in completely the opposite mindset about the 197s and 67s - the former are really good, their main flaw being being that they are 2/3 sets instead 3/4 sets, while the latter are basically totally useless due to their atrocious reliability and timekeeping. They’re okay as tourist trains effectively but for anything where punctuality is really important, they are far below the 197s.

[@Andrewjg_89]

They look ok to be honest. Since they were cascaded from LNER. But they still are very good trains.

[@jos4669]

The 67+MK4 sets just aren’t suitable for the cardiff - manchester services in their current form. They really need a *proper* limited stop intercity service, which the 67s are far more suited for mechanically.

[@silverfox2358]

It should be made illegal to with draw the class 37 as they are the only loco that has passed the test of reliability and they should of been updated upgraded and continue building more of them.

[@MervynPartin]

The 197 does sound like a horse designed by committee- a TfW/Senedd camel. I may be wrong, but I suspect that, as is often the case, nobody talks to the end users, the passengers (and drivers) before the designs are finalised. Without the DfT sticking their nose in, then the trains should have been almost perfect. I remember when trains had simple toilets that worked, not a high tech, expensive cupboard that remains locked out of use. Who thought up the catering trolley storage? Trains have run without them before. As for seat alignment with windows, a Pacer was much better so no excuse. I've never travelled on a Mk4 but they look quite good, even comfortable. A pity about the class 67s, but there are ex-BR diesel locos still running well today, so having abandoned British manufacturing of locos, buying everything from abroad hasn't worked out as well as promised. As regards North Wales electrification not benefiting the diesel-only 197s, I doubt that it will make a difference, because I also doubt whether it will happen. The (London) government have made lots of promises, but reneged on most of them, sometimes within 24 hours.

[@holnrew]

The 197s were built in Newport at a new factory, big reason they were chosen. Also the old toilets that just worked dumped sewage on the lines, which isn't very nice for track workers

[@MervynPartin]

@@holnrewI understand what you are saying. However, retention toilets have been around for some time. The point that I wished to make is that all the extra add-ons like power doors, electronic locks, sensor controlled taps, etc., are points of failure. I firmly believe in simplicity. The factory in Newport was also, as you said, a (political) reason that they were chosen. Quite reasonable, but the interiors could still have been designed better before assembly.

[@stevieinselby]

One of the reasons that window alignment is usually worse these days is that the trains have much thicker pillars to improve the structural integrity and crashworthiness. It isn't that Pacers had better window alignment, it's that the pillars were so narrow that you didn't notice or mind if there was one in your view. Toilets need to be fully accessible (at least one per train), but that comes with certain costs. Also if the problem is that the retention tank is full, that's a lot better than the old practice of just dumping the dumps 💩 straight onto the track. Yes, I can confirm the Mk4s are very nice to ride in - they used to make the journey from Yorkshire down to London or up to Edinburgh a real pleasure, definitely a nicer feel to them than the IETs.

[@spiritofcantaolisboa-p8871]

Is incredible how emotional railways enthusiasts are when describing the Mark 4 sets interiors as EXCELLENT and very comfortable , when is terribly obvious the lack of leg room between Standard Class seats on Airline configuration.😳 For me class 175 had the Best Standard Class seating so far in the whole Transport For Wales fleet. Wish Mark 4 sets could be retrofitted with those seats instead. That woul be the cherry on top of the cake.😉

[@WalesRails]

Aside from local branch services in West Wales and the Cambrian line, TFW plan to never operate 197s on their own but in 4 & 5 car sets, the economics of this are worth scrutiny. 4 Cars of Class 197 (2 units) cost TfW £9.5 million, 4 Cars of Class 231(1 unit) cost TfW just £6.9 million. These figures are from the publicly available copy of the Manufacturer Supply Agreement. I am willing to bet that TfW could have purchased 5 Car Class 231s (Maximum length available), for a very comparable cost to 4 car set of 197s. Imagine the insane flexibility of being able to couple 2 together to form 10 car units for match days ect.

[@WalesRails]

Not to mention each and every 197 that is being fitted with ETCS, CAF is charging £411,000 extra per unit for that privilege. Stadler FLIRTS have ETCS provisions to boot and are apparently quite plug and play in enabling it.

[@GWVillager]

This is extremely interesting, thank you. Have you got a link to the Manufacturer Supply Agreement? I suppose the main issue raised by this is that the FLIRTs are relatively low capacity - a 4 car 755/4 (which would probably be closer in spec to the theoretical regional TfW FLIRT) has 202 seats compared to a 4 car 197’s 232. A 5-car would solve this problem, of course, and this would come to 95.92m in length - remarkably, slightly shorter than the 96.1m of a 4-car 197.

[@eyybabyj1397]

i use these trains a lot and everybody says the exact same thing.. way too much wasted space which results in a lot of people standing and terrible window alignment

[@michaelpoole587]

CAF Trams have had tro have new sides, so bad

[@captainwilde5393]

I've travelled on a few Class 197s over the past year, and I'll be brutally honest - I hate them. A few of them have ended up vibrating quite a lot, one to the point it felt like it was about to shake itself apart, and I've also had two breakdowns back-to-back. The seats too, while alright for short journeys, are overall not the nicest - last week as of writing this I was on a two and a half hour train to Cardiff and the seat started feeling quite stiff about an hour and a half into the trip. Not much of a fan of how they look either, with their matte colour schemes and angular front they look to me like giant toys, like they should be made of plastic rather than metal

[@huwprice881]

Travelled from Rhyl to Shrewsbury on a 197. What a heap of junk. The overhead panels were rattling loudly, the toilet was closed, the bogies were making a hell of a racket and the train was bouncing and shaking. It was taken out of service at Chester and we had the luxury of a nice comfy, quiet class 159 for the rest of the journey. Really disappointing, cheap and nasty trains.

[@thenewsonatrain]

158s will almost definitely outlive 197s

[@richardwilcock2942]

I find the ride of the 197s over the bogies very jittery. Also noisy. No improvement as the 195.

[@richardwilcock2942]

Should add the Passenger information system rarely works and the toilet information just tells you in which car the toilet is in not which end it is at. Getting the 3 car 197s into service has taken ages. As someone said the 197 is a commuter train used for regional service whilst the Stadler flirt is a regional train used for commuter services - wrong way round surely? North Wales eelctrification would allow some 197s to be replaces and North West trains could run the London Crewe service to Chester and beyond.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

Stadler FLIRTs are to heavy for some of the routes the 197s work. The class 73s are bi-mode locos built by English Electric. The 230s would be more reliable if the diesel car engines where replaced by GWR fast charge system.

[@lordcustard-smythe-smith9153]

If you think that's bad try the Heart of Wales line......

[@michaeljohndennis2231]

What is most needed is more direct services from Manchester Victoria to Holyhead on SailRail, timed to meet ferry check-in and arrival times at Holyhead, without having to change trains at Chester, Crewe & Lladnuo - if operating from Manchester Piccadilly, using platforms 1-10 only, not platforms 13 & 14 and making a call at Deansgate Castlefield - and TfW, please stop with the lame excuses, passengers don’t want to hear excuses, just get it done

[@stevieinselby]

All very well but a lot of the ferry operators across the Irish Sea have a habit of ignoring the needs or wishes of foot passengers entirely. They carry them under sufferance because they've got no justification for _not_ doing so, but the money comes from vehicular traffic so that is where all their attention goes. That includes things like moving the terminal from Stranraer to Cairnryan, and I've heard of other ferries being retimed to avoid connecting with the trains and no attempt made at joint planning or communicating with the railways to enable to those connections to be maintained.

[@michaeljohndennis2231]

@@stevieinselby this also partly explains why plans for a high speed rail tunnel under the Irish Sea between Holyhead and Dublin is being constantly shelved, even in these days of climate change, why coach routes from Leeds and Manchester to Dublin via Holyhead were withdrawn, why the Welsh Government insists on changing trains at Chester and Lladnuo, why Liverpool is unfriendly towards foot passengers entirely, even as the Irish government plans to follow EU climate change rules post Brexit and ban shorthaul flights between the U.K. and Ireland, why ships can’t sail further up the Liffey and why no effort has been made to connect Dublin Port to Dublin City Centre after its expansion to take cruise ships, after Dun Laoire port was closed to SailRail - this is a total mess and someone needs to take charge and direct control of this situation, issuing the orders and commands that are required

[@stevieinselby]

@@michaeljohndennis2231 The main reason that plans for a rail tunnel under the Irish Sea have been shelved is that there isn't a strong business case for any one route. Unlike the English Channel, where there was a huge concentration of ferry traffic around Folkestone, Dover and other ports nearby, because it was the shortest crossing point _and_ on a reasonably direct route from London to Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and other key destinations, nowhere on the Irish Sea has that same critical mass. The _shortest_ crossing would be from Kintyre to Antrim, but Kintyre takes longer to get to from London than Kinshasa - heck, it's a 3 hour drive from Glasgow! Mostly on a route with no railway - so it would be precious little use to anyone. Next shortest is from the Stranraer area to Larne/Bangor near Belfast ... but Stranraer isn't an easy place to get to. The existing railway to Glasgow is painfully slow and not easy to upgrade, and building a new fast line across to Carlisle for connections across England would be an *extremely* challenging and expensive prospect and you would still be looking at a 4 hour journey time from London to the tunnel, 5 hours to Belfast absolute minimum. So perhaps a better alternative would be from Holyhead to Dublin, but that's a *much* longer crossing, about 60 miles of water, which would make it a very expensive tunnel (and there are considerable engineering challenges that were not present going under the English Channel) ... but then you would have to upgrade the North Wales mainline. Current semi-fast trains take 2 hours just to get to Crewe, which would be too slow, but the line has basically no passing loops on the 80 miles from Chester to Holyhead so in between regular local and semi-fast trains you would struggle to fit in a proper "fast" train (I say "fast" but much of the line is only 75mph). And not to mention that if you are trying to link the *UK* capitals, you've missed by 100 miles because you've reached landfall in Ireland, not Northern Ireland, and they have a different track gauge so you can't even run the train through to Belfast without building an entirely new dedicated line.

[@michaeljohndennis2231]

@@stevieinselbythis is the very reason why an external body such as those from China, Taiwan or Japan needs to take unfettered, unrestricted, complete and direct control of the U.K. railways with the relevant laws being passed in Parliament to facilitate this and bring the railways up to or exceed appropriate international standards in terms of efficiency, standards of passenger service, value for money and low cost - there are way too many deadlocks and sectional interests which must be broken and only by strong and draconian laws being passed in Parliament can this ever happen

[@garethwilliams976]

I travel from Llandudno Junction to Manchester Piccadilly on class 197s and have the following comments. I find the seats fine for the first hour but very uncomfortable on a 2 hour journey. This being an Aiport service the large luggage storage is woefully inadequate resulting in cases blocking the aisles. The units are excruciatingly noisy which makes travelling on them tiresome. Lastly I find the onboard announcements dreadfully irritating in that so much is unnecessary repetition. Why not just tell people where the train is going and what the next stop is? Forget the 'welcome aboard' and 'thank you for travelling' bit. - now and again OK but not 13 times on my journey (26 if you are bilingual as I am! Truly irritating.

[@jasongnrfan7374]

All the 197s should have been 3 car units

[@davidcurlegb]

having attempted to catch a train from Manchester to Cardiff , first class each time, 4 times without reaching my destination I have now given up with the trains. 1st time 2 153 replace the loco and stock having bought a first class ticket, This was full and standing, gave up went by car. But you can have a refund. 2nd arrived at Manchester to find the train to Cardiff starting at Crewe due to late running. Got on the first train to Crewe arrived at Crewe as a 150 pulled out for Cardiff instead of the loco and stock. waited for the next one 2 153s full and standing. gave up went back to Manchester and took the car, but you can have a refund 3rd time train cancelled, went by car. But you can have a refund 4th time 2 153s again, full and standing at Manchester, got off at Stockport went and got the car, But you can have refund. So why bother, I will not use Transport for Wales again. There loss my gain.

[@GWVillager]

That’s very unlucky. They are usually more reliable than that.

[@michaelpoole587]

Class 196 which we have on Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury line, Rubbish

[@Suliplayz5264]

Calling a 197 an intercity train seems ridiculous but then you have to remember how neglected Welsh railways are

[@colinlambert882]

How do they do it? Surely regional expresses, require good ride quality, vestibules for reduced noise and comfort, just like the 159s? Even more brilliant is that two car trains have 116 seats, hopelessly aligned with the windows, replacing 136 in class 175s! How on earth do you design a train with just one toilet, with no redundancy for when it’s out of service? Surely the standard should be one WC per coach, as with the 158/159s? Why is the step up so ridiculously high? Buying cheaper trains, without the possibility of bimode operation saves money but clearly build quality is awful in terms of rattling loose parts. The story of the unreliability of class 67s, not designed for frequent stop start, means that lessons are never learnt. Back in the 1980s class 50s were always breaking down on the Waterloo to Exeter service for the same reason and causing horrendous delays when stuck on a single line section, until replaced by class 159. But of course TfS knows better.

[@HSTHoward]

The MK4 sets are far superior to the 197s, far better for passengers.

[@KelsenTaylor-z1o]

Walker Locks

[@liverpooltrains]

to me the class 230 is better than class 197

[@EdgyNumber1]

Nope!! Should used Stadler FLIRT trainsets.

[@BrittaAmore-p5q]

Torp Plain

[@stationshunter]

Their cheese is good.

[@gwrydd]

da iawn. diolch yn fawr iawn am y fideo hwn.

[@justinhamilton497]

Got, not gotten.

[@GWVillager]

I prefer to use the American “gotten” when talking about dynamic situations, it provides a useful clarification and I am not opposed to foreign linguistic innovations (of course, though, gotten is the original form in British English, it just fell out of fashion in the 18th Century), if they are not damaging to communication. Quite the opposite, in this case. I generally find corrections that serve no purpose beyond enforcing convention tiresome and pedantic, but in instances where I have said something that could lead to genuine confusion, I welcome clarification. Please, if you do notice any, however, let me know of the timestamp and specific phrase.

[@DonaldTrumpIsGreat]

Class 67s and MK4s Are Good 👍