Could/should the layout of the Class 197 be tweaked a bit?

[Bletchleyite]

This was prompted by the Llandudno branch going to 2 car on the start of the Liverpool service, which I believe will itself be phenomenally popular and thus 2 car will be a bit tight.

Thus how could the 197s be cheaply changed so they are better able to deal with crowds and large amounts of luggage as are certain to come up in summer? Stuff like new seats is out because that's costly.

My first suggestion would be getting rid of the "catering cupboard" nonsense. It just isn't needed, and could be used to add either standing room, 4 more seats or a large luggage rack (or a combination thereof).

Based on experience of Northern's 195s which are broadly similar (though a bit lower density) and are almost as good at crush loads as Thameslink 700s despite the wider seat spacing with armrests, the main thing that would help would be removing a few rows of seats to create standbacks by the doors? You could also possibly get away with slightly reducing the pitch as it's quite generous to help create those stand backs, though because of the short centre section (doors are actually at thirds, rather than the quarters more common with 23-24m DMUs) you'd not be able to get an extra row in in the way some 170s did.

Might it be an option to turn some seats sideways to give a Tube like layout in a couple of areas to again allow more standees?

If some seats were removed, you could use them to convert "first class" to normal Standard in the units that have it, given that that has been abandoned. That would gain a few seats.

This document:

https://tfw.wales/sites/default/files/2022-01/Fleet%20Access%20Specification_English_V1.pdf

...includes a seating plan, which I reproduce below:



Image is an overhead plan of a 3 car Class 197 unit with first class (the document contains the other layouts too).

 

[Krokodil]

My first suggestion would be getting rid of the "catering cupboard" nonsense. It just isn't needed, and could be used to add either standing room, 4 more seats or a large luggage rack (or a combination thereof).

The question has been asked and the answer was "can't be done". It's been integrated into the bodyshell or something stupid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The question has been asked and the answer was "can't be done". It's been integrated into the bodyshell or something stupid.

A similar situation exists with the guard's office on the 350/1s (installed because SWT didn't traditionally have guards sit in the back cab when not patrolling the train, and the 350/1s were diverted from an order of 450s originally for SWT). With these they weren't able to remove the full framework but were able to remove enough of it to usefully insert a luggage rack, a bit like the shop conversions on Voyagers. I'd expect with some thought and design work the same could be achieved - or at least just remove the doors from the cupboards so luggage can be shoved in instead (though I'm conscious of the need for risk assessments surrounding whether it might fall out).

Often "can't" is an excuse for "won't" of course.

 

[Topological]

Ultimately, TfW need more 197s.

The catering cupboard and 1st class sections are both poor pieces of planning. At least the first class could be removed if there were more seats available. Maybe moving some from the other parts of the train would work.

I like the idea of making the catering cupboard into a luggage rack. There must be a way to make the structural part work.

The 197 is a really suitable train for the routes TfW operate. Just needs enough of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The catering cupboard and 1st class sections are both poor pieces of planning. At least the first class could be removed if there were more seats available. Maybe moving some from the other parts of the train would work.

Having just looked at the above seating plan again, if you removed the Standard seats nearest each doorway to create a stand back there would be enough seats to replace all the first class ones.

You may want to remove them only on one side though that would still give you plenty as there are more units without First than with it.

 

[Topological]

Having just looked at the above seating plan again, if you removed the Standard seats nearest each doorway to create a stand back there would be enough seats to replace all the first class ones.

You may want to remove them only on one side though that would still give you plenty as there are more units without First than with it.

And presumably if you were to remove seats in the 2-cars they could also be donated to the former first class areas.

I do enjoy the occasional trip in the declassified section, but I am not so selfish as not to recognise it would be better without that section.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And presumably if you were to remove seats in the 2-cars they could also be donated to the former first class areas.

I do enjoy the occasional trip in the declassified section, but I am not so selfish as not to recognise it would be better without that section.

Because of the 1+1 bits by the doorways/cabs, converting it to Standard even at the same generous pitch would add 8 seats, which is significant. You could probably squash the seats up and add luggage racks, too.

 

[43096]

A similar situation exists with the guard's office on the 350/1s (installed because SWT didn't traditionally have guards sit in the back cab when not patrolling the train, and the 350/1s were diverted from an order of 450s originally for SWT). With these they weren't able to remove the full framework but were able to remove enough of it to usefully insert a luggage rack, a bit like the shop conversions on Voyagers.

But SWR managed to remove the guard’s office on their 450s…

 

[Russel]

But SWR managed to remove the guard’s office on their 450s…

And the buffets on the 444s, if I remember correctly?

I don't buy the "It can't be removed, it's structurally integral" argument regarding the catering cupboard, no one actually seems to know why, or how, I think the issue is more, "It would cost money."...

 

[mmh]

And the buffets on the 444s, if I remember correctly?

I don't buy the "It can't be removed, it's structurally integral" argument regarding the catering cupboard, no one actually seems to know why, or how, I think the issue is more, "It would cost money."...

Yes, that does feel like codswallop. However, what do you do with a part of the train with no windows? They're desperately short of luggage space, but you want that to be distributed throughout the train, not just at one end.

It's also only a minority of 3 car sets that have the "first class" section so spending money removing that isn't going to make much of a difference.

 

[Russel]

Yes, that does feel like codswallop. However, what do you do with a part of the train with no windows? They're desperately short of luggage space, but you want that to be distributed throughout the train, not just at one end.

It's also only a minority of 3 car sets that have the "first class" section so spending money removing that isn't going to make much of a difference.

Does is not have a window, it looks like it does from the outside, just blanked off, in the same way the Pendolinos had hidden windows in the buffet hidden behind fridges that were brought into use after the refurb...

 

[43096]

And the buffets on the 444s, if I remember correctly?

I don't buy the "It can't be removed, it's structurally integral" argument regarding the catering cupboard, no one actually seems to know why, or how, I think the issue is more, "It would cost money."...

I’m not buying the “it’s structural” argument. Even the most incompetent train builder (so CAF, Hitachi…) doesn’t have a trolley store as a structural item, especially when the bodyshell is all bit identical to trains without such a feature. I think you are bang on with the money comment - TfW don’t want to admit that they have screwed up and that it will cost to fix it.