Could TfW expand the Class 197 fleet?

[anthony263]

Maybe someone should ask CAF or stadler if tbey can build a rake of mk5A/M6 carriages with DVTs/DBSO and have 12 or 13 rakes of 6
5/6 carriages with bi mode locos say class 99s.

Order enough rakes to run an hourly Swansea to Manchester Piccadilly service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to milford haven. The workings which terminate at Swansea every 2 hours should be loco hauled and possibly stabled at landore.

Should also have enough rakes to reinstate the additional loco hauled services to Holyhead before tfw scrapped them.in favour to use more loco hauled rakes on Manchesters

 

[amahy]

I would disagree. First is still a growing product for TFW and has seen growth since it was introduced. There is more and more social media coverage from various outlets promoting the product. It just needs refining to become more sustainable. IF a consistent hourly Swansea - Manchester service does happen, the cost of providing the on board chef would probably far outweigh the return on so many services. A standard plus sized First would be quite a small offering. Realistically and on board cafe with sufficient, and comfortable, seating upgrades should be available in a First product. The offering on GWR's HST's was far superior to the current First offering on the IETs.

In my opinion putting more 197's in to replace the Mk4's would not be a suitable replacement for the aspiration of a decent long distance product.

There's 7 Mk4's currently, who knows if the 8th will ever appear. If my workings are right a replacement to make Swansea - Manchester work would require 11, say 13 for having spares. 13 new trains would free up enough to solve most of the rest of the fleet replacing TFW needs to do, with maybe the addition of some more carriages for longer trains meaning the maintenance regime for CAF stays as it is.

This seems to be the most sensible solution.

Running an hourly through service from Manchester to West Wales would be great on a perfect railway, where nothing went wrong and everything ran to time. But the reality is that such a service is disastrous in terms of punctuality, with several single track sections, and major bottlenecks such as Crewe. Demand west of Swansea/Carmarthen is also much lower than on the Marches section, and joining and dividing creates further opportunities for things to go wrong.

I don't think this is true any more. I saw it last weekend and it was heaving. With the loss of the parallel bus service, but also with the upgrade in quality the 197s bring, it seems to be getting busier all the time. A three-car unit would no longer be overkill for most of the year now.

In my experience, it's all pile off at Betws-Y-Coed going south, and all pile on at Betws-Y-Coed going north on the Conwy Valley. Perhaps instead of a 3 car 197 running the existing service, a second diagram could run between Llandudno and Betws-Y-Coed, with both diagrams as 2 car 197s? A 3 car 197 would carry mostly fresh air south of Betws-Y-Coed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was surprised I was the only person to get off at Llanrwst - nobody alighted or boarded before I did, so it'd appear leisure demand is very high and everyone else was headed for Betws or Blaenau.

On Sunday Betws wasn't looking entirely unlike a London commuter station. It's great to see it to be honest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Mar 2026 ==

In my experience, it's all pile off at Betws-Y-Coed going south, and all pile on at Betws-Y-Coed going north on the Conwy Valley. Perhaps instead of a 3 car 197 running the existing service, a second diagram could run between Llandudno and Betws-Y-Coed, with both diagrams as 2 car 197s? A 3 car 197 would carry mostly fresh air south of Betws-Y-Coed.

I've long thought this, even as far as suggesting (in another thread) truncating most or all services there, but they actually have very similar passenger numbers per annum. I suspect the reason it's not so visible is that it's at a different time of day/week.

Betws in 2024/5: 52,838
Blaenau in 2024/5: 47,240

Interestingly these figures are both about 8K more than last year. They're hardly Euston, but that's a big proportional increase.

Sure, a 3 car might be a bit quiet south of Betws on a Saturday/Sunday, but there are plenty of cases of that. MKC-Euston stoppers are quite empty north of Tring yet nobody is suggesting dropping them.

 

[mmh]

On Sunday Betws wasn't looking entirely unlike a London commuter station. It's great to see it to be honest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Mar 2026 ==



I've long thought this, even as far as suggesting (in another thread) truncating most or all services there, but they actually have very similar passenger numbers per annum. I suspect the reason it's not so visible is that it's at a different time of day/week.

Betws in 2024/5: 52,838
Blaenau in 2024/5: 47,240

Interestingly these figures are both about 8K more than last year. They're hardly Euston, but that's a big proportional increase.

Sure, a 3 car might be a bit quiet south of Betws on a Saturday/Sunday, but there are plenty of cases of that. MKC-Euston stoppers are quite empty north of Tring yet nobody is suggesting dropping them.

I think this is spot on. There'll almost certainly be "locals flows" on the line, which will be at different times in the opposite direction to the "tourist/leisure flows."

As you've said earlier, the withdrawal of (all but one of) the buses via the A470, and the appalling service down the other side of the valley will be a factor. Pre-Covid era, there was a circa 11pm 19 bus from Llandudno to Llanrwst which was packed, and not just at weekends. The 19 service is now awful, with a last southbound bus at about half six, and the route no longer serves either local or tourist needs - hence me being the sole "commuter" yesterday (I was going to an office, I doubt anybody else was!)

I have no idea what is or isn't feasible, but the single up/down service just feels like nobody's bothered trying. There's a passing loop which as far as I know hasn't been used by a passenger train in decades - which makes me wonder what might be possible if using it was considered.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Sorry to go against your wishes, but short forming is not a “conspiracy”. It’s a very real problem faced by many commuters up and down the country. What is a conspiracy, is that long fixed formation multiple units create availability issues. Avanti, Thameslink, and Elizabeth Line all have large fleets of long, fixed formation trains, and none have big issues with their fleets.

No comment.

Talking about the 197 issue, it would be unwise to reward CAF, a company with a track record of building poor quality trains, with more train orders full stop, let alone 197s, which are some of their worst trains, in my opinion. The 231s and 756s are far superior in almost every way.

I agree. But we ought to consider if they are so cheap that they are value for money. But being diesel mechanical counts against them in the long term future.

Except one very key one - fuel tank capacity. This makes them unsuitable for TfW's longer distance routes, and it isn't an easy one to solve as it's due to limited space in the "power pod" vs. the ability to put a much larger tank under the floor of each vehicle.

How do the 755s in Anglia cope ?. Does the amount of electrification there help ?.

2 car is still sufficient for a lot of TFW's routes.
Bidston (As replacement for 230's) (3)
Conwy Valley. 3 car would be overkill even if some summer services would see people standing.
Shrewsbury-Crewe
Newport - Ebbw Vale (2)
Quieter West Wales services, such as Fishguard (3-4)
Heart of Wales (As replacement for 153's) (5)

Your looking at 16 just as single working units.


TFW don't actually operate many 4 car 197 workings anymore. Most are 5 car on South Wales to Manchester and only two sets of 5 car diagrams North Wales to Manchester.Any others would be on routes not meant for 197's currently, the odd Maesteg to Ebbw Vale see's 4 car and the current 197's covering Birmingham for lack of 158s.


Already discussed at great length, the 231 and 756 range is limiting. When the 231's do move to the mainline they will displace the current 197's on those routes that were never meant to be there.
The only other routes they could displace more 197's from South to North would be Bristol to West Wales, which the Stadlers wouldn't have the range for without wiring further West.


Unlikely. The Mk4's are on borrowed time and will need replacing soon.



TFW are now 7 years into the franchise and I don't think anyone can argue that things haven't improved. So much so it's clear to see passenger confidence is returning to Wales and Borders Railways. Demand is up. Previously services on the Marches were lucky to get a 3 car 175, and it was seen as sufficient. These days even a 3 car can struggle on normal days. Similar with North Wales to Manchester.

I believe additional carriages should be ordered to lengthen units in this way:

North Wales - Manchester - More services should be 4 car instead of the current 3 cars, with the odd 5 car.
Liverpool - Llandudno - These should all be 3 car instead of a mix of 2 and 3 car.
Cardiff - Holyhead - Should all be 4 car.
West Wales - Cardiff/Bristol - Should all be minimum 3 car instead of the current 2 car.
Cambrian Coast - Should all be 3 car instead of 2 car.


The question should be though, what is TFW's future fleet plans?

I don't believe more 197's are needed, just additional carriages to lengthen current units.
It's the Mk4's that need replacing and I believe they should be replaced by a standard 5/6 car bi-mode with enough to provide a consistent hourly Swansea - Manchester product.

Currently Cardiff/Swansea - Manchester requires 19 trains, consisting of 5 Mk4's, 5x 3 car 197s and 9x 2 car 197's.
Obviously a bit more complicated to work out because of the 2 cars working to West Wales and Mk4's to Holyhead and layover time.

By my workings a consistent Swansea - Manchester all day service should require 11 new units. That in theory should free up 12-14 197's to go elsewhere.
Those 9 two cars would be taken up by replacing 153's and 230's, leaving the 5 three cars to pick up any remaining West Wales work. That means extra capacity is still required in North Wales which could be achieved by ordering more carriages instead of more units.
It also doesn't put extra pressure on CAF having to maintain more trains, rather than just longer ones.

I seem to recall a limit at Chester is siding space. Also adding a coach means more work to do and so more time in the sheds (assuming the extra coaches still have an engine under them).

I am inclined to see replacement of the Mk4s with something specific for the Swansea - Manchester route and other non-Mk4 services on the same route. That would allow a cascade of existing 197s.

The 67s can barely cope but what would a 68 be like with the existing length (or longer) Mk4 rakes ?.

As regards lengthening 197s. If so few services are 4car then perhaps more 2car units is more flexible. If the longest services are 5car then making more 2car 197s into 3car units might not work out. Really depends if platform length is becoming a limitation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do the 755s in Anglia cope ?. Does the amount of electrification there help ?.

They operate local and regional services, not pretty much the entire length of Wales in one go.

 

[Caaardiff]

I seem to recall a limit at Chester is siding space. Also adding a coach means more work to do and so more time in the sheds (assuming the extra coaches still have an engine under them).

Additional coaches doesn't increase the maintenance regime, it just increases the work required on a unit already being maintained.

CAF can turn a 2 car around in the same stop period as a 3 car.

3x 2 car trains is the same number of carriages as 2x 3 car trains, but in terms of maintenance regime, it will take 3 planned maintenance periods to do the work on the 2 car trains vs 2 planned maintenance periods to do the 3 car trains. Each unit will have an overnight or an all day exam required, the more units you have, the more space and staff you need to maintain them. If you don't have the space and staff, you stretch the plans to ensure they get maintained within the required times, until that's not possible.

 

[Peter Sarf]

They operate local and regional services, not pretty much the entire length of Wales in one go.

How about West of Swansea ?.

Although I am thinking are lots of short workings adding up to the same fuel requirement as fewer longer workings. But perhaps no chance of refuelling in the middle of the day on a longer working.

Additional coaches doesn't increase the maintenance regime, it just increases the work required on a unit already being maintained.

CAF can turn a 2 car around in the same stop period as a 3 car.

3x 2 car trains is the same number of carriages as 2x 3 car trains, but in terms of maintenance regime, it will take 3 planned maintenance periods to do the work on the 2 car trains vs 2 planned maintenance periods to do the 3 car trains. Each unit will have an overnight or an all day exam required, the more units you have, the more space and staff you need to maintain them. If you don't have the space and staff, you stretch the plans to ensure they get maintained within the required times, until that's not possible.

I suppose it means 50% extra staff working on the 3car unit compared to the 2car unit.

Has the overall limit been reached at Chester ?.
Some posts way back suggested exceeded.

 

[mmh]

I seem to recall a limit at Chester is siding space. Also adding a coach means more work to do and so more time in the sheds (assuming the extra coaches still have an engine under them).

If depot space is a problem, expand the depot. If that's not possible, build another one. TFW's routes aren't exactly short of empty space around them.

As regards lengthening 197s. If so few services are 4car then perhaps more 2car units is more flexible. If the longest services are 5car then making more 2car 197s into 3car units might not work out. Really depends if platform length is becoming a limitation.

Platform length is certainly not a problem on the North Wales coast - most stations would probably fit a 12 car 197. We have SDO now too, much to the benefit of Flint where previously only single Voyagers would stop at, now 10 car 800s do.

The problem is simply trains with fewer seats than people, and seemingly random allocation of units. The Sunday morning Holyhead to Cardiff train I get every week can be anything between 2 and 6 car. When it's short, people are often left behind and have to be mopped up by the following Avanti (if they've bothered to run it that week)

 

[amahy]

I agree. But we ought to consider if they are so cheap that they are value for money. But being diesel mechanical counts against them in the long term future.

I'd like to ask what the benefits are of a train being cheap? 197s are unreliable, and poor for passengers (rough riding, harsh interior lighting, barely functioning air-con, faulty toilets). I am not an expert on the subject, but I wasn't aware of the 197s being much cheaper to lease than other DMUs. Fares on 197 operated services are not lower than others either. So it seems that the only benefit, is to the greedy ROSCOs!

 

[pokemonsuper9]

They operate local and regional services, not pretty much the entire length of Wales in one go.

Greater Anglia publish their diagrams, and taking a look there are some diagrams, such as NC 620 copied below, which spends almost the entirety of its 600 mile day on diesel, without taking on fuel at any point (I'm not sure what the fuel column is for, it doesn't seem to be clarified).
Looking at TfW's diagrams for May to September, there are many diagrams with around 600 or 700 miles. Most of these go to Manchester once if not twice, and such would have a significant mileage under wires as well (over 60 per round trip to Manchester).

DECEMBER 2025
Greater Anglia Crown Point Unit Diagrams
Sunday 14 December 2025 to Saturday 16 May 2026
Printed on 21/07/2025 Page 18
NC 620 Class 755/4
Days SO
From 20/12/2025
To 16/05/2026
Type LTP
Off
Arrive P Depart P Code Route Coupled Leg Fuel Mileage
Colchester CS 05+30 5E70 0.38 0.31 0.38
Colchester 05+35 2 05.40 2 2E70 17.09 0.31 17.47
Ipswich 05.57½ 3A 06.00 3A 2E70 81.26 69.42 98.73
Peterborough 07.39 6 07.52 6 2L71 81.26 133.25 179.99
Ipswich 09.27 4B 10.16 4B 2D74 48.94 181.37 228.93
Lowestoft 11.42 2 11.48 2 2J75 23.51 204.60 252.44
Norwich 12.32 6 12.45 6 2S18 26.65 230.73 279.09
Cromer 13.26½ 1 13.30½ 1 2S18 3.76 234.34 282.85
Sheringham 13.39 13.43 2S17 3.76 237.95 286.61
Cromer 13.50½ 2 13.54½ 2 2S17 26.65 263.89 313.26
Norwich 14.38 5 14.58 5 2J80 23.51 287.13 336.77
Lowestoft 15.37 2 16.06 2 2D89 48.94 335.36 385.71
Ipswich 17.33 1 18.20 1 2W26 55.60 378.63 441.31
Cambridge 19.39 5 19.45 5 2A48 55.60 421.76 496.91
Ipswich 21.00 3A 21.01 3A 2A48 19.15 421.76 516.06
Harwich Int 21.24 1 21.38 1 2D98 18.00 421.76 534.06
Ipswich 22.03 3B 22.15½ 3B 2D98 48.94 469.88 583.00
Lowestoft 23.41 2 23+47 2 5D98 23.51 493.26 606.51
Norwich 00+24 5A 00+37 5 5J99 620(1)\613(2) 0.48 494.00 606.99
Crown Point 00+47
Loaded 582.62
Works Empty 24.37
Total 606.99

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about West of Swansea ?.

They could work Swansea-Pembroke as a connection, but we aren't really talking about units for that as the 2 car 197s can handle it fine.

 

[Peter Sarf]

They could work Swansea-Pembroke as a connection, but we aren't really talking about units for that as the 2 car 197s can handle it fine.

Ah. So a 3car Flirt might be overkill to free up some 197s West of Swansea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah. So a 3car Flirt might be overkill to free up some 197s West of Swansea.

A 3 car FLIRT is about the same as a 2 car 24m DMU for capacity, so you could do that, but I'm not sure there's a need to unseat 197s from there specifically.

 

[Topological]

I'd like to ask what the benefits are of a train being cheap? 197s are unreliable, and poor for passengers (rough riding, harsh interior lighting, barely functioning air-con, faulty toilets). I am not an expert on the subject, but I wasn't aware of the 197s being much cheaper to lease than other DMUs. Fares on 197 operated services are not lower than others either. So it seems that the only benefit, is to the greedy ROSCOs!

As a regular user, I do strongly disagree

Fares via the Marches are much cheaper than via CrossCountry.

A 5-car 197 has more seats than a Mk4 set. Seats are more comfortable than standing.

The only thing the Mk4 gets right is that it still has the old toilets. But, no modern stock is going to give us those so unless the Mk4 get used indefinitely the toilet changes is going to come.

Fare revenue - leasing costs sounds like money for TfW to me in any case.

 

[amahy]

Fares via the Marches are much cheaper than via CrossCountry.

That's a very low bar to compare the Marches to!

A 5-car 197 has more seats than a Mk4 set. Seats are more comfortable than standing.

In practice, there's always the risk of a short form with the 197s, so it's not a 1-to-1 comparison. I've never had issues with having to stand on a 5 car TfW service anyway, no matter the traction type.

Fare revenue - leasing costs sounds like money for TfW to me in any case.

But what is TfW doing with this money? Seemingly, all the revenue generated from 197 operated services on the Marches is going towards funding projects elsewhere, including more expensive, superior stock for passenger comfort, like the 231s and 756s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what is TfW doing with this money? Seemingly, all the revenue generated from 197 operated services on the Marches is going towards funding projects elsewhere, including more expensive, superior stock for passenger comfort, like the 231s and 756s.

"Superior for passenger comfort" is very debatable there. Low floor is a bit of a killer app (though in TfW's case it's probably of more benefit in terms of a manageable step from very low platforms than it is for level boarding - the CAFs are so high that it's a veritable chasm at some), but I find the GA FLIRTs cramped to be honest whereas the 197s feel spacious to me. Seat type is just a matter of personal preference - indeed I dislike Sophias in their original form but the thicker base TfW use is pretty good in my book.

 

[Topological]

That's a very low bar to compare the Marches to!

In practice, there's always the risk of a short form with the 197s, so it's not a 1-to-1 comparison. I've never had issues with having to stand on a 5 car TfW service anyway, no matter the traction type.

But what is TfW doing with this money? Seemingly, all the revenue generated from 197 operated services on the Marches is going towards funding projects elsewhere, including more expensive, superior stock for passenger comfort, like the 231s and 756s.

Low bar? It is the alternative route from Cardiff to Manchester. Fares on CrossCountry are much more expensive. Of course Marches tickets can be valid via Birmingham, so there is something of a mix in the pricing.

Try 1W11 between Crewe and Manchester, or many of the services leaving Manchester in the evenings.

You are right about the shortform though. Failure means the Mk4s just down turn up. Except when you are completely wrong about the shortform, because a single 197 has to substitute for the Mk4. I was just very lucky that the substitute on 1W11 on Monday was actually a 3+2 197 and in the all Standard setting. Still had standees.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Mar 2026 ==

"Superior for passenger comfort" is very debatable there. Low floor is a bit of a killer app (though in TfW's case it's probably of more benefit in terms of a manageable step from very low platforms than it is for level boarding - the CAFs are so high that it's a veritable chasm at some), but I find the GA FLIRTs cramped to be honest whereas the 197s feel spacious to me. Seat type is just a matter of personal preference - indeed I dislike Sophias in their original form but the thicker base TfW use is pretty good in my book.

Agree. The TfW 197 seat is a nice one.

Because I need to be in Manchester at 09:00 this Semester I am on 1W11 a lot. That is a Mk4 diagram and 1st is £2 more so I book first. I get a 4 table to myself all the way into Piccadilly. Lovely stuff. But this week it was a 197 and I was reminded that actually I do like the 197.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes agree about needing to lengthen some 2car 197s, routes such as Cardiff-Cheltenham see regular crowding at times with 2car units.

There is a strong case for routes like this switching to BEMU too (although might need Severn Tunnel Junction- Chepstow electrified). BEMUs could also work to Swansea if say Pencoed to Baglan was wired to give a battery boost.

Well the South Wales metro electrification was being formulated about a decade ago, the idea of having BEMUs doing semi-fast services on mainline wasn't considered.

So yes a few 197 additional centre cars would be useful, but so would some BEMUs for outer suburban from Cardiff, allowing the bimodes to run the further off the wires, part electrified route

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I've never had issues with having to stand on a 5 car TfW service anyway, no matter the traction type.

I have, multiple times (albeit all of which being Mk4s on Stockport - Manchester, but it had definitely been that full earlier, since I barely fit on and I was the only one boarding at that door).

 

[NCT]

Are there realistic procurement avenues for just ordering more 197s? Could CAF be reasonably be expected to economically run a production line for 51 centre cars?

 

[Caaardiff]

Are there realistic procurement avenues for just ordering more 197s? Could CAF be reasonably be expected to economically run a production line for 51 centre cars?

Theres probably a need for less than half of that.

 

[tfw756rider]

I heard there was plans to order additional carriages from CAF to lengthen a number of the two carriage 197s to 3 carriages plus some 197s for the heart fo wales line and additional 398s

I don't mean to be annoying, but, heard where?

 

[dorsetdesiro]

In regards to Wrexham-Bidston, probably more likely 777s replacing the 230s instead of 197s.

There's the potentially complex issue of Merseyrail stock running on "foreign soil" as the Liverpool City region does not apply to Wales unlike TfW in England, as part of Wales & Borders, also managing English stations etc. TfW could order their own TfW livered 777s to run from Wrexham onto the Merseyrail network into Liverpool.

If I got that right, TfW previously expressed interest in running Wales-London services to but weren't permitted? Could have been 197s running down the Chiltern line into Marylebone and into Paddington via Severn tunnel?

 

[tfw756rider]

Greater Anglia publish their diagrams

How did you get to that though?

The only thing the Mk4 gets right is that it still has the old toilets. But, no modern stock is going to give us those so unless the Mk4 get used indefinitely the toilet changes is going to come.

What does that mean?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

How did you get to that though?

It's on their freedom of information page

Freedom Of Information

As a public authority, Greater Anglia is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).

www.greateranglia.co.uk

 

[amahy]

"Superior for passenger comfort" is very debatable there. Low floor is a bit of a killer app (though in TfW's case it's probably of more benefit in terms of a manageable step from very low platforms than it is for level boarding - the CAFs are so high that it's a veritable chasm at some), but I find the GA FLIRTs cramped to be honest whereas the 197s feel spacious to me. Seat type is just a matter of personal preference - indeed I dislike Sophias in their original form but the thicker base TfW use is pretty good in my book.

I agree that 197 interiors are spacious, and the seats are very good, but they're just about the only things they've got going for them, passenger wise. See my previous comments about unreliable air-con, rough riding, harsh lighting, and unreliable toilets.

I've frequently been on 197 operated services, where toilet breaks at stations have had to be organised (credit to the guard for organising these), but this creates other issues, like passengers missing connections due to the delay created by such stops.

 

[anthony263]

In regards to Wrexham-Bidston, probably more likely 777s replacing the 230s instead of 197s.

There's the potentially complex issue of Merseyrail stock running on "foreign soil" as the Liverpool City region does not apply to Wales unlike TfW in England, as part of Wales & Borders, also managing English stations etc. TfW could order their own TfW livered 777s to run from Wrexham onto the Merseyrail network into Liverpool.

If I got that right, TfW previously expressed interest in running Wales-London services to but weren't permitted? Could have been 197s running down the Chiltern line into Marylebone and into Paddington via Severn tunnel?

That was ATW wanting to run Aberystwyth to Marylebone using class 158s years ago and that caused a right kick off

 

[Snow1964]

Going back to basics, when the order was placed Wales rail usage levels were different, there was no pay as you go in South Wales, some lines were deemed 1 for 1 replacement, so a 2car 150 became 2car 197 etc.

Was almost done on a no growth basis at the time. Strictly the capacities changed a bit, but wasn't really provision for needing longer trains on majority of network.

197 fleet
is 30 x 2 car (no ECTS)
and 21 x 2 car with ETCS
and 12 x 3car (basically a 2car with centre vehicle)
and 14 x 3car partly with better seats for higher than standard class section

So 4 relatively small sub fleets, but configured in such a way as can't run 3car (on a service that is too busy for 2car) on ECTS equipped Cambrian, it's 2 or 4 (or 6 etc), but not 3car

Assuming the trains with better seats were intended for longer routes (even if not yet used that way), then isn't really much flexibility in standard units either (30 2car but just 12 3car), again if a service is too busy for a 2car it's going to be very clunky trying to lengthen it.

With so few standard 3car units, if swap in a 3car, probably forced to steal from a route that really needed at least 3cars, so do you change that to a 2car (with potential overcrowding), or use 2x2car (and doesn't seem to big enough fleet to run pairs of standard 2car units normally, seeing as many of the smaller branches need the 2cars)

So altering the mix to fit late 2020s traffic levels with growth seems a reasonable option, otherwise basically stuck with no growth levels when fleet was planned decade ago.

 

[Russel]

I'd agree on extending them. Two car is not very useful these days, particularly with the disabled access requirements and the wasteful catering cupboard nonsense. Even the Conwy Valley is starting to get busy enough with standees that a three car unit would be more useful than a two. Threes and fours would be a better fit to demand across TfW's (and for that matter Northern's) networks, aside from the Heart of Wales and the Borderlands, but you could keep a small fleet of 2 car units just for these.

Regarding the Conwy Valley, I think implementing an hourly service would be more beneficial all round over the current timetable operated with a 3 car unit.

Additional services wouldn't even need to go all the way, they could operate as Betws-Y-Coed shuttles.