Could TfW expand the Class 197 fleet?

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Replied here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...be-made-to-the-conwy-valley-timetable.300279/

 

[Lurcheroo]

Cambrian Coast - Should all be 3 car instead of 2 car.

I would personally say the ETCS units should all be 3 car, with 3 to Aber and 3 to Pwllheli when they split. However it does appear testing has been done on 4 cars on the Coast which might be even better, which would mean 2 to Aber and 4 to Pwllheli in the hours when they split, and 4 to Aber in the hours when there isn't a Pwllheli portion, which works too.

Mach depot cannot maintain anything longer than 2 car units.

In the Winter, at Many times, 2 cars is double the capacity that’s needed between Machynlleth and Pwllheli. Even some of the Aber - Shrewsbury’s don’t need to be anymore than 2 as it stands.

In the summer how ever, the coast services need to be 3 or 4 coaches. The 10:55 ex Machynlleth has been booked as 4 for the last few years and that appears to be the plan going forward with the 197’s possibly with the 12:51 ex Machynlleth also becoming 4.

In the summer, for other services having 3+3 Shrewsbury - Machynlleth would be ideal in my opinion. Though these would have to work on and off the Cambrian for maintenance at Chester.

Maybe something similar to the new EMR 810's?

I like the MK4’s for no reason other than I find them pleasant to travel on every time I have been on them.
But they will need to be replaced at some point and 810’s seem like nice trains, but I’ve not been on one my self.

I like the 197’s to a point but I do think that if the MK4’s are to go, something more intercity with 1st and catering should be their replacement, not 197’s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2026 ==

I would say if we need to buy any DMUs, they should be convertible to bi-modes (as the 231s are)

Unfortunately, simply specifying 'electric transmission' (ie. DEMUs (Diesel Electric Multiple Units)) isn't enough.

The 197’s have the Ecolife Rail 2 gearbox from ‘ZF’. Their page states that the gearbox is ready for hybrid applications.

Perhaps there is a possibility of doing something, what exactly I don’t know.

EcoLife Rail 2 - Powershift Transmission

Discover ZF's powerful powershift transmission EcoLife Rail 2 for Diesel Multiple Units ✓ fuel efficient ✓ economical

www.zf.com

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they will need to be replaced at some point and 810’s seem like nice trains, but I’ve not been on one my self.

The 810 does seem to be the best of the Hitachis overall. It's not perfect (e.g. legroom is a bit tight) but it seems to have fewer flaws overall, almost as if EMR really thought about it and the DfT didn't!

I like the 197’s to a point but I do think that if the MK4’s are to go, something more intercity with 1st and catering should be their replacement, not 197’s.

I would agree. If TfW already have a lot of CAF units a 5-car 897 would seem a good fit, and the LNER 897 proposed interiors look rather good. And the end of the LNER order might be an ideal time to get the order in. Maybe include an option for extension to 6 car for a period of time in case numbers increase substantially over time.

 

[DS25]

Maybe Shrewsbury abbey forgate could be made into a proper depot rather than a stabling point if more depot space is needed?

 

[tfw756rider]

The 197’s have the Ecolife Rail 2 gearbox from ‘ZF’. Their page states that the gearbox is ready for hybrid applications.

Perhaps there is a possibility of doing something, what exactly I don’t know.

EcoLife Rail 2 - Powershift Transmission

Discover ZF's powerful powershift transmission EcoLife Rail 2 for Diesel Multiple Units ✓ fuel efficient ✓ economical

www.zf.com

That would be like Chiltern's 168329 (Porterbrook 'HybridFLEX') which was deconverted after not very long, I think due to unreliability. And that was only diesel/battery hybrid. I'm not sure if it would also work with overhead electric with the 6-speed gearbox.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Maybe Shrewsbury abbey forgate could be made into a proper depot rather than a stabling point if more depot space is needed?

I would think it unlikely but you never know!

That would be like Chiltern's 168329 (Porterbrook 'HybridFLEX') which was deconverted after not very long, I think due to unreliability. And that was only diesel/battery hybrid. I'm not sure if it would also work with overhead electric with the 6-speed gearbox.

Ahh right ! Maybe best not then haha !

The 810 does seem to be the best of the Hitachis overall. It's not perfect (e.g. legroom is a bit tight) but it seems to have fewer flaws overall, almost as if EMR really thought about it and the DfT didn't!

Crazy what’s possible !

 

[tfw756rider]

The 810 does seem to be the best of the Hitachis overall. It's not perfect (e.g. legroom is a bit tight) but it seems to have fewer flaws overall, almost as if EMR really thought about it and the DfT didn't!

I thought the 810s were the most flawed of the Hitachi AT300s, though they are the newest, so I suppose they could be improved over time.

If TfW already have a lot of CAF units a 5-car 897 would seem a good fit, and the LNER 897 proposed interiors look rather good. And the end of the LNER order might be an ideal time to get the order in. Maybe include an option for extension to 6 car for a period of time in case numbers increase substantially over time.

And it would "keep the factory open", and would fit with the "more than half of our new trains are made in Wales" thing. I can just imagine it - "Transport for Wales orders 5-car Class 897s from CAF". They probably wouldn't need to be 897s though - '797s' or even '795s' would probably do.

However, at/near the beginning of this thread, @GaryNeville said that he was told by someone generally in the know that apparently TfW are 'buying' (leasing, surely) 10 more 197s (edit - and has posted about it since)

and @anthony263 said that he heard that there were plans to order additional Class 197 intermediate vehicles and units, and more 398s (edit - he since said that he heard it from talking with staff etc.)

 

[Snow1964]

However, at/near the beginning of this thread, @GaryNeville said that he was told by someone generally in the know that apparently TfW are 'buying' (leasing, surely) 10 more 197s,

and @anthony263 said that he heard that there were plans to order additional Class 197 intermediate vehicles and units, and more 398s, and, as I asked him where he heard that, a response would be appreciated

Looked at the passenger Km on the latest ORR quarterly usage figures, and compared it to time of fleet order.
TfW passenger km is now about 110% of when trains were ordered, and has grown 10% in most recent year.

The above is fact, not speculation, from ORR numbers

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2hto1os3/passenger-rail-usage-oct-dec-2025.pdf

Moving to the question of is there any evidence of top up order (or just hearsay / rumour) have to bear in mind following :

If that passenger km (passengers x distance), growth rate of 10% continues for 2-3 more years (and I could easily see a top up order take 2 or 3 years to get into service), passenger km could be around 130-140% of when fleet was ordered by time any top up are delivered.

And even if growth suddenly stopped tomorrow going to be around 112% of capacity expected at order time (allowing 2-3 months data lag) so logically unless there was at least 10% spare capacity when they ordered, they need to look at boosting capacity just to reflect passenger growth.

And potentially might be needing fleet growth of 10%, 20%, 30% (or more) if passenger growth keeps going up over next few years.

So I buy into idea that extra vehicles are seriously being considered, but how many of each type is an unknown at this stage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the 810s were the most flawed of the Hitachi AT300s, though they are the newest, so I suppose they could be improved over time.

There have been many technical flaws, but I'm referring more to the passenger accommodation which, taken as a whole, seems the best thought out of these classes.

 

[anthony263]

I thought the 810s were the most flawed of the Hitachi AT300s, though they are the newest, so I suppose they could be improved over time.


And it would "keep the factory open", and would fit with the "more than half of our new trains are made in Wales" thing. I can just imagine it - "Transport for Wales orders 5-car Class 897s from CAF". They probably wouldn't need to be 897s though - '797s' or even '795s' would probably do.

However, at/near the beginning of this thread, @GaryNeville said that he was told by someone generally in the know that apparently TfW are 'buying' (leasing, surely) 10 more 197s,

and @anthony263 said that he heard that there were plans to order additional Class 197 intermediate vehicles and units, and more 398s, and, as I asked him where he heard that, a response would be appreciated

Heard from talking to staff who I.know personally plus the local rumour mill. Should have also said im personally taking it with a pinch of salt until it actually happens although additional carriages for the 197s does have its merits.

Plus I do try to reply when I can especially between work and family commitments as some members of this forum who know me personally can vouch for

 

[Russel]

Maybe TFW could look at getting CAF to rip out the catering cabinet and unused 1st class too while they are looking at capacity improvements...

 

[tfw756rider]

Heard from talking to staff who I.know personally plus the local rumour mill. Should have also said im personally taking it with a pinch of salt until it actually happens although additional carriages for the 197s does have its merits.

Plus I do try to reply when I can especially between work and family commitments as some members of this forum who know me personally can vouch for

Thanks for the reply, and apologies for any annoyance.

 

[stevieinselby]

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

Unless they go back for refuelling during the day, it's the total daily mileage that matters, not the mileage of any individual journey. A train shuttling backwards and forwards between Ipswich and Felixstowe might only be going 15 miles at a time, but if it's doing that journey 36 times a day then it's still covering 540 miles – and sure, it doesn't spend much (if any!) time running at speed, but it does spend a lot more time accelerating away from station stops so I don't know that it's clear cut that it will use less fuel than a regional express that's doing one return journey of 270 miles each way and hitting 90mph for 15 miles at a time between stops.

 

[Bevan Price]

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.

Class 99s have a 75 mph speed limit, so are unsuitable for "express" passenger services. Class 68 would be a better choice if the Mark 4 stock gets a life extension. Otherwise, maybe a bi-mode update of Class 197.

 

[GaryNeville]

Speaking to them again this morning. Of the opinion that 3 are sorted and potential for 10 more, or 10 total, can’t remember.

They are very much in a position to know.

I would still rather middle carriages added.

I trust them but will also not be 100% confident until there’s an official announcement.

 

[tfw756rider]

Speaking to them again this morning. Of the opinion that 3 are sorted and potential for 10 more, or 10 total, can’t remember.

They are very much in a position to know.

I would still rather middle carriages added.

I trust them but will also not be 100% confident until there’s an official announcement.

Wow! So we could be looking at 80, 87 or 90 197s, rather than just the 77 ordered in 2018.

Did they say what variant/number of cars the extra Class 197 units would be?

Surely something would have to be done about the depot situation to accomodate them.

Also, would CAF Newport, Llanwern be able to assemble the newly-ordered 197s alongside the 897s that were ordered before them?

 

[NCT]

Are there existing options to exercise? Or would it have to be an open tender for ordering 197 equivalents?

 

[anthony263]

Thanks for the reply, and apologies for any annoyance.

No its fine I just didn't want t anyone thinking I was ignoring them

 

[Snow1964]

Are there existing options to exercise? Or would it have to be an open tender for ordering 197 equivalents?

From memory the order for 197s was placed back in 2018, I cannot remember if they were ordered in two batches but found old document saying 70 units to be in service by September 2022 and final 7 units by September 2024. Those dates were pre-pandemic and associated rescheduling.

I suspect 8 years on, if there ever were options, they will have expired.

Regarding tender, there is a legal form of words that allows it not to be open, I am not a lawyer, but wording is along lines of additional equipment that is compatible that only the original manufacturer can provide, and is thus a direct award. I have seen these before on tender award announcements. Someone can no doubt give a more legally accurate answer.

 

[Caaardiff]

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.

I might be misinterpreting this post, but TFW's (Keolis/Amey) original plans covered huge capacity growth. By their own admission the new fleets would increase capacity by 65% from the ATW fleet, going around 275 carriages to nearly 500 carriages.

More carriages are definitely needed, but I think it's a stretch to say there was no provision for longer trains on many routes.
CVL, Cardiff local Mainline, Marches, North Wales are all seeing longer trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Mar 2026 ==

Speaking to them again this morning. Of the opinion that 3 are sorted and potential for 10 more, or 10 total, can’t remember.

They are very much in a position to know.

I would still rather middle carriages added.

I trust them but will also not be 100% confident until there’s an official announcement.

If it is to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an order of cautiousness because of the poor reliability of the 197's. The ETCS units have saved TFW from capacity meltdown recently, but when they do start the work they were planned for replacing 158's, and the 150's go, TFW will have little to fall back on.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I might be misinterpreting this post, but TFW's (Keolis/Amey) original plans covered huge capacity growth. By their own admission the new fleets would increase capacity by 65% from the ATW fleet, going around 275 carriages to nearly 500 carriages.

More carriages are definitely needed, but I think it's a stretch to say there was no provision for longer trains on many routes.
CVL, Cardiff local Mainline, Marches, North Wales are all seeing longer trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Mar 2026 ==


If it is to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an order of cautiousness because of the poor reliability of the 197's. The ETCS units have saved TFW from capacity meltdown recently, but when they do start the work they were planned for replacing 158's, and the 150's go, TFW will have little to fall back on.

Indeed. It seems that even last year about 2/3rds of the ETCS fitted 197s (so 14 out of 21) meant for Cambrian were covering other duties. So arguably putting the 197s on Cambrian would mean losing those 14 197s. That is a big shortfall if the 398s do not free up the 231s and 756s for their intended routes thus releasing 197s.

Fleet availability for 197s has to be sorted out. I suppose investing in all those spare parts very recently has meant that 197s long term out of action are not longer a problem. Ideally TfW should be using the ETCS 197s to get them run in (as in de-snagged) - which does seem to be happening with 007 back, 023, 025 & 032 in use for the first time - all this March 2026. To balance that non-ETCS 197s will have to be stored serviceable and short-term/rotated.

Speaking to them again this morning. Of the opinion that 3 are sorted and potential for 10 more, or 10 total, can’t remember.

They are very much in a position to know.

I would still rather middle carriages added.

I trust them but will also not be 100% confident until there’s an official announcement.

Wrexham - Bidston could require three two car 197s and I suggest that is what the three mentioned above are for. Most likely three 2car 197s BUT three Flirts for South Wales causing a cascade of three 197s is just as likely I suppose.

I would favour 777s for Wrexham - Bidston but that seems to be a long way off and, by the time 777s with enough range are available, the 197s will find other uses on TfW assuming the inevitable growth.

I am going to hope that more Flirts can be justified in/around Cardiff/South Wales thus freeing up more 197s. Probably means West of Swansea loses direct trains to Holyhead/Manchester. So the ten (or seven) more might be a different set of negotiations with a different supplier (Stadler).

 

[GaryNeville]

Did they say what variant/number of cars the extra Class 197 units would be?

Said they would would be Cambrian capable units but for use anywhere. No idea on numbers.

Surely something would have to be done about the depot situation to accomodate them.

Also, would CAF Newport, Llanwern be able to assemble the newly-ordered 197s alongside the 897s that were ordered before them?

Beats me haha!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Mar 2026 ==

If it is to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an order of cautiousness because of the poor reliability of the 197's

Apparently reasoning is passenger numbers have grown double digits for several years and TFW feel that has happened despite offering a poor service (cancellations and overcrowding) and the numbers say even with all new trains, there will be capacity issues if there is continued growth.

I am going to hope that more Flirts can be justified in/around Cardiff/South Wales thus freeing up more 197s

No mention of them, but that’s not a no either.

 

[positron]

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.

Couldn't they just give them 2 power pods? It seems pretty unlikely to me that a platform as internationally versatile as the FLIRTs couldn't be designed to work on this route.

Imo ordering *any* more DMUs would be a mistake but even more of a mistake would be ordering anymore non-level boarding trains.

Ordering more 231s (or a tweaked version with more fuel) for say swanline services or something and using that to move 197s elsewhere seems a far better solution, and as 231s are DEMUs they can have pantographs fitted in future.

For the same reason I think ordering the 8xx platform would be a mistake too. Wales doesn't have much 125 mph running (if any?) so a train capable of 110 with level boarding would be far better bet for the future.

 

[Topological]

I can see the argument for the 231 in South Wales. However, you are then losing more of the interoperability of the longer distance and short distance trains. At the moment they can borrow the Swanline unit for a Manchester train and/or borrow one of the Manchester units to run Swanline. They can just as easily send a unit that stables in Carmarthen to Pembroke Dock as send it to Manchester. I do believe the 197s have a lot of strengths in that regard.

A premium Swansea to Manchester unit (or possibly Carmarthen and cut GWR back to being just Swansea) running hourly would have merit too. However, there is limited 100+ track covered by the service so there is limited benefit in a unit capable of that. If there existed an 80x series built for 100mph with bigger doors for shorter dwells then that would be ideal. Somoene must know of a unit that fits that bill out there.

Level boarding should be an aspiration. However, we should be investing in stations to help deliver that as well. There are currently stations on the Marches which are too short despite serving major settlements (Abergavenny, Ludlow etc) which need lengthening never mind making suitable for level boarding.

 

[DS25]

I think either something like the new enterprise flirts, or the a 100mph version of the 810's (or even 897? but 5 car) would be suitable, but in the short term, maybe a different loco could be used seeing most of the issues are from the 67's like them not having enough fuel range for a full Swansea-Manchester day, meaning its been cut back to Cardiff only. If their was more electrification on the SWML between Swansea and Port Talbot and maybe a Bridgend 'island', that could allow 756's to operate Swanline and VoG services, meaning Holyhead - Cardiff/Man Airport and West Wales-Manchester could be consistently 3/4 or more coaches

 

[positron]

Level boarding should be an aspiration. However, we should be investing in stations to help deliver that as well. There are currently stations on the Marches which are too short despite serving major settlements (Abergavenny, Ludlow etc) which need lengthening never mind making suitable for level boarding.

Level boarding being an aspiration is fine it obviously won't happen overnight and I agree Wales has a lot of needlessly short platforms (neath not fitting a full 10 car 80x is shocking). But you can do the platforms over time, you can't fix a train that's fundamentally the wrong height.

 

[Llandudno]

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.

It’s worth remembering that all Welsh residents over the age of 60 get free travel all year round on the Conwy Valley Line presumably because the bus provision is poor.

However, it would be cheaper to subsidise an hourly bus service and leave the train frequency as it is but manage capacity by stopping free train travel for the over 60s and let them use the bus like most of the rest of the UK has to!

 

[Rail Quest]

Class 99s have a 75 mph speed limit, so are unsuitable for "express" passenger services.

GBRf did intend on getting a couple of their original order fitted with ETS and getting 100mph as standard.

URL to source of the about point: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/2...9s-to-be-ets-fitted-and-have-100mph-top-speed

I seem to remember Bob Tiller saying that the existing locos are only electronically restricted to 75mph currently and could be raised to 100mph with new campers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, it would be cheaper to subsidise an hourly bus service and leave the train frequency as it is but manage capacity by stopping free train travel for the over 60s and let them use the bus like most of the rest of the UK has to!

There was at one point a plan to run an hourly service with a bus-bus-train pattern, using electric buses. It seems to have long been forgotten, though. I see no reason not to take passes on the train, though, aside from what is obviously the politics of envy.

 

[dodecahedron67]

If there existed an 80x series built for 100mph with bigger doors for shorter dwells then that would be ideal. Someone must know of a unit that fits that bill out there.

A bi-mode Class 385 would surely be the ideal unit then? Admittedly no level boarding, but once the various issues were sorted out I think they’re solid units for Scotrail and probably perfect for a Marches unit