Could TfW expand the Class 197 fleet?

[Topological]

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

Yes. I have only been to Scotland a couple of times since the 385s came out, and am yet to actually travel on one, but they are the right style.

Ultimately, a bi-mode 197 would be fine too. In that case, it is about adding the electrics, where the 385 would need diesel. I think it does need to be diesel-electric bimode because there is such a long gap between Crewe and Newport.

I do think there is some value in having stock which can run in service with the 197s though. It is not as simple as having the same coupling either these days, which adds to the complexity. More 197s are the safest way to achieve interoperability, but can they make a bi-mode version?

 

[tfw756rider]

Yes. I have only been to Scotland a couple of times since the 385s came out, and am yet to actually travel on one, but they are the right style.

Ultimately, a bi-mode 197 would be fine too. In that case, it is about adding the electrics, where the 385 would need diesel. I think it does need to be diesel-electric bimode because there is such a long gap between Crewe and Newport.

I do think there is some value in having stock which can run in service with the 197s though. It is not as simple as having the same coupling either these days, which adds to the complexity. More 197s are the safest way to achieve interoperability, but can they make a bi-mode version?

I can't see why a "797" couldn't work in multiple with a 197.

 

[positron]

Well 197s are DMUs not DEMUs so the traction system would need to be completely different.

Idk if a 331 or 397 are compatible with the 19x family.

 

[Topological]

I can't see why a "797" couldn't work in multiple with a 197.

Probably just biases the choice towards CAF (not that the location of the factory* does not offer CAF an advantage anyway)

 

[Topological]

Well 197s are DMUs not DEMUs so the traction system would need to be completely different.

Idk if a 331 or 397 are compatible with the 19x family.

Fair point. Someone more technically minded than me may know whether a DEMU approach could work with the underframe of a 197.

The complete novice part of me does wonder whether containing the tech for a pantograph would actually be a useful purpose for the catering cupboards. I would assume that any further 197s would not have those cupboards when built.

I just think the 5-car 197 is the best I have used on the Marches in the almost 10 years I have been a regular user. The 175 was the best train but even at 3-car was too small in the end. The Mk4 is nice but is old, has less seats than the 5-car 197, and doesn't do the journey I want. The 150/2 is definitely the worst.

 

[tfw756rider]

Well 197s are DMUs not DEMUs so the traction system would need to be completely different.

Idk if a 331 or 397 are compatible with the 19x family.

195s, 331s and 397s aren't compatible with 196s or 197s because the 196 and 197s' gangway connection doors meant moving the couplers lower down.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Well 197s are DMUs not DEMUs so the traction system would need to be completely different.

That doesn't make it impossible though.

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) system does that, and as such a Class 66 can easily work with a Class 99 (or at least GBRf say they can, not sure how well it works in practice).

 

[positron]

That doesn't make it impossible though.

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) system does that, and as such a Class 66 can easily work with a Class 99 (or at least GBRf say they can, not sure how well it works in practice).

On the flip side modern trains in the same class can barely couple and run reliably, so I'm very dubious that a long term plan to do that across class would be good.

TfW absolutely need to come up with some long term plan though. Even if we assume the 197s, MK4s, Flirts, 398s and 230s are all working as expected and get into service. The 153s on the HOW are going to be EOL soonish, the Mark 4s will presumably at least need replacement locos, the 230s probably won't last forever, and rail usage will increase meaning we need more capacity. The question is how and when they solve it. That ultimately depends on funding but will also depend on their various project ideas like further electrification.

I personally think ordering more of the specialist units such as the FLIRTs to run appropriate services and coupling up the 197s is a far better idea than ordering more Civities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2026 ==

I can't help but think if TfW had been allowed to keep hold of the 170s that they would be coming in quite handy right now.

 

[Peter Sarf]

On the flip side modern trains in the same class can barely couple and run reliably, so I'm very dubious that a long term plan to do that across class would be good.

TfW absolutely need to come up with some long term plan though. Even if we assume the 197s, MK4s, Flirts, 398s and 230s are all working as expected and get into service. The 153s on the HOW are going to be EOL soonish, the Mark 4s will presumably at least need replacement locos, the 230s probably won't last forever, and rail usage will increase meaning we need more capacity. The question is how and when they solve it. That ultimately depends on funding but will also depend on their various project ideas like further electrification.

I personally think ordering more of the specialist units such as the FLIRTs to run appropriate services and coupling up the 197s is a far better idea than ordering more Civities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2026 ==

I can't help but think if TfW had been allowed to keep hold of the 170s that they would be coming in quite handy right now.

I agree. On the face of it I would be hoping for more FLIRTs. Should be more an excercise in ruling out the disadvantages of FLIRTs rather than justifying more 197s. Then again if the the 197s are cheap then sadly its a case of getting what you pay for.

 

[tfw756rider]

I can't help but think if TfW had been allowed to keep hold of the 170s that they would be coming in quite handy right now.

I never quite understood the situation with the 170s. You imply that they weren't "allowed" to be kept (as in, a Department for Transport decision), but I'm not entirely sure whether that was the case, or if Transport for Wales chose to let them go.

 

[positron]

I never quite understood the situation with the 170s. You imply that they weren't "allowed" to be kept (as in, a Department for Transport decision), but I'm not entirely sure whether that was the case, or if Transport for Wales chose to let them go.

As I recall they were pretty much yanked from underneath them, because EMR wanted them? and they were 'compensated' with 153s.

The 170s were part of TfWs long term rolling stock plan where they were supposed to operate west wales and even the HOW iirc.

I think the only reason it wasn't a complete disaster was because TfW managed to get their hands on the MK4s so they could afford to use some of the 197s in West Wales.

 

[anthony263]

As I recall they were pretty much yanked from underneath them, because EMR wanted them? and they were 'compensated' with 153s.

The 170s were part of TfWs long term rolling stock plan where they were supposed to operate west wales and even the HOW iirc.

I think the only reason it wasn't a complete disaster was because TfW managed to get their hands on the MK4s so they could afford to use some of the 197s in West Wales.

If only southern could get soem BEMUs and perhaps some additional 3rd rail extensions allowing the release of the class 171 fleet . tfw could use them to run west wales to Swansea and heart of wales line services

 

[Caaardiff]

If only southern could get soem BEMUs and perhaps some additional 3rd rail extensions allowing the release of the class 171 fleet . tfw could use them to run west wales to Swansea and heart of wales line services

The last thing TFW needs is yet another fleet introduction.
It appears a bunch of 153's will be returning from Landore. At least they are already operated, cleared on routes, depots and train crews already sign them.

 

[Topological]

It was a little surprising how many 153s were stood down. Are they approaching major exams?

I still want more 197s though.

 

[DS25]

I still want more 197s though.

Anything but more 197’s!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only southern could get soem BEMUs and perhaps some additional 3rd rail extensions allowing the release of the class 171 fleet . tfw could use them to run west wales to Swansea and heart of wales line services

Wiring Chiltern would be the best way to get a cascade of post privatisation DMUs. Wouldn't be a shortage of them then!

 

[Russel]

Anything but more 197’s!!

From a passenger perspective, though not perfect, they are pretty decent.

 

[Krokodil]

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.

The main issue with getting 777s to Wrexham at the moment is that there isn't enough capacity in the distribution network to power a charging rail.

Well 197s are DMUs not DEMUs so the traction system would need to be completely different.

Multiple working these days is all through ethernet connections. So communicating between different units (so long as you make the physical interface compatible) is simply a matter of changing the software.

 

[lowe1409]

From a passenger perspective, though not perfect, they are pretty decent.

Agreed. As a whole, they are better than everything they replaced. Reliability should hopefully improve as they age as seen in other civities with other operators.

How many of the problems seen with caf fleets comes down to cost saving as other operators like northern are also very subsidy heavy. Had a fleet been ordered from caf serving London have seen so many similar reliability issues?

 

[Russel]

Agreed. As a whole, they are better than everything they replaced. Reliability should hopefully improve as they age as seen in other civities with other operators.

How many of the problems seen with caf fleets comes down to cost saving as other operators like northern are also very subsidy heavy. Had a fleet been ordered from caf serving London have seen so many similar reliability issues?

I'd still take a 175 over a 197, but compared to everything else they've replaced in Wales, they are a huge step change in standards.

My main complaint is less aimed at the 197s themselves, but more at who though ordering them in 2 car formation was a good idea, 2 car units have no place anywhere anymore.

 

[lowe1409]

I'd still take a 175 over a 197, but compared to everything else they've replaced in Wales, they are a huge step change in standards.

I think personally they are comparible in terms of comfort. My main complaint with the 175s however is the lack of gangway connection. Makes life so much easier when the toilet is out of order in one unit or when it's very busy.

My main complaint is less aimed at the 197s themselves, but more at who though ordering them in 2 car formation was a good idea, 2 car units have no place anywhere anymore

Absolutely agreed. Especially with accessible toilets, galley and cycle space, it leaves very little space left for seats. Plus it puts a soft cap on how much growth a line can get (though granted, there are a couple tfw services such as the heart of Wales which I see possibly ever regularly crowding a two car set)

 

[Russel]

Absolutely agreed. Especially with accessible toilets, galley and cycle space, it leaves very little space left for seats. Plus it puts a soft cap on how much growth a line can get (though granted, there are a couple tfw services such as the heart of Wales which I see possibly ever regularly crowding a two car set)

Even Conwy Valley could do with a 3 car set at times, I used it last Thursday and had to stand as every seat was taken.

I get the argument that in the middle of winter that may not be the case, but in general passenger numbers are only going one way...

 

[Topological]

I think personally they are comparible in terms of comfort. My main complaint with the 175s however is the lack of gangway connection. Makes life so much easier when the toilet is out of order in one unit or when it's very busy.



Absolutely agreed. Especially with accessible toilets, galley and cycle space, it leaves very little space left for seats. Plus it puts a soft cap on how much growth a line can get (though granted, there are a couple tfw services such as the heart of Wales which I see possibly ever regularly crowding a two car set)

The 175s were brilliant, but you are right about gangways. They also did not run as 5-car on the Manchesters.

I am less bothered about the 2-car nature of the 197s. I like the fact that we still get services when there are not enough available to cover everything. I know some people are different on that score. The concern is TfW scheduling 2-cars, not the existence of 2-cars.

Whether we could have seen a fleet of all 3-car, so Manchesters were 6-car I do not know. 3-car does feel a bit like overkill at the West Wales end. That is where the 3+2 really comes into its own.

I hope the people of Cornwall will like the 175s.

 

[tfw756rider]

Whether we could have seen a fleet of all 3-car, so Manchesters were 6-car I do not know.

It took a while for Network Rail to allow even 5-car 197s (rather than 4-car 197s) between Shrewsbury and Manchester, let alone 6-car 197s.

 

[Topological]

It took a while for Network Rail to allow even 5-car 197s (rather than 4-car 197s) between Shrewsbury and Manchester, let alone 6-car 197s.

Yes. My memories of the 150s are still too strong.

So probably it is a good thing that 2-car 197s exist.

 

[lowe1409]

Whether we could have seen a fleet of all 3-car, so Manchesters were 6-car I do not know. 3-car does feel a bit like overkill at the West Wales end. That is where the 3+2 really comes into its own

It becomes a tradeoff between over capacity in West Wales Vs having some very busy services at the Manchester end. Particularly at weekend when there are events on, 5 cars can be very busy leaving Piccadilly.

It took a while for Network Rail to allow even 5-car 197s (rather than 4-car 197s) between Shrewsbury and Manchester, let alone 6-car 197s.

What was their reasoning for it by any chance? I'm assuming it must be something with platform lengths though I could be wrong.

 

[DS25]

Personally a 158 and 175 are better than 197's for me, but i do like the declassified standard plus area, its just the ride quality that is poor for me.

 

[Topological]

It becomes a tradeoff between over capacity in West Wales Vs having some very busy services at the Manchester end. Particularly at weekend when there are events on, 5 cars can be very busy leaving Piccadilly.

I assume from your location you use the TfW sometimes. It is my regular commute (once each way each week) and the number of people using the trains out of Piccadilly just seems to keep rising. Even arriving into Piccadilly at 08:15 (1W11) or 09:15 (1W12) there are loads of people waiting to get on the corresponding southbound trains.

Not 100% sure on the reasonings for no 6-car yet. There are definitely stations with selective door opening already.

 

[lowe1409]

I assume from your location you use the TfW sometimes. It is my regular commute (once each way each week) and the number of people using the trains out of Piccadilly just seems to keep rising. Even arriving into Piccadilly at 08:15 (1W11) or 09:15 (1W12) there are loads of people waiting to get on the corresponding southbound trains.

Not 100% sure on the reasonings for no 6-car yet. There are definitely stations with selective door opening already.

Oh absolutely. I most regularly use the 17.30 on a Sunday where the guard has several times wished me luck in finding space. And that has been on a five car once as well. I don't know how far people traveld but Stockport seemed like no one gets on or off and not many alighted at Wilmslow either when I do. Either way, more capacity is certainly needed at times.

 

[Topological]

Oh absolutely. I most regularly use the 17.30 on a Sunday where the guard has several times wished me luck in finding space. And that has been on a five car once as well. I don't know how far people traveld but Stockport seemed like no one gets on or off and not many alighted at Wilmslow either when I do. Either way, more capacity is certainly needed at times.

Crewe gets a few in the week, but Nantwich is a big one now. I take the 18:30 (dont want to risk the 17:30 and the 19:30 and 20:30 are 2 or 3-car) on a weekday and that has a huge number going to Nantwich. I know it because they all have to walk forwards because only 2 carriages are platformed when it is a Mk4 set (I think).