Talk:British Rail Class 197

Removal of window-alignment discussion

@Rhydgaled: I have reverted the additions you made in this edit regarding the seats-to-windows alignment on the grounds that it appears to place undue weight on the opinions of one minority group (SARPA) and that it fails to keep a neutral point of view in using phrases like "SARPA's complaints led to the refurbishment plans being ammended[sic][21], meaning the class 197s have a hard act to follow and immediately fall short on account of having only ten table bays per 2-car unit[4] compared to 16 table bays on an existing class 158 the same length."

I had previously removed a similar paragraph because it appeared to be result of original research on your behalf (not, as you suggest in the edit summary, because "the official seat plan of the train from TfW is not considered to be a valid source") and I'm not entirely convinced that the new additions are free of it either.

I have also reversed some of the changes you made in the prior edit regarding the seat specification because they appear to imply that CAF had deliberately chosen Thameslink seats, which is not borne out by the source. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems entirely reasonable. I would have done the same had I spotted it. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Cheers. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@XAM2175:I think the section on seats is quite good now, and particularly like the way you have worded the reference to the GWR seats. However, in the section on toilets, I do think it is necessary to point out that TfW's response regarding running units in multiple does not address the issue for seat-to-toilet ratio so have edited the article to clarify that.

I can see that the issue of the alignment of seats and windows is a disputed topic so have not attempted to reinstate that at this time (and anything I write on the matter would likely have POV issues so it would be useful if somebody else could write it in a way that doesn't sound biased). However, I think alignment of seats with windows is something that matters to passengers in general, not just SARPA, so I feel that a way to include this needs to be found. The fact that the number of tables is reduced is in fact supported by the reference "Table 2B - Rolling Stock Minimum Requirements and Specifications - Sprinter / Rural Service Type" which lists 21 fixed tables for a class 158, 16 for a 3-car class 197 and 10 and for a 2-car class 197. In the case of the class 197 trains these figures are confirmed by the seating plan in the 'MyWelshpool' article. I believe a TfW class 158 actually only has 16 tables (that IS original research) rather than the 21 in the TfW table (I'm guessing the 21 is an old figure from before the ATW refurbishment) but this is still six more than would be provided on the 2-car class 197 that is intended to replace it.

The seat plan is an official TfW document and shows the window pillars partly blocking some of the views. Does interpreting a diagram count as 'original research' and if so how can this be worked around? Rhydgaled (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rhydgaled: Re the toilet ratios – strictly speaking, it's not our place to specifically identify the absence of information in situations like this, especially since in this exact case it's akin to taking an editorial position on TfW's response. It would be entirely appropriate if we were a newspaper, but much less so for an encyclopaedia. As a compromise I deliberately worded that sentence the way I did so as to make the gap in TfW's response as obvious as possible, and I feel that this is the best we can do until a reliable and notable source turns up to press TfW on the matter. Should that happen we would be free to document that as a fact rather than an inference.

Re the seat alignment – I fear here too that you are attempting to insert material of an opinionated nature. You are absolutely free to use the specifications document and seat plan to state the number of seats and tables and the like, and by extension free to make simple comparisons (e.g. "there are five fewer tables"), but you cannot draw subjective conclusions (e.g. "they will be less comfortable" or "there will be fewer desirable seats"). I'm also still reluctant to consider it notable enough to mention, but theoretically you could construct a basic statement along the lines of "some regular Cambrian line passengers also expressed concerns that the proposed seating layout shows a significant number of seats with window views that they consider to be obstructed by structural pillars. TfW replied that..." which would get it into the article without taking a position on either SARPA's claims or TfW's response. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

197120 with "Made in Wales" livery

Could this unit be mentioned in the article? I was thinking it could go in the Named units section, but I'm not sure that it's a named unit in the sense of the other ones. 2A00:23EE:2608:D98:F47A:DD30:DBC6:433F (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We could always rename the Named Units section to "Notable Units" or something similar... but remember we need a source before that information can go in the article. Danners430 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Naming of 197001 and 197004

@Anamyd just made an edit to remove the Welsh part of the names for the above units - I originally reverted it, but I reckon it needs a discussion instead…

Images (such as here show that the nameplates have both the Welsh and English phraseology on them… I know we’re the English Wikipedia, but should we keep the full name as it is written on the nameplates? Danners430 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've put the 2nd 3rd and 4th names (the ones with the Welsh parts in them) as the Welsh and English now. Hopefully we're happy now, no hard feelings Danners430. Anamyd (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No, none at all :) I reckon it would still be valuable to have a discussion on the topic though - after all, it's a collaborative project, so best to decide collectively. I'll start a thread over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways Danners430 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look tomorrow. Anamyd (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Naming of 197125

I have the source right here:

• Butlin, Ashley (August 2024). "Multiple Units". Stock Update. The Railway Magazine. Vol. 170, no. 1481. p. 87.

and in column 3 paragraph 1 it definitely states:

Named
156424 The Yorkshire Dales Explorer
197125 The Cheltenham Spa Express
444040 The D-Day Story

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea where they got that from, because 197125 does not have a name. 74.80.180.187 (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s entirely possible the name has since been removed - that does happen. However, content on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources - as of right now, we only have a source that says it has a name, and no source that says it has been denamed. Danners430 (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

According to TfW in direct contact with me, they have never used that name to name a unit, nor was it ever part of their competition they get the names from - https://ibb.co/1YnKgZJ5 Anamyd (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 was there potentially a correction issued by Railway Magazine? Danners430 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've checked the "Stock Update" department for every issue since August (coincidentally, the May 2025 issue arrived today), and I can find no corrections nor amendments for 197125. If there were corrections elsewhere in these nine issues, I've not come across them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That’s rather odd… perhaps it’s time to write an email to the magazine to find out what’s going on - I see no reason to dispute a statement from TfL… I’ll report back! Danners430 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and TfW you mean :P Anamyd (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Same thing, right?

hides in Scotland Danners430 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Any updates on contacting the magazine or TfW? Anamyd (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No response unfortunately Danners430 (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

From either? Anamyd (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Fraid not… maybe worth someone else giving it a try? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

197 exterior design is actually mix of 196 and 195

It is currently stated that the 197s having the end-gangwayed cabs makes them look "very similar" to the 196s, and yes, this is easily noticeable, but the 197s also have the 195 bodyside layout. I'd like to put the following in the article:

"The Class 197 has the same exterior cab design as the Class 196, with the end gangways, lower coupler height, smaller destination displays and different lights when compared to the non-end-gangwayed Class 195.

However, the Class 197 has the same bodyside layout as the Class 195; it did not adopt the higher window quantity, smaller window size, in-body (rather than in-window) side destination displays or slightly different door positioning of the Class 196."

Would including comparison photos that actually show the 195/196/197 cab designs and bodyside layouts be sufficient to not need to find some non-existent web or magazine article text that doesn't actually give visual comparison? Anamyd (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC) (edited by Anamyd at 22:59 UTC on 11 September 2025)