TfW class 398 train introduction delays: what could happen as a result?

[Envoy]

It is ridiculous to have 197’s stored because Machynlleth is not up and running to deal with them. So, the obvious thing to do would be to get Machynlleth up and running for the 197’s and move 158’s south to Canton for use on the Maesteg to Ebbw Vale run and the Cheltenham’s until such time that the FLIRTS can take over. This therefore frees up more 197’s for the mainline duties across the network.

Should the 158’s take over the Cheltenham’s, I really wonder if they could be extended to run Cheltenham to Bridgend via the Vale of Glam Coast Line? If that were possible, it would overcome the problem of terminating at Cardiff Central and help boost Cardiff Airport by having direct services to Rhoose from Cheltenham and Gloucester. (Such a direct service would also be popular in summer by encouraging people from Cheltenham & Gloucester to visit Barry Island via a change at Barry town station).

If enough FLIRTS were available, then surely one could operate Rhymney to Bridgend via the VOG coast line and therefore create the promised half hourly service which is desperately needed. This would also help with connectivity for services to / from west Wales via a change at Bridgend.

 

[D365]

It is ridiculous to have 197’s stored because Machynlleth is not up and running to deal with them.

There isn't a need to change Machynlleth over to Class 197s until the ETCS subfleet is commissioned for service operation on the Cambrian routes...

 

[Peter Sarf]

TfW have 11 x 231s and a maximum of 8 are currently in service daily. So technically another 2 more could be in service on an hourly Rhymney - Cardiff diagram that is split from Bridgend, with 1 spare. But maybe 8 is the maximum that can be in service on any day, with 3 undergoing maintenance? As there's still 1 Barry Island diagram daily that's a 150.

But eventually the 150s will run out of time or will need expensive overhauls to be kept in service.

I have a hunch that 231 availability (8/11) might be set lower than for 756s as a spare 231 is more use for covering all Flirts than a 756 would be.

I can talk myself into thinking more Flirts would be ideal. If there is a chance of that happening then it probably depends on the perceived performance of Stadler regarding the 398s. The logical alternative is more 197s but why buy more of a problem fleet just because Flirts are associated with 398s !. I should say I am not talking about a wholesale replacement of the 398s, just the small fleet of extra mainline units that get alluded to and would help ease pressure now. But would extra Flirts or 197s appear anytime soon enough to cover the demise of 150s ?.

 

[D365]

... but why buy more of a problem fleet just because Flirts are associated with 398s !.

The FLIRTs don't share any heritage with Class 398 (or Class 399) which is a former Vossloh product.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The FLIRTs don't share any heritage with Class 398 (or Class 399) which is a former Vossloh product.

I agree. But the 398s and Flirts share the same manufacturer - Stadler (albeit distantly). I can see that spoiling the case for more Flirts even though it should not.

 

[stevieinselby]

I agree. But the 398s and Flirts share the same manufacturer - Stadler (albeit distantly). I can see that spoiling the case for more Flirts even though it should not.

Stadler are the only manufacturer with experience of building bi-mode trains with level boarding for the UK – they are potentially in a strong position for future procurement rounds, but if they have a legacy of problematic or failed products then that will be a massive black mark against their name, so it really is in their interests to ensure that the situation in the Valleys is resolved satisfactorily, one way or the other.

 

[Cardiff123]

There's no doubt that the 231s and 756s are the best trains that the Valleys has ever had and are everything that a modern commuter train should be.
With hindsight, a fleet of 231s or 756s for the entire Valleys and all services in the South Wales Metro area network would've been absolutely transformational on their own.

But that's not what's planned and the 398's will have to be made to work. It's just whether they can be made to work in time before all of the 150s are in the bin.

 

[stevieinselby]

There's no doubt that the 231s and 756s are the best trains that the Valleys has ever had and are everything that a modern commuter train should be.
With hindsight, a fleet of 231s or 756s for the entire Valleys and all services in the South Wales Metro area network would've been absolutely transformational on their own.

You say "with hindsight", but a great many of us said exactly that beforehand, with foresight!

 

[Smwrff]

You say "with hindsight", but a great many of us said exactly that beforehand, with foresight!

But that would have prevented their expansion plans... although maybe a 50:50 split would work - with 398s running to the Bay and beyond, while Flirts doing Central/City Line.

 

[stevieinselby]

But that would have prevented their expansion plans... although maybe a 50:50 split would work - with 398s running to the Bay and beyond, while Flirts doing Central/City Line.

With the Coryton line having stations spaced about as far apart as tram stops usually are and being of a suitable overall length to run trams, I would have had 398s running Coryton to the Bay and 756s everywhere else. Yes, it would have cost more up front, but what you would get from it would be so much better!

 

[Smwrff]

With the Coryton line having stations spaced about as far apart as tram stops usually are and being of a suitable overall length to run trams, I would have had 398s running Coryton to the Bay and 756s everywhere else. Yes, it would have cost more up front, but what you would get from it would be so much better!

But this would overload Cardiff Central due to 10 tph needing to terminate and reverse

 

[stevieinselby]

But this would overload Cardiff Central due to 10 tph needing to terminate and reverse

I can't see the need for that many terminating and reversing under any circumstances.
How about:
4tph Rhymney to Penarth
4tph Merthyr to Barry/VOG
4tph Aberdare to Treherbert via Llandaf, Cardiff and Fairwater
No need for any Valley trains to terminate/reverse in Cardiff Central.
(Pairings as examples, there might be reasons why other permutations would work better so I'm not saying this is how it has to be!)

 

[anthony263]

I can't see the need for that many terminating and reversing under any circumstances.
How about:
4tph Rhymney to Penarth
4tph Merthyr to Barry/VOG
4tph Aberdare to Treherbert via Llandaf, Cardiff and Fairwater
No need for any Valley trains to terminate/reverse in Cardiff Central.
(Pairings as examples, there might be reasons why other permutations would work better so I'm not saying this is how it has to be!)

Need 4tph each direction over the cityline. Id say send the 4tph Treherbert service to Barry/vog. A 4tph Coryton to Cardiff Bay service

 

[Caaardiff]

But this would overload Cardiff Central due to 10 tph needing to terminate and reverse

Coryton still needs to be linked to Cardiff Central, which would probably be a priority over Cardiff Bay. The ideal scenario would be a loop on the Coryton line to enable 4 tph. 2tph Coryton - Cardiff Central & 2 tph Coryton - Cardiff Bay.

 

[GilfachFargoed]

There's no doubt that the 231s and 756s are the best trains that the Valleys has ever had and are everything that a modern commuter train should be.
With hindsight, a fleet of 231s or 756s for the entire Valleys and all services in the South Wales Metro area network would've been absolutely transformational on their own.

But that's not what's planned and the 398's will have to be made to work. It's just whether they can be made to work in time before all of the 150s are in the bin.

The FLIRTs are a great product and it is really unfortunate that the Pontypridd lines have effectively had 'jam today, but not tomorrow', assuming that the 398s do replace them. I can only assume that TfW are banking on the improved frequencies on those routes as enough of a positive to mask the negative of the more basic tram-trains.

One aspect of the FLIRTs that really does need some attention is the method of working for door release - this is currently undertaken by the conductors from a public doorway and results in painful dwell times due to an apparent need to open those doors locally and then release all the others, all hampered by the open cycle on the doors and 'gap filler' step boards being quite slow.

 

[Kite159]

The FLIRTs are a great product and it is really unfortunate that the Pontypridd lines have effectively had 'jam today, but not tomorrow', assuming that the 398s do replace them. I can only assume that TfW are banking on the improved frequencies on those routes as enough of a positive to mask the negative of the more basic tram-trains.

One aspect of the FLIRTs that really does need some attention is the method of working for door release - this is currently undertaken by the conductors from a public doorway and results in painful dwell times due to an apparent need to open those doors locally and then release all the others, all hampered by the open cycle on the doors and 'gap filler' step boards being quite slow.

It's similar in a way for the smaller stations on the GWML which went from 165/166s to 387s before being downgraded to the metro spec 345s (going from 2+2 seats with tables, sockets, overhead luggage & toilets etc)

 

[Topological]

It's similar in a way for the smaller stations on the GWML which went from 165/166s to 387s before being downgraded to the metro spec 345s (going from 2+2 seats with tables, sockets, overhead luggage & toilets etc)

Though to be fair they did then gain connections through central London.

I am not sure the same happens for the Valley Lines

 

[TheSWTS]

I can’t tell whether or not this is a serious suggestion!

Wouldn't put it's past TfW

 

[positron]

The thing is even if they aren't fit for purpose and procurement etc has gone horribly horribly wrong. Issue is the logical replacement for some would be FLIRTS but then politically you either have to admit it was Welsh governments fault (not a great look if you want to run the country independently?) or be seen to give stadler more money when they failed you. They're also gonna need to be made to work in some capacity for the next 5 years until some form of replacement could be procured and delivered anyway.

I suspect they're gonna manage to get some of them running as single units maybe even for queen street to the bay and back initially, maybe eventually up to pontypridd or even treherbert, and spend a lot of money in 150s or even 153s to tide you over.

Its more likely now it's not labour in charge of the project so they'd be able to blame the previous government but still not a good look.

I suspect eventually they will be made to work it'll just take a lot of time and probably put a damper on the idea of using them in Swansea etc.

If I were anyone else looking for tram train technology in the UK I sure would think twice about getting city links though, so wether it's stadlers fault or not they'd probably be inclined to try their best to help out.

 

[Caaardiff]

The thing is even if they aren't fit for purpose and procurement etc has gone horribly horribly wrong. Issue is the logical replacement for some would be FLIRTS but then politically you either have to admit it was Welsh governments fault (not a great look if you want to run the country independently?) or be seen to give stadler more money when they failed you. They're also gonna need to be made to work in some capacity for the next 5 years until some form of replacement could be procured and delivered anyway.

I suspect they're gonna manage to get some of them running as single units maybe even for queen street to the bay and back initially, maybe eventually up to pontypridd or even treherbert, and spend a lot of money in 150s or even 153s to tide you over.

Its more likely now it's not labour in charge of the project so they'd be able to blame the previous government but still not a good look.

I suspect eventually they will be made to work it'll just take a lot of time and probably put a damper on the idea of using them in Swansea etc.

If I were anyone else looking for tram train technology in the UK I sure would think twice about getting city links though, so wether it's stadlers fault or not they'd probably be inclined to try their best to help out.

The impression im getting is the units are the problem, not the infrastructure. If that is the case then there's nowhere to put them.
Ideally they should be on local routes like Bay, Coryton, Penarth and city line.

I can see the 158s staying to supplement mainline fleet needs so they can get the ETCS 197s onto the Cambrian.

 

[BillStampy]

I can see the 158s staying to supplement mainline fleet needs so they can get the ETCS 197s onto the Cambrian.

I'm unsure how well the 158 competency in South Wales is holding up considering the units avoid the area like the plague as they're needed on the Cambrian until the 197s are in.
The issues with the 398s are raising concerns. For my personally, I'm particularly concerned about how much the fleet is being stretched, particularly as Canton now have a backlog of units on depot waiting for availability at one of the north wheel lathes whilst Canton's is out of action, passing on the mainline there's a line-up of FLIRTs, 150s and 153s.

It's not good!

 

[Chris125]

The thing is even if they aren't fit for purpose and procurement etc has gone horribly horribly wrong. Issue is the logical replacement for some would be FLIRTS but then politically you either have to admit it was Welsh governments fault (not a great look if you want to run the country independently?) or be seen to give stadler more money when they failed you.

The logical replacement would be more tram trains - that's what the electrification, depot and street running between the Bay and Cardiff Central are designed for. Junking the entire tram-train concept because of specific issues with 398s is ridiculous.

 

[nwales58]

If I were anyone else looking for tram train technology in the UK I sure would think twice about getting city links though, so wether it's stadlers fault or not they'd probably be inclined to try their best to help out.

Several 'informed buyers' are still ordering Citylinks. Although Karlsruhe subsequently spread their bets buying Siemens GT8 and Bombardier for the long extensions, the standardised VDV-spec order for Saarbrücken, Karlsruhe, Neckar-Alb (Reutlingen area), Salzburg and Linz is for Citylink as well as Aarhus who previously bought Stadler (CH) Tango now ordering Citylink.

I do not see this as a problem with the vehicle order, other than battery capacity and the like, despite the current state of what was delivered. We're not looking at a Firema or AnsaldoBreda.

I definitely see no problem with the concept which has delivered improved more frequent services at lower cost over several countries and many decades.

I see it as implementation phase not having the right remit, experienced people and budget. Probably because we treat each of these as a one-off. Karlsruhe converted a bit then grew and grew and grew, Kassel built on Karlsruhe, Chemitz, Saarbrücken adapted. Szeged and Aarhus show it can be done within an entirely different non-german regulatory framework.

For instance, tram-train units do travel around at 80-100 km/h on many other systems. Why is it a problem here? Driving style I understand is completely different from a heavier train. That's why we have professional drivers, thousands of them on existing systems.

Eventually CVL will work.

The one avoidable mistake I see is discontinuous electrification. I can hear engineers scream, but 750V overhead on some stretches would have allowed amps to be delivered to trains where clearances are too small for 25kV (Albtalbahn still use 750V on their original lines, Chemnitz-Stollberg and some of Kassel was new DC too). Reduced pan down+pan up, breakers going thump and less need for modern belt-and-braces software making sure nothing goes wrong). Yes, another substation or two would have been needed but less of a mess than the discontinuous electrification fetish causes.

You could also ask why Sheffield-Rotherham took so long to achieve not very much.

I see improved frequencies which means many more drivers employed as well as better for passengers. I anticipate improved access from cheap enough extensions running through to places people are travelling to. Make it work and get the infrastructure costs down.

 

[AdamWW]

The one avoidable mistake I see is discontinuous electrification. I can hear engineers scream, but 750V overhead on some stretches would have allowed amps to be delivered to trains where clearances are too small for 25kV (Albtalbahn still use 750V on their original lines, Chemnitz-Stollberg and some of Kassel was new DC too). Reduced pan down+pan up, breakers going thump and less need for modern belt-and-braces software making sure nothing goes wrong). Yes, another substation or two would have been needed but less of a mess than the discontinuous electrification fetish causes.

There are two types of discontinous electrification on the routes the 398s will use.

There are relatively short permanently earthed sections under bridges and the like. I don't know why these are used when elsewhere on the network wires go under bridges with extremely small clearance, using surge arrestors and perhaps an insulating coating on the bridge. There is no doubt a good reason.

With a permanently earthed section the pantograph stays up and I imagine a 750 V section would also require circuit breakers to open and close. I'm having trouble seeing how voltage changes would be less complex than going on and off battery.

Then there are areas where the wires were left out to reduce electrification costs, e.g. through Cardiff Queen Street. I don't imagine using 750 V would help much there.

If I knew more about how this was all funded I could take an opinion on whether they should have just spent more money on a full electrification scheme or whether it was what made it possible to get sufficient funding in the first place.

 

[SWML9102]

There are two types of discontinous electrification on the routes the 398s will use.

There are relatively short permanently earthed sections under bridges and the like. I don't know why these are used when elsewhere on the network wires go under bridges with extremely small clearance, using surge arrestors and perhaps an insulating coating on the bridge. There is no doubt a good reason.

With a permanently earthed section the pantograph stays up and I imagine a 750 V section would also require circuit breakers to open and close. I'm having trouble seeing how voltage changes would be less complex than going on and off battery.

Then there are areas where the wires were left out to reduce electrification costs, e.g. through Cardiff Queen Street. I don't imagine using 750 V would help much there.

If I knew more about how this was all funded I could take an opinion on whether they should have just spent more money on a full electrification scheme or whether it was what made it possible to get sufficient funding in the first place.

I think the point is that if you ran the entire network as 750 V dc then you need a lot less physical clearance to structures than with 25,000 V ac. This means you can get away without the wiring discontinuities and permanently earthed sections. As a result less wear and tear due to raising/lowering the pantograph or circuit breakers opening and closing.

On the other hand 750 V dc is a lot less efficient, and requires more trackside feeders.

 

[positron]

750dc would also presumably mean they couldn't have introduced Flirts in the interim and also would never be able to run them in future (e.g. event days). You'd also still need cat free in Central because they don't own it. You'd also surely still do cat free at pontypridd and Queen Street because it's still expensive to wire.

I don't think a less efficient system would have saved them much.

I do think they should have and hopefully still can bring in some specialists from the continent that can get this all up and running effectively.

They *need* this to work for Hirwaun to ever happen for example. Hopefully now it's not labour in charge they'll be more open to making tweaks to the roll out plan to get this working in the long term.

 

[Cardiff123]

If I knew more about how this was all funded I could take an opinion on whether they should have just spent more money on a full electrification scheme or whether it was what made it possible to get sufficient funding in the first place.

Funding for the CVL all came from various sources, but the funding was finite.
UK Government contributed the least, originally just £125m.
There was funding from the Cardiff Capital City Region.
The Welsh Government got money from the last round of EU Structural funding that Wales (and specifically the Valleys) was entitled to before Brexit.
And the rest came out of the Welsh Government's devolved budget.

Mark Barry has written blogs on the subject of the South Wales Metro funding and devolved rail infrastructure funding in Wales (or lack of it)