Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
There’s still many ongoing issues, some which are supposedly linked to the control units or TCU’s. It’s taking around 7-10 seconds on occasions for the brakes to respond when commanded. This has resulted in some runs being cancelled I’ve been told. This was initially thought to be linked to the running in multiple, but also is affecting single units.
Guard and driver training is underway, although running very behind. One course of conductors having to try multiple units just get a module completed due to systems not working; on brand new units!
There also ongoing politics around the door process, onboard safety equipment, including the lack of fire extinguishers in the passenger saloons and fire detection, which is back and forth between training, ops standards and trade union members.
The Bay line is progressing as mentioned above, the units though are far from ready to enter any form of commercial service - with fault free running, interoperability and ORR approval still outstanding.
Be prepared for a difficult few months ahead with unit availability.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They’ve gone for the lowest specification on the saloon heating system, and instead of the full HVAC, it’s a thermostat system which set to achieve a constant temperature, preprogrammed. It comes with opening windows. The cabs are fully air conditioned, not the saloon. Ignore the specifications in the catalogue they haven’t equipped the 398’s with a lot of the things available from the manufacturer. They could have even come with a toilet!
Oh well, as is usual with new fleets. Things would be easier if they were NOT brand new units of course.
Fingers crossed it will all be ironed out and forgotten about eventually - like most new fleet roll outs these days.
This new fleet involves a lot of changes so perhaps it will be more of a struggle - but TfW will get there.
In terms of specification I feel TfW have trumped everything with FREQUENCY (and eventually a bit of) street running.
Only two problems with that in my eyes - no loos and a downgrade from the temporary (and unplanned ?) use of Flirts !.
They’ve gone for the lowest specification on the saloon heating system, and instead of the full HVAC, it’s a thermostat system which set to achieve a constant temperature, preprogrammed. It comes with opening windows. The cabs are fully air conditioned, not the saloon. Ignore the specifications in the catalogue they haven’t equipped the 398’s with a lot of the things available from the manufacturer. They could have even come with a toilet!
I thought this claim of yours had been disproven. It’s been stated many times from people within TfW, on here, by TfW publicly and by the Welsh Government that they have aircon. Do you have any proof that they don’t.
I thought this claim of yours had been disproven. It’s been stated many times from people within TfW, on here, by TfW publicly and by the Welsh Government that they have aircon. Do you have any proof that they don’t.
I thought this claim of yours had been disproven. It’s been stated many times from people within TfW, on here, by TfW publicly and by the Welsh Government that they have aircon. Do you have any proof that they don’t.
Yep they do. Says so on Stadlers website specifically for the 398s. It lists the AC capabilities separately for the cab and cabin which may have led to the initial confusion. I certainly thought it said no AC for the cabin when I first read it.
Also, most train fleets with AC have windows as a backup in case it fails, even the 158s have this...
I might just mute that account. I may even stop following the thread before it descends into conspiracy theories...
You would of thought that if these units supposedly have as many issues with the units, with the training plan, with the unions etc, that someone would of 'whistle blown' to local media, to railway media, to mps/councillor's etc to get the issues out into the public domain.
Unions usually go public if they are having issues, or threaten ballot action of things are not they way they think they should be.
From what I've seen, Graz in Austria has Citylink units for it's new stock which isn't in service yet, with an onboard toilet. They look different from the UK units from the outside though, so I don't think the claim that the UK units could have a toilet onboard is true just because the Austrian units have one.
Also no idea if it meets UK standards, but it appears to be a similar size (but hard to tell from a CGI image).
It takes up around a third of the space of the middle car which looks a bit silly in my view.
I still think it's the right move for the Metro. More space on board is more important - missing a service because it's full is going to be far more annoying than not having a toilet onboard, especially as you wouldn't be able to get to it if it was standing room only.
The 150s regularly had commuters using the space in the loo for additional standing room anyway. You could still technically use it, but it wasn't exactly private...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You would of thought that if these units supposedly have as many issues with the units, with the training plan, with the unions etc, that someone would of 'whistle blown' to local media, to railway media, to mps/councillor's etc to get the issues out into the public domain.
Unions usually go public if they are having issues, or threaten ballot action of things are not they way they think they should be.
Oh well, as is usual with new fleets. Things would be easier if they were NOT brand new units of course.
Fingers crossed it will all be ironed out and forgotten about eventually - like most new fleet roll outs these days.
This new fleet involves a lot of changes so perhaps it will be more of a struggle - but TfW will get there.
In terms of specification I feel TfW have trumped everything with FREQUENCY (and eventually a bit of) street running.
Only two problems with that in my eyes - no loos and a downgrade from the temporary (and unplanned ?) use of Flirts !.
While frequency to "Cardiff" as a whole will be increased. Its actually a significant reduction to Cardiff Central in term of max passengers.
Currently each valley normal has 2tph which are 4 car Flirts 159 seats + 30 flip up seat + 234 standing = 423 per unit. So 846 passengers an hour
The 398s have 98seats +31 flip ups + 128 max standing = 257 per unit. So 514 passengers an hour
From Pontypridd to Central that's 2538 an hour currently
Reduced to 1542 when the 398s take over. Basic ~1000 passengers less an hour.
And you cant just double up all the 398s because they haven't ordered enough.
Each valley is still expected to be around 1h travel time meaning 4tph needs 8 trains per valley (4 via central & 4 to the bay). eg 24.
Lets say ~10% in maintenance so lets say 4 units. leaving 8 of the 24 sets which can be doubled up. ie 1 in 3
While frequency to "Cardiff" as a whole will be increased. Its actually a significant reduction to Cardiff Central in term of max passengers.
Currently each valley normal has 2tph which are 4 car Flirts 159 seats + 30 flip up seat + 234 standing = 423 per unit. So 846 passengers an hour
The 398s have 98seats +31 flip ups + 128 max standing = 257 per unit. So 514 passengers an hour
From Pontypridd to Central that's 2538 an hour currently
Reduced to 1542 when the 398s take over. Basic ~1000 passengers less an hour.
And you cant just double up all the 398s because they haven't ordered enough.
Each valley is still expected to be around 1h travel time meaning 4tph needs 8 trains per valley (4 via central & 4 to the bay). eg 24.
Lets say ~10% in maintenance so lets say 4 units. leaving 8 of the 24 sets which can be doubled up. ie 1 in 3
Do it from Queen Street instead and the figures look a lot better. The services currently empty out a lot at Queen Street, given it is closer to big employers like Admiral or workplaces along Newport Road. Those people will see a big improvement in frequency.
And indeed if you look at the numbers, you can really see that the frequency uplift will be hugely beneficial even ignoring cardiff Central.
As an example, more people travel to stations other than Cardiff central from Pontypridd compared to Central itself.
I.e. Pontypridd to Cardiff Central had ~100k passengers, but the combination of passengers to Queen Street and other stations on the valleys network adds up to more. So more people will benefit than who wont.
And that is before you consider people changing their behaviour. E.g. aligning at Queen Street instead, or changing services especially north of Pontypridd.
Another thing I've just thought of, surely if they are having such serious issues with braking, NR would refuse them accsss to any mainline for testing, and tell them to get back to Old Dalby to get the problem sorted
Serves as a reminder that this is a public forum where anyone can say whatever they want, all of the information about how "awful" the units are are being provided by one user. As they say, you can't believe everything you hear online and everyone has their own viewpoint on certain things and very much can make things seem much worse than they are in reality.
I think in reality, they're doing pretty positively for training runs as they're operating consistently now and fingers crossed there'll be a unit out in the next month or so.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Another thing I've just thought of, surely if they are having such serious issues with braking, NR would refuse them accsss to any mainline for testing, and tell them to get back to Old Dalby to get the problem sorted
A few units did travel back to old Dalby last summer but on rail via RailAdventure transportation, these also all ran under their own power from Taffs Well Depot to Pengam Sidings and return when they came back.
Another thing I've just thought of, surely if they are having such serious issues with braking, NR would refuse them accsss to any mainline for testing, and tell them to get back to Old Dalby to get the problem sorted
While frequency to "Cardiff" as a whole will be increased. Its actually a significant reduction to Cardiff Central in term of max passengers.
Currently each valley normal has 2tph which are 4 car Flirts 159 seats + 30 flip up seat + 234 standing = 423 per unit. So 846 passengers an hour
The 398s have 98seats +31 flip ups + 128 max standing = 257 per unit. So 514 passengers an hour
From Pontypridd to Central that's 2538 an hour currently
Reduced to 1542 when the 398s take over. Basic ~1000 passengers less an hour.
And you cant just double up all the 398s because they haven't ordered enough.
Each valley is still expected to be around 1h travel time meaning 4tph needs 8 trains per valley (4 via central & 4 to the bay). eg 24.
Lets say ~10% in maintenance so lets say 4 units. leaving 8 of the 24 sets which can be doubled up. ie 1 in 3
I'd say that what matters is how provision matches (potential) demand, not what the current provision is.
If you are going to compare before and after, personally I wouldn't be including the current temporary situation with 756s, I'd be comparing provision before any of the new trains came in with what the 398s will offer.
Another thing I've just thought of, surely if they are having such serious issues with braking, NR would refuse them accsss to any mainline for testing, and tell them to get back to Old Dalby to get the problem sorted
You could argue that the CVL is not NR infrastructure, but the safety considerations of running tests with supposedly dodgy brakes on a live railway line shared with passenger services would be the same and the rail regulator would take a very dim view of that.
While frequency to "Cardiff" as a whole will be increased. Its actually a significant reduction to Cardiff Central in term of max passengers.
Currently each valley normal has 2tph which are 4 car Flirts 159 seats + 30 flip up seat + 234 standing = 423 per unit. So 846 passengers an hour
The 398s have 98seats +31 flip ups + 128 max standing = 257 per unit. So 514 passengers an hour
From Pontypridd to Central that's 2538 an hour currently
Reduced to 1542 when the 398s take over. Basic ~1000 passengers less an hour.
And you cant just double up all the 398s because they haven't ordered enough.
Each valley is still expected to be around 1h travel time meaning 4tph needs 8 trains per valley (4 via central & 4 to the bay). eg 24.
Lets say ~10% in maintenance so lets say 4 units. leaving 8 of the 24 sets which can be doubled up. ie 1 in 3
I'd say that what matters is how provision matches (potential) demand, not what the current provision is.
If you are going to compare before and after, personally I wouldn't be including the current temporary situation with 756s, I'd be comparing provision before any of the new trains came in with what the 398s will offer.
They’ve gone for the lowest specification on the saloon heating system, and instead of the full HVAC, it’s a thermostat system which set to achieve a constant temperature, preprogrammed. It comes with opening windows. The cabs are fully air conditioned, not the saloon. Ignore the specifications in the catalogue they haven’t equipped the 398’s with a lot of the things available from the manufacturer. They could have even come with a toilet!
While frequency to "Cardiff" as a whole will be increased. Its actually a significant reduction to Cardiff Central in term of max passengers.
Currently each valley normal has 2tph which are 4 car Flirts 159 seats + 30 flip up seat + 234 standing = 423 per unit. So 846 passengers an hour
The 398s have 98seats +31 flip ups + 128 max standing = 257 per unit. So 514 passengers an hour
From Pontypridd to Central that's 2538 an hour currently
Reduced to 1542 when the 398s take over. Basic ~1000 passengers less an hour.
And you cant just double up all the 398s because they haven't ordered enough.
Each valley is still expected to be around 1h travel time meaning 4tph needs 8 trains per valley (4 via central & 4 to the bay). eg 24.
Lets say ~10% in maintenance so lets say 4 units. leaving 8 of the 24 sets which can be doubled up. ie 1 in 3
While frequency to "Cardiff" as a whole will be increased. Its actually a significant reduction to Cardiff Central in term of max passengers.
Currently each valley normal has 2tph which are 4 car Flirts 159 seats + 30 flip up seat + 234 standing = 423 per unit. So 846 passengers an hour
The 398s have 98seats +31 flip ups + 128 max standing = 257 per unit. So 514 passengers an hour
From Pontypridd to Central that's 2538 an hour currently
Reduced to 1542 when the 398s take over. Basic ~1000 passengers less an hour.
And you cant just double up all the 398s because they haven't ordered enough.
Each valley is still expected to be around 1h travel time meaning 4tph needs 8 trains per valley (4 via central & 4 to the bay). eg 24.
Lets say ~10% in maintenance so lets say 4 units. leaving 8 of the 24 sets which can be doubled up. ie 1 in 3
150s have 111 standard seats, 7 flip seats and standing space for 96 along with 2 bike spaces. 214 per unit, 43 less than a 398. So it's a capacity increase.
Regardless of that, you can run Mk4's up the Valleys and throw those figures around. It won't make an ounce of difference to the demand. The Flirts are often an overcapacity through the day. There will be certain peak time services where 2 sets of 398's will be needed, outside of that a 398 should have sufficient capacity to move people around.
150s have 111 standard seats, 7 flip seats and standing space for 96 along with 2 bike spaces. 214 per unit, 43 less than a 398. So it's a capacity increase.
Regardless of that, you can run Mk4's up the Valleys and throw those figures around. It won't make an ounce of difference to the demand. The Flirts are often an overcapacity through the day. There will be certain peak time services where 2 sets of 398's will be needed, outside of that a 398 should have sufficient capacity to move people around.
I believe 398034 was delivered mid May and that leaves 398035 & 398036 left to go (come).
But I wonder/doubt if 398034 or (earlier numbers) are all accepted for service yet. I am pretty sure all 398s up to and including 398034 have been delivered, if not then it is only 398025 and 398032 (been at Asfordby) I am not aware of in South Wales.
Treherbert - I went there in May (Sunday 10/05/2026) around midday and there were no 398s there. There are sidings there and there were two 756/1s (Flirts) in them.
I should imagine TfW are a long way off being short of 398s unless training is a lot further advanced than it seems.
If you are wanting to see 398s then Taffs Well depot is the number one place to go, quite likely the only place.
I believe 398034 was delivered mid May and that leaves 398035 & 398036 left to go (come).
But I wonder/doubt if 398034 or (earlier numbers) are all accepted for service yet. I am pretty sure all 398s up to and including 398034 have been delivered, if not then it is only 398025 and 398032 (been at Asfordby) I am not aware of in South Wales.
Treherbert - I went there in May (Sunday 10/05/2026) around midday and there were no 398s there. There are sidings there and there were two 756/1s (Flirts) in them.
I should imagine TfW are a long way off being short of 398s unless training is a lot further advanced than it seems.
If you are wanting to see 398s then Taffs Well depot is the number one place to go, quite likely the only place.
Thanks for the clarification - I thought this was the case but happy to be corrected. I think the 756s have openable windows, but they have to be unlocked by the train crew? Presumably the 398s are the same?
Thanks for the clarification - I thought this was the case but happy to be corrected. I think the 756s have openable windows, but they have to be unlocked by the train crew? Presumably the 398s are the same?
Almost all airconditioned trains require the windows to be opened by the guard, simply because people have a tendency to open them when the train is cooling down, which stops the aircon working.
Thanks for the clarification - I thought this was the case but happy to be corrected. I think the 756s have openable windows, but they have to be unlocked by the train crew? Presumably the 398s are the same?
Almost all airconditioned trains require the windows to be opened by the guard, simply because people have a tendency to open them when the train is cooling down, which stops the aircon working.
There are a lot of classes of unit/set that are air conditioned but don't have the "emergency ventilation" windows though, like 168/170/172/175/180/185/195/196/197/220/221/222/345/350/360/390/730/777/800/801/802/805/807/810 and Mark 5A. So 25 there, and those are just the ones I've ridden on...
...whereas I believe that there are relatively few classes that are air conditioned (or designed with air conditioning) that have the "emergency ventilation" windows - 158, 166, 231, 398, 745, 755 and 756. I make that just 7?
Therefore, I don't understand any suggestions that the "emergency ventilation" windows are a lot more common than they actually are.
150s have 111 standard seats, 7 flip seats and standing space for 96 along with 2 bike spaces. 214 per unit, 43 less than a 398. So it's a capacity increase.
Regardless of that, you can run Mk4's up the Valleys and throw those figures around. It won't make an ounce of difference to the demand. The Flirts are often an overcapacity through the day. There will be certain peak time services where 2 sets of 398's will be needed, outside of that a 398 should have sufficient capacity to move people around.
Bear in mind that prior to withdrawal of Pacers, many valleys services were 4-car Pacers or Pacer+150 combos. At peak times these were often overwhelmed. Stations on some routes (Rhymney and Treherbert) were extended to take 6-car trains but the extra rolling stock never materialised. Capacity has not returned to those levels with the introduction of Flirts. ATW and later TfW dodged the capacity meltdown bullet due to lockdowns. I don't think weekday demand has fully returned yet due to home working. Or perhaps the peaks are more spread now.
Just a further query on sidings and capacity. I assume Taffs Well has sufficient siding capacity for the whole fleet with 9, or is it 10, sidings outside which can take 3 units giving space for 27 units. The others can be accommodated in the shed?
Are the units outside moved around on a regular basis to keep them 'fresh'?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
