Transport for Wales "more new trains" - continued discussion

[rjames87]

Is there any option for additional centre cars for the existing 197s, rather than complete new trains?

 

[Snow1964]

Is there any option for additional centre cars for the existing 197s, rather than complete new trains?

The original order was in 2018, so I suspect any priced options have lapsed long ago.

However, there is nothing to stop a separate follow on order for more centre cars being placed (although price is likely to be different)

From memory additional parts do not need to go through a procurement competition. However if they started buying additional trains then unless it is a small add on to same spec (that no one else builds) an order for new trains would need to go out to tender

 

[Caaardiff]

If I was TfW I'd be giving serious consideration to ordering a replacement fleet of 5 car long distance trains (with two classes and catering faciltiies) to replace the Mk4 sets and take over all long distance work, releasing 197s to replace the older DMUs on the Heart of Wales and Borderlands (including to get rid of the 230s). I would look to order enough 5 car sets both to replace all Mk4 sets but also so that all Manchester-South Wales services would be formed of these instead of 197s, creating a cascade. I suppose freeing up 756s for that is another option, but 197s are probably more suitable for the rural work (due to having a 2 car option and being basic, simple mechanical units).

Fully agree with this. There needs to be a consistent offering between West Wales/Swansea and Manchester, rather than having 2 hourly Cardiff Mk4.
A standard type of train, suitable for long distances, with some a First carriage. TFW could keep the travelling chef to specific 2 hourly services to keep costs down, as i'm sure having a chef on board every Manchester train would be unnecessary cost for little return.

I would simply order more 197s to replace all of the MK4 and 153 and 230 trains. That would be much simpler than having yet another new train type. They already use the 197s on similar routes so i think they would work fine.

There's mixed opinions on 197's as a long distance train. I'm not sure if a 5 car 197 is an option, so it would mean a bunch more 2 and 3 cars to meet the 5 car requirement on the Marches. Having more units is less efficient from a maintenance perspective, so increases Depot requirements.

Wouldn't a sensible option just to be order a bunch more 231s.

They can go into service without worrying about future electrification but could later be converted to electrodiesels should the situation warrant it?

Their fuel range is terrible, which would restrict where they could be used on TFW's network.

Putting aside any introduction difficulties of the 398s, what do we think of the idea that the valleys lines might get more 398s, and then if that happens, 756s would become available for use elsewhere, such as proposed services between Cardiff and Bristol?

TFW will be operating West Wales to Bristol, not Cardiff to Bristol. They want to tap into the market from the West. So diesel units are the only suitable ones.

 

[The exile]

TFW will be operating West Wales to Bristol, not Cardiff to Bristol. They want to tap into the market from the West.

Though talk has also been of Cardiff - Bristol stoppers, which are hardly likely to attract through custom from West Wales.

 

[Snow1964]

There's mixed opinions on 197's as a long distance train. I'm not sure if a 5 car 197 is an option, so it would mean a bunch more 2 and 3 cars to meet the 5 car requirement on the Marches. Having more units is less efficient from a maintenance perspective, so increases Depot requirements.

If it is anything like GWR at Bristol, who tried (but regularly couldn't) operate 5car units formed of a 2+3 car unit on Cardiff-Portsmouth (before they were shortened to 3car or 4car), having to form every train of two different types is just an operational nightmare.

TfW will also have trains being formed up in Stabling points miles away (as GWR found with Fratton) if they get a problem, unless have lots of units (of both types) in reserve end up misforming a train. Especially when it takes 2 hours to send a spare unit to start point. Yesterday a Portsmouth train was formed of 2 x 2car 165s, which is less than ideal and good example of why mixed units shouldn't be scheduled.

 

[Topological]

The 2+3 does mean that we get trains when part is not available, invaluable when cover is needed for the Mk4s. For that reason I would be happy for more 197s in the current form (though probably no catering cupboard and maybe another toilet in the 2-cars)

TfW do have a few stabling points, but it is not as drastic as GWR at Portsmouth. There are no Manchester starts/finishes and Crewe is convenient for Chester in the worst case. Shrewsbury likewise will have lots of routes where 197s work. West Wales is more of an issue, but they tend to only send single units beyond Swansea (which worst case is near enough to Canton).

 

[amahy]

The 2+3 does mean that we get trains when part is not available, invaluable when cover is needed for the Mk4s. For that reason I would be happy for more 197s in the current form (though probably no catering cupboard and maybe another toilet in the 2-cars)

I disagree. Ordering shorter trains just gives TOCs the excuse to short form, instead of the proper solution, which is to have enough trains in the first place! It also results in wasted space, from having cabs in the middle performing no useful function.

Take Thameslink as an example, which has completely eliminated short forms by replacing its fleet with one of an equivalent size in terms of vehicles, but with less trains in longer formations. And Thameslink does not suffer from frequent cancellations/disruption due to shortages of units!

 

[WelshBluebird]

TFW will be operating West Wales to Bristol, not Cardiff to Bristol. They want to tap into the market from the West. So diesel units are the only suitable ones.

Aren't there two different services being planned?
The West Wales to Bristol ones that are essentially extensions of the West Wales to Cardiff services that is less frequent, and a Cardiff to Bristol stopper either once an hour or twice an hour.

 

[Topological]

Aren't there two different services being planned?
The West Wales to Bristol ones that are essentially extensions of the West Wales to Cardiff services that is less frequent, and a Cardiff to Bristol stopper either once an hour or twice an hour.

But most West Wales to Cardiff only exist because of the Mk4 sets being unable to fulfill the original service. New stock would allow the return of hourly Swansea to Manchester.

Although, I do remember talk of West Wales to Bristol services.

 

[Farigiraf]

But most West Wales to Cardiff only exist because of the Mk4 sets being unable to fulfill the original service. New stock would allow the return of hourly Swansea to Manchester.

Although, I do remember talk of West Wales to Bristol services.

Through services to Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock from Cardiff are still needed (as connections are often unreliable) and these wouldn't be well suited to intercity stock. Better to have all Manchester services end at Swansea (save a few that go on to Carmarthen) and then run a separate service to West Wales which can start from Bristol. Not sure where that would leave the Swanline but I suppose you'd probably be able to fit in at least 1tph local operated by a 231.

 

[Topological]

Through services to Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock from Cardiff are still needed (as connections are often unreliable) and these wouldn't be well suited to intercity stock. Better to have all Manchester services end at Swansea (save a few that go on to Carmarthen) and then run a separate service to West Wales which can start from Bristol.

There are two challenges here for me:

1. Cardiff to Manchester via Hereford is not Intercity, it is a regional service that can help more people by stopping more on quicker dwells. We are never going to see hourly fast and slows on the line.

2. Paths through Cardiff are limited. If you are taking the "non-intercity" stock from West Wales all the way through to Bristol you are running a very short train in a path that should be used for something longer.

The present 197 split/join at Swansea works. That gives you a 5-car on Swansea - Manchester.

The TfW "stopper" to serve all these new stations would be better as an EMU. Filton bank does need electrifying.

IF you really need a Swansea to Bristol train then the obvious thing to do is start the current Cardiff - Taunton/Exeter back at Swansea. Given Malliphant maintains the IETs, that would not be a huge leap.

 

[Farigiraf]

1. Cardiff to Manchester via Hereford is not Intercity, it is a regional service that can help more people by stopping more on quicker dwells. We are never going to see hourly fast and slows on the line.

It's not intercity but it warrants interregional/regional-express stock akin to the Mk4s. Bletchleyite has outlined what these could be like. I don't think trundles along the West Wales line with its short platforms and low linespeeds would be the best use of this stock, and not many people from Manchester will be going beyond Swansea anyway. Bridgend-Swansea seems to be the biggest bottleneck - you'd need to fit in 1tph GWR, 1tph Manchester-Swansea, 1tph West Wales-Cardiff/Bristol and 1-2tph Swanline.

2. Paths through Cardiff are limited. If you are taking the "non-intercity" stock from West Wales all the way through to Bristol you are running a very short train in a path that should be used for something longer.

If 197 split/join maneuvers are as reliable as you say they are then you could attach two 197s (or future regional stock) to each other and run a 1tph service between Cardiff and Whitland, with one 197 going on to Pembroke and the other on to Milford Haven. Not sure about what to do with Fishguard.

The current arrangement where long-distance Marches trains run on to Milford Haven (less so in recent timetables though) and the Pembroke Dock service is joined to the Swanline is quite all over the place - the frequencies are below what they should be (particularly on the Swanline) and delays in Stockport can delay a train in Haverfordwest. I suppose the Cardiff-Swansea locals are unlikely to get a decent service without anywhere to loop a stopper to let an express past.

But back to rolling stock! Mk4 replacement with a suitable long-distance train would allow for 197 cascades onto the branch lines & Heart of Wales. While the FLIRTs are great, without a new rolling stock order, they're probably best suited to commuter routes in South Wales - 398s on the Penarth-Coryton/Caerphilly lines would allow a 756 cascade onto Swansea-Cardiff, Abergavenny-Cardiff and Cardiff-Bristol for example.

The TfW "stopper" to serve all these new stations would be better as an EMU. Filton bank does need electrifying.

I was referring to the idea of having two separate services - one EMU service calling at the Burns stations, and another that's a fast/semifast extension to Bristol of West Wales to Cardiff services, another aspiration TFW has.

 

[tfw756rider]

I'm not sure if a 5 car 197 is an option

I can't see why it wouldn't be (by inserting new extra vehicles into an existing unit, if no new units can be built).

NI had 7 CAF C4Ks doubled in length from 3-car to 6-car (10 years after the original units were built).

I'm guessing that the Train Management System software had to be updated, so surely it would just be a case of doing the same for 197s.

 

[tfw756rider]

I've seen the following posted recently in the 398 thread:

It's looking likely now Taffs Well will be taking all off 36 units and an additional order for 10-13 units for Treherbert is currently being discussed. Then if funds are approved for the Coryton capacity increase, along with the wires to Cogan, then the 756/0 fleet will be moving over to mainline as mentioned. They also need the additonal feeder station at Ninian Park to come online to boost OLE capciaty.

Also, a few months ago in the "could TfW expand the 197 fleet" thread, the following was posted:

Apparently tfw are buying 10 more 197’s

I heard there was plans to order additional carriages from CAF to lengthen a number of the two carriage 197s to 3 carriages plus some 197s for the heart fo wales line

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.

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

I would still rather middle carriages added.

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

Does anyone have any updates on the extra 398s and/or 197s?

 

[Snow1964]

Does anyone have any updates on the extra 398s and/or 197s?

Even though no 398s are yet in service, in 2 months time will be 8 years since order was announced (August 2018)

Clearly in 8 years (probably actually nearer 9-10 years since fleet was being planned) usage levels has changed, but unclear how long it will take to expand fleet. The new Welsh Assembly has now started, and elections changeover would have put everything on hold. The 13 Senedd Committees were only agreed 2 days ago, so would hope they can now start work and ratify any plans

 

[cle]

Wouldn't Bristol be a much more appealing destination for Swansea and West Wales than Manchester? I know Manchester is important of course, but I can't imagine there is a ton of regular traffic between them. Notably, they don't even have Birmingham service, which is far closer and maybe more connected to South Wales, and mid points like Herefordshire? Could/should a Birmingham service run to Swansea? Maybe the future Midlands Hub one...

But for West Wales, Manchester is far. Crewe is useful to have of course - I've always advocated that another stopper for the Marches could start at Crewe and handle all the local traffic - it has the right bays, and connections to everywhere (not only Manchester) - that could run to Swansea - but seems as if Liverpool was preferred. Will that Liverpool-Shrewsbury/Cardiff plan ever return, or are we all in on Llandudno?

And another issue is there are numerous western branches which would all ideally have at least 1tph/2h to Swansea, ideally Cardiff too. Bristol seems a better fit and there is an active push to grow rail services there (vs finite capacity out of Manchester)

 

[stevieinselby]

Wouldn't Bristol be a much more appealing destination for Swansea and West Wales than Manchester? I know Manchester is important of course, but I can't imagine there is a ton of regular traffic between them. Notably, they don't even have Birmingham service, which is far closer and maybe more connected to South Wales, and mid points like Herefordshire? Could/should a Birmingham service run to Swansea? Maybe the future Midlands Hub one...

The majority of the 1.15m passengers using Swansea in 2024/25 were travelling within Wales ... the top destinations in England were Paddington (117k), Bristol Temple Meads (21k), Bristol Parkway (13k), Swindon (11k), Reading (8k), Manchester (8k), Bath (5k) and Birmingham (4k) – so on that basis, Manchester is a better destination than Birmingham (although there will be an element of people's travel patterns being shaped by the service that is offered), but Bristol would be better again.

But, to be honest, the proportion of passengers travelling beyond Cardiff is pretty trivial – compared to the 300k that travel to Cardiff, the proportion going to any of Bristol, Birmingham or Manchester is so small that it's probably not worth worrying about which destinations pair up, and just go with whatever combination is operationally convenient.

 

[Zomboid]

The majority of the 1.15m passengers using Swansea in 2024/25 were travelling within Wales ... the top destinations in England were Paddington (117k), Bristol Temple Meads (21k), Bristol Parkway (13k), Swindon (11k), Reading (8k), Manchester (8k), Bath (5k) and Birmingham (4k) – so on that basis, Manchester is a better destination than Birmingham (although there will be an element of people's travel patterns being shaped by the service that is offered), but Bristol would be better again.

But, to be honest, the proportion of passengers travelling beyond Cardiff is pretty trivial – compared to the 300k that travel to Cardiff, the proportion going to any of Bristol, Birmingham or Manchester is so small that it's probably not worth worrying about which destinations pair up, and just go with whatever combination is operationally convenient.

With those kind of numbers, would it not make more sense to look at Cardiff & Newport? The train may originate in Swansea, but it'll serve lots of other stations before the "decision point" at Newport, and maybe that would give some indication of where it should go.

Though I'd expect the answer to that to be Bristol.

 

[Topological]

Remember that Swansea used to have hourly to Manchester until someone decided that it would be better to use stock that is incapable of running the service. Now Swansea to Manchester is only every 2 hours.

I am no longer counted in the West of Cardiff to Manchester numbers as I drive (either to Pontypool and New Inn, or to Manchester). I do not think I am necessarily representative, but I am also sure I am not the only one to change behaviour.

 

[positron]

The majority of the 1.15m passengers using Swansea in 2024/25 were travelling within Wales ... the top destinations in England were Paddington (117k), Bristol Temple Meads (21k), Bristol Parkway (13k), Swindon (11k), Reading (8k), Manchester (8k), Bath (5k) and Birmingham (4k) – so on that basis, Manchester is a better destination than Birmingham (although there will be an element of people's travel patterns being shaped by the service that is offered), but Bristol would be better again.

But, to be honest, the proportion of passengers travelling beyond Cardiff is pretty trivial – compared to the 300k that travel to Cardiff, the proportion going to any of Bristol, Birmingham or Manchester is so small that it's probably not worth worrying about which destinations pair up, and just go with whatever combination is operationally convenient.

I'm not saying you're wrong but it's worth remembering that current passenger numbers are not a reliable indicator of future passenger numbers. If someone had to swap trains to get somewhere they might be far less likely to actually travel there (not me personally I don't care much but most people think that way).

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

I've seen the following posted recently in the 398 thread:


Also, a few months ago in the "could TfW expand the 197 fleet" thread, the following was posted:




Does anyone have any updates on the extra 398s and/or 197s?

I'd be disappointed if they did order more 197s given their life span is going to be incredibly small for such a high price. If money is as low as they make out they should be investing in electric units even if they're not directly powered by the wires. 231s for example are the right kind of train to buy. More carriages for the existing 197s feels more acceptable.

I suspect there will be more 398s ordered assuming they can get them to penarth without more wires or they can get the wires funded.

 

[Snow1964]

I'm not saying you're wrong but it's worth remembering that current passenger numbers are not a reliable indicator of future passenger numbers.

For reference, I downloaded ORR data for TfW

Most recent year (4 quarters) April 2025 - March 2026
for comparison (close to train order date) April 2018 - March 2019

Table 1223 Passenger numbers
2018-2019 33.451m. 2025-2026 34.458m. (103% of 7 years earlier)

Table 1233 Passenger Km (number multiplied by distance)
2018-2019 1242.6m 2025-2026 1324.7m. (107%)

Table 1243 Train km
2018-2019 23.808m 2025-2026 26.242m (110%)

So at moment operating about 10% more services, and passenger km has grown 7%, so could argue doesn't yet need new stock.

But : (and this is quite big but), recent growth has been strong, and got to remember that contactless in South Wales only really started year ago, and a number of services 3-15 months ago were suspended for electrification work. And as growth is expected once full service becomes more regular, looks like isn't much slack in the 10% uplift (train km) that is provided with new fleet compared to 7 years earlier

 

[positron]

My point was mainly that new services would change the current growth trajectory. But good point that there could be slack in the current stock if COVID dip still applied.