Had my first experience of travelling on a few 398's this week. I must say i was impressed by the acceleration of these units. The tapered fronts seem to give the impression that the units are narrow inside but I was surprised how roomy and spacious the units were inside, tardis effect. The extra large windows gives a more pleasant travelling experience and the ride quality was for the most part comfortable and a reasonablesound level, when sitting above one of the bogies I did notice a bit more noise and bumping and yawing but was quite acceptable. Overall I was pleased with my experiences with the rides I had with these units, I know many will think it will be a down grade from the temporary new stock, but it will be an improvement from the 150's except for the obvious, lack of toilets, alas that is something the travelling public will have to adapt and come to terms with , as for the late night revellers that's another story.
-
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!
TfW class 398 Stadler Citylink tram trains
- Thread starter Bob Price
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Looks like we had some 398 problems this afternoon - units terminating short and skipping stops. I saw 398018 zip through Cathays with “not in service” on the destination board, heading for the Bay
tfw756rider
On Moderation
I think a 398 is about 3 inches narrower than a 756.
If that's the case it really doesn't feel it inside. Tbf both feel like a much wider unit than a 150.
StripeyNick
Member
Bay service up the swanny this afternoon.
Looks like 022 ran into some trouble down the Bay.
2B78 terminated at CDQ then ran ecs to Taffs Well via the City Line and 2B82 got terminated at Taffs Well and went on shed.
Looks like 022 ran into some trouble down the Bay.
2B78 terminated at CDQ then ran ecs to Taffs Well via the City Line and 2B82 got terminated at Taffs Well and went on shed.
trainspotter4
Member
Seems like as said, 398022 is stuck again, this time down the Bay so appears the service has been scrapped all together for the day until a rescue can be arranged. Its also interesting to see that the line is shown as blocked specifically by 'TRAM', a minor bi-product of still being controlled from WROC so must conform to Network Rail standards.
Last edited:
Cardiff123
Established Member
If there's a 398 stuck down the Bay, isn't the platform long enough to allow another 398 or 150 to occupy the platform at the same time?
This is where the second platform at the Bay will come in very useful.
This is where the second platform at the Bay will come in very useful.
trainspotter4
Member
From my understanding (may be slightly off but based on what I've read over time), whilst the platform physically has the space - the line as I said before is still signaled/controlled from Network Rail's WROC so I'd expect it to be an operational restriction as a result of that (obviously would exclude non-passenger services like rescues etc).
Cardiff Bay is not a permissive platform so only one train is allowed in the section controlled by the preceding signal at one time (except for rescues etc.)
It looks as if the broken down 398 is due to be rescued this morning. Rescue tram 5Z02 due to leave Taffs Well depot shortly returning as 9Z99 at 9.30 so no Bay services scheduled until.mid morning.
Markdvdman
Member
This really is not a good look is it? Cancelled trains all down to a broken down 398. When I saw the email from WalesOnline when it said broken down train I knew it would be a 398! In the past you used to wonder it must be a pacer, when it would be a 150 - always a little mystery. It is sadly predictable and their 4 per hour service timetable for Treherbert is looking a little precarious at the moment! Truly hope it gets sorted!
OrangeJuice
Member
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 211
Seems far more trains cancelled today than just for one 398 on the bay branch
Shouldn't you be asking Transport for Wales that question?
Markdvdman
Member
It is the problem with coupling I guess? I am no expert on this field maybe somebody else can explain?
In my experience this is not the sort of question they are willing to give a meaningful answer to.
When I passed through about 9.30 a.m. there were two class 398's waiting just south of Cardiff Queen Street with 398019 just departing Cardiff Central platform 8 en route. Presumably one at the front and one at the rear to assist the broken 398.
To compound any delays, the diversionary route via the city line is closed for engineering work.
To compound any delays, the diversionary route via the city line is closed for engineering work.
Last edited:
It is pretty poor that they didn't do a midnight rescue again to avoid knock on delays the following day. It's also pretty poor that it's the same unit that's failed again. Presumably they pushed it into service prematurely and didn't actually fix the root cause fault.
Given how important the Bay is operationally to their plans I hope they get these rescues more nailed down. Perhaps it's restrictions given it's controlled by network rail currently whereas under Amey's system of running they'd be able to get a unit down there to rescue faster, or share the platform to continue running a service (though "soon" to be 3 platforms so maybe less necessary).
Given how important the Bay is operationally to their plans I hope they get these rescues more nailed down. Perhaps it's restrictions given it's controlled by network rail currently whereas under Amey's system of running they'd be able to get a unit down there to rescue faster, or share the platform to continue running a service (though "soon" to be 3 platforms so maybe less necessary).
Markdvdman
Member
The worry about not clearing the broken train quickly is what happens when it is a 4 full 4 per hour service, and 2 on a Sunday for the TAM lines? It would cause HUGE delays and cancellations that we do not see! They struggle now with limited services it needs a rethink in strategy. Will have to change it cannot keep going on like this as it will be a disaster!
It's still early days, I'm sure things will get worked out.
It's not early days, though, is it? It's 3½ years since the first 398 was delivered to Taffs well, and 3 months since they were first used on the Bay line.
Is the passage of time likely to simplify the current complexities of rescue, though? One would presume not. Needing to bolt another tram to either end of a failed unit in order to effect a rescue sounds at face value like a desperately poor piece of design, which presumably is unlikely to be resolved with time?
Perhaps not but if reliability increases as is usually the case after new trains have been in service a while then it becomes less of an issue.
And I think that three months into passenger service meets any reasonable definition of early days.
I appreciate that the units have been physically present for much longer than that and they have been running test services for some of that time - but the testing hasn't been with passenger loads or on the route they are currently running on.
It may yet turn out that these trains were a huge mistake and will never go into full passenger service - there certainly have been examples of that in the industry. I can't think of any though where the new trains were of a model that has run successfully elsewhere. Then again maybe the problems are mostly due to intermittent electrification or these are actually a radical departure from other Citylink designs and calling it a Citylink is just marketing. But either way it seems a bit premature to assume that they will never become reliable.
The last few days might show why TfW has been so enthusiastic about pulling 398s from service at the first sign of trouble though.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
It is early days. There have been up to three of the 398s in service for only three months. Most new designs take time to bed in. No amount of testing covers exposure to passengers. Also drivers have to get used to them, some problems are easily overcome with experience.
Why is it time and again, with new fleet introductions, some people have to jump to the conclusion that teething problems mean its the end of the world ?.
The last rescue might have appeared complex BUT most rescues are best done by pulling rather than pushing. In the last case a 398 pulled the failed 398 Southwards out of the bay platform at Queen Street. Then a second 398 was attached to the opposite end to pull the failed 398 Northwards to Taffs Well. The first rescue 398 stayed on to pull the failed 398 South-ish into Taffs Well depot. I expect more time and effort would have allowed one 398 to do the drags but, of course, only where run around facilities exist. Given some of this will have been done on battery having two rescue 398s is sensible anyway.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the issues with TfW's new units are the end of the world, and it's a little disrespectful to hyperbolise valid criticism in this way.
I still don't accept that these are "early days", nor that the ongoing issues with units that were delivered 3½ years ago can be so easily dismissed as "teething problems". Just a few months ago, TfW was confident that the units would be in passenger service on the TAM lines by now.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I am sorry if you think I am being disrespectful.
The 398s are still being delivered (I think two left to go). For much of the 3 1/2 years elapsed the infrastructure to run them has not been available (electrification). Particularly the part down to the Bay from Queen Street where lack of effective earth bonding meant the 398s could not even be allowed on batteries it seems. This seems to have been an unforeseen problem where the bridge over the main line was part of the earth bonding for the main line. That could not be shared with the valley lines. So passenger services were never going to get a chance to give the 398s their final test so to speak until that was resolved.
There will be varying degrees of optimism. I try to look at what is normal and, although the progress of the TAM lines modernisation could be better, progress is arguably better than many other fleet introductions. I also think the results will be worth waiting for. I think it quite possible there is very little wrong with the 398s but the way they are expected to run on the infrastructure could be a challenge ongoing. But we will have to wait and see - too early to form any judgement yet.
Almost one third (11/36) of the 398s are now available for passenger service - but let them bed in first I reckon.
Exciting times ahead (I hope for the right reasons).
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
On this very thread, you (quite persistently and relentlessly) jumped on anyone who presented valid criticism to a member persistently making wild and unfounded claims, to the point where I was wondering if you were being paid off!
But now you say its “disrespectful” to “hyperbolise valid criticism?”
This is less than a week after you declared it “disrespectful” to the Welsh to put a British flag on a train entering the region. The word is going to begin losing its meaning.
Last edited:
chargesmith
Member
Looks like the 398 services were cancelled this morning due to a safety issue with the OHLE (saw this on WoL).
Should start up again about 1030 according to RTT.
Should start up again about 1030 according to RTT.
On this very thread, you (quite persistently and relentlessly) jumped on anyone who presented valid criticism to a member persistently making wild and unfounded claims, to the point where I was wondering if you were being paid off!
I don't think any of the relentless criticism towards that forum member - who was ultimately bullied off the forum - was valid. As far as I can see, nothing that VR494 posted here has been shown to be untrue. In fact a great deal of it has been shown to be correct.