TfW class 398 Stadler Citylink tram trains

[Coleridge]

Thank you, @VR494, and welcome back. It's always a pleasure (if that's the right word) to read your behind-the-scenes reports on this project. I wish TfW were a fraction as forthcoming.

 

[SWML9102]

Good to see you commenting again, VR494!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I do have some information regarding today’s disruption on the TAM and it was apparently due to brake fault on 398024. The rescue unit also had the fault transferred.

One unit is able to assist providing the electrical battery supply is available, two needed for a dead unit with no brake continuity. That’s max 5mph too. Expect that to become the norm in the months ahead.

Training is progressing, however the reliability of the units is still very much under scrutiny. Daily cancellations and unit swaps are the way it’s going.

A few units have already become donors for spares, and 398001 is currently parked up apparently missing various bits waiting to be rebuilt. It is missing various parts from lights, air conditioning units and front ends. They have a parts supply issue with the manufacturer and the 398 may now be an obsolete class. They did mention an order for an additional 12, I don’t have anything further on this.

There is also an ongoing issues with the TCU or train control units, and overheating of the traction motors which is causing the loss of dynamic braking stability. There have been brake failures and one unit on training earlier this month failed in its attempt to stop at a station because of this. It ran through.

At current time, when this fault is occurring they are swapping the unit out for another, if availability is there.

The cause is apparently linked to when not under the wires the regeneration braking is dispersing the excess energy as heat into the brake resistors. Operating at higher speeds in train mode, on discontinuous electricity, is not going well. It overheats and cuts out. They ideally need to be under 25k all the time as designed. One of the fixes being proposed is to overcharge the batteries with excess heat from the brakes. This will reduce the life of the battery and possibly have other effects too!

Thanks for this. Can I ask what your source is? If you provide a decent source as per forum rules I won’t question your credibility going forward. It’s largely down to you seeming to ignore me every time I ask where your information comes from.

 

[Coleridge]

A few units have already become donors for spares, and 398001 is currently parked up apparently missing various bits waiting to be rebuilt. It is missing various parts from lights, air conditioning units and front ends. They have a parts supply issue with the manufacturer and the 398 may now be an obsolete class.

Do you have any specifics on which units have been used for spares in addition to 398001? If there's a problem in obtaining spare parts, does that mean that those units are now unusable? It would be good to know which units we're unlikely to see in service soon.

 

[56xx]

Multiple running also won’t be happening testing has again failed. In one instance the doors on the front unit opened on the correct side and the rear on the wrong side. You can also apparently have no brakes working on the rear and only on the front set! Without a review of the coupler I can’t see how software will change that.

Just as a matter of interest are all the units facing the same way (i.e. No 1 end north, No 2 end south or vice versa), or have some either been delivered or during testing possibly via the city line been turned and are facing differently to the majority.

 

[bahnause]

There is also an ongoing issues with the TCU or train control units, and overheating of the traction motors which is causing the loss of dynamic braking stability. There have been brake failures and one unit on training earlier this month failed in its attempt to stop at a station because of this. It ran through.

Trains are reportedly experiencing brake system failures, which result in them completely missing a scheduled stop. These are trains operating in regular service with passengers on board. Given previous statements, which were questionable from a technical point of view and to which no response was ever given when queries were raised, I will not take this report at face value either.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Do you have any specifics on which units have been used for spares in addition to 398001? If there's a problem in obtaining spare parts, does that mean that those units are now unusable? It would be good to know which units we're unlikely to see in service soon.

For many decades new fleets have ended up using more spares than planned. This has lead to some units becoming spares donors (aka "Christmas trees" !). That has resulted in some units not seeing service for months (I think even years). So I am not surprised at this, it is nothing alarming even if it is annoying.

From my own records of peoples' observations it would appear that the higher numbered range of units are entering service first - not entirely unexpected. So far all but four of 398017 to 398031 in service. I am going to assume that the lowest numbered ones will be last.

Worth noting that 398035 & 398036 are yet to arrive from the manufacturer.

List/info here :-

I feel a list coming on :-

398001
398002
398003
398004
398005
398006
398007
398008
398009
398010
398011 Testing from 15/08/2026
398012
398013 Testing from 19/08/2026
398014
398015
398016 Testing
398017 In service on 28/07/2026 6th, two in service 03/08/2026 (398017 and 398029 not coupled)
398018 In service on 10/08/2026 8th, Testing (multi ?) before
398019 Seen at Merthyr on 22/08/2026, presumably testing ?.
398020 Testing (multi)
398021 In Service on 18/08/2026 9th
398022 In service on 03/07/2026 4th (all day 23/07/2026)
398023 In service on 08/09/2026 11th
398024 In service on 25/06/2026 3rd
398025.In service on 02/09/2026 10th
398026 Testing from 18/08/2026
398027
398028 In service on 23/06/2026 1st
398029 In service on 31/07/2026 7th, also did first weekend service (Saturday 01/08/2026), two in service 03/08/2026 (398017 and 398029 not coupled)
398030 In service on 14/07/2026 5th
398031 In service on 24/06/2026 2nd
398032.Old Dalby
398033
398034.Delivered on 14/05/2026 ?
398035.Not yet delivered
398036.Not yet delivered

First day with two in service 03/08/2026 017 & 029.
First day with three in service 19/08/2028 017, 029 & 031.
First rescue of a 398 (022) by two other 398s (possibly T&T as reversal required) 01-02/09/2026 - successful.
. . . 398031 leading to Taffs Well with 398028 on the rear.
First Sunday service using a 398 06/09/2026 398031.

That is all the past dates (before 01/08/2026) I can unearth.

Below is a list of 398s in the order they entered service (I have decided to make life more complicated !).
Order, Unit, date, (days elapsed)

01 398028 23/06/2026

02 398031 24/06/2026 (1)

03 398024 25/06/2026 (1)

04 398022 03/07/2026 (8)

05 398030 14/07/2026 (11)

. . . Milestone : First all day service on 23/07/2026 (398022)

06 398017 28/07/2026 (14)

07 398029 31/07/2026 (3), also did first weekend service (Saturday 01/08/2026), two in service 03/08/2026 (398017 and 398029 not coupled)

. . . Milestone : First day with two in service 03/08/2026 (398017 and 398029 not coupled)

08 398018 10/08/2026 (10)

09 398021 18/08/2026 (8)

. . . Milestone : First day with three in service 19/08/2028 (398017, 398029 & 398031).

10 398025 02/09/2026 (15)

. . . Milestone : First use on a Sunday 06/09/2026 (398031)

11 398023 08/09/2026 (6)

 

[Coleridge]

Trains are reportedly experiencing brake system failures, which result in them completely missing a scheduled stop. These are trains operating in regular service with passengers on board. Given previous statements, which were questionable from a technical point of view and to which no response was ever given when queries were raised, I will not take this report at face value either.

No-one has claimed that brake system failures are causing trains in regular service with passengers on board to miss a scheduled stop.

The statement you have quoted in your post quite clearly says that one unit on a training run failed in its attempt to stop at a station.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 12:37 ==

For many decades new fleets have ended up using more spares than planned. This has lead to some units becoming spares donors (aka "Christmas trees" !). That has resulted in some units not seeing service for months (I think even years). So I am not surprised at this, it is nothing alarming even if it is annoying.

From my own records of peoples' observations it would appear that the higher numbered range of units are entering service first - not entirely unexpected. So far all but four of 398017 to 398031 in service. I am going to assume that the lowest numbered ones will be last.

Worth noting that 398035 & 398036 are yet to arrive from the manufacturer.

List/info here...

Thank you. I'm finding your list very useful, and appreciate the work you're putting into it.

 

[bahnause]

No-one has claimed that brake system failures are causing trains in regular service with passengers on board to miss a scheduled stop.

The statement you have quoted in your post quite clearly says that one unit on a training run failed in its attempt to stop at a station.

In what ways are the trains and their behaviour used for training runs different to the ones in passenger service?

 

[SWML9102]

Is the claim about emergency toilet facilities on board really that outlandish? Sounds like a pragmatic response to provide some "relief" in the event of a stranding and mitigate against negative publicity. As a person sometime needing to use a facility urgently at short notice, I would be pleased to discover TfW had made some provision, if I ever needed it.

 

[Coleridge]

In what ways are the trains and their behaviour used for training runs different to the ones in passenger service?

I have no idea. My point was that you criticised VR494 for making a claim that he didn't make.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Is the claim about emergency toilet facilities on board really that outlandish? Sounds like a pragmatic response to provide some "relief" in the event of a stranding and mitigate against negative publicity. As a person sometime needing to use a facility urgently at short notice, I would be pleased to discover TfW had made some provision, if I ever needed it.

I'd love to hear it added to announcements in the way other facilities like First Class and catering are.

"This train is formed of 3 coaches. A bucket for your convenience is available on this train."

 

[bahnause]

I have no idea. My point was that you criticised VR494 for making a claim that he didn't make.

I never did. My remark does not state that the specific run-through incident occurred with passengers onboard. While the cited overrun occurred during a training run, the significance of such an incident is not limited to training operations. If the cause is a technical defect, it may have implications for the wider fleet, including trains operating in regular passenger service.

 

[The exile]

I never did. My remark does not state that the specific run-through incident occurred with passengers onboard. While the cited overrun occurred during a training run, the significance of such an incident is not limited to training operations. If the cause is a technical defect, it may have implications for the wider fleet, including trains operating in regular passenger service.

And the implication is that either a) TfW allowed a training run to go ahead using a unit with defective brakes or b) a hitherto unknown problem arose which caused the train to overrun and yet other trains have been allowed to continue in service. Either variant seems pretty serious.

 

[bahnause]

And the implication is that either a) TfW allowed a training run to go ahead using a unit with defective brakes or b) a hitherto unknown problem arose which caused the train to overrun and yet other trains have been allowed to continue in service. Either variant seems pretty serious.

Or c) nothing of the sort happened, and this is an inaccurate description of an incident that may or may not have taken place.

 

[SWML9102]

I'd love to hear it added to announcements in the way other facilities like First Class and catering are.

"This train is formed of 3 coaches. A bucket for your convenience is available on this train."

Not for routine use. For emergency situations - train breaks down, line blocked, driver incapacitated - in which case you could easily be stuck hours. A box of Traveljohns (other brands available) stored on board, available if essential to use in rear cab (or if access to rear cab would be against the rules, then that is what the curtain is for).

 

[Coleridge]

I never did. My remark does not state that the specific run-through incident occurred with passengers onboard. While the cited overrun occurred during a training run, the significance of such an incident is not limited to training operations. If the cause is a technical defect, it may have implications for the wider fleet, including trains operating in regular passenger service.

In that case, I'm happy to acknowledge that I misinterpreted your previous post.

I agree that the defect might - will, in fact - have implications for the wider fleet. The original post went on the say that the cause of the fault might be the regenerative braking, and that when this fault occurs the unit is swapped out for another, so I'm guessing that there are ways in which the units can be operated to minimise overheating of the brakes.

 

[35B]

Not for routine use. For emergency situations - train breaks down, line blocked, driver incapacitated - in which case you could easily be stuck hours. A box of Traveljohns (other brands available) stored on board, available if essential to use in rear cab (or if access to rear cab would be against the rules, then that is what the curtain is for).

And the requirements have changed that much from the rest of the UK? There's a good argument for why all trains should have toilets, but this particular gymcrack solution defies belief (and, no, Valleys residents are not the only ones to go out and get bladdered en masse).

In that case, I'm happy to acknowledge that I misinterpreted your previous post.

I agree that the defect might - will, in fact - have implications for the wider fleet. The original post went on the say that the cause of the fault might be the regenerative braking, and that when this fault occurs the unit is swapped out for another, so I'm guessing that there are ways in which the units can be operated to minimise overheating of the brakes.

That still takes us back to what are assertions of fact, presented in a particularly damning way, and where the evidence from the introduction simply doesn't support the overall picture being presented by @VR494 of trains that are so far off the mark that they need to go for scrap

And, yes, I also agree that the implementation of this whole project has been extremely poor, and that the time between first delivery and squadron use is ridiculously extended.

 

[Caaardiff]

And once again the same poster has returned from the shadows, dangled a carrot full of information but without any substance or backup. Everyone has taken the bate and, quite rightly, asked the relevant questions, but everyone is still none the wiser. The merry go round continues

As for the brake issue, irrelevant if it was in passenger service or training. If it was a serious incident that had potential to reoccur, no TOC, regardless of your opinions of TFW, would allow them to continue in any kind of service or training. Whatever happened has clearly been resolved for them to continue operation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 13:48 ==

Not for routine use. For emergency situations - train breaks down, line blocked, driver incapacitated - in which case you could easily be stuck hours. A box of Traveljohns (other brands available) stored on board, available if essential to use in rear cab (or if access to rear cab would be against the rules, then that is what the curtain is for).

Does this happen in the rest of the UK, or world?

 

[The exile]

Does this happen in the rest of the UK, or world?

I’m sure I remember reading that emergency provision was now made somewhere in Europe following an expensive (for the railway) court ruling. Can’t remember where or when, though.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

And once again the same poster has returned from the shadows, dangled a carrot full of information but without any substance or backup. Everyone has taken the bate and, quite rightly, asked the relevant questions, but everyone is still none the wiser. The merry go round continues

It’s a vicious circle. They post a new book’s worth of wild claims, people ask them where they got the information from, their guard dog jumps in and calls them bullies, no reply is given on where the information resurfaces, it calms down, then a new assertion is made and we repeat

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 14:10 ==

What I’m wondering is if the timetable will be tightened as a result of the great acceleration, or if they’ll play it safe and just appreciate the padding. They really do fly! And I think the interior ambience is lovely too. What a shame I missed them, as I was a Cardiff student living in Cathays 2021-2024.

 

[SWML9102]

And the requirements have changed that much from the rest of the UK? There's a good argument for why all trains should have toilets, but this particular gymcrack solution defies belief (and, no, Valleys residents are not the only ones to go out and get bladdered en masse).

Obviously toilets would be a better solution, but I think we have already established that they don't have toilets. And for a train without a toilet, the claim that this provision has been made by TfW does not sound wholly unbelievable. Whether or not it is true I could not say.

 

[Northerngirl]

Well it’s been a while, I thought I’d take some time away and monitor the progress. See how they settled in etc.

And before we start, the toilet comment was not a joke, there are still plans I believe to have an emergency toilet onboard. It was voiced as a “Bucket and shower screen” by the conductor instructors. Laughing aside, the mess rooms were not impressed with it either.

I do have some information regarding today’s disruption on the TAM and it was apparently due to brake fault on 398024. The rescue unit also had the fault transferred.

One unit is able to assist providing the electrical battery supply is available, two needed for a dead unit with no brake continuity. That’s max 5mph too. Expect that to become the norm in the months ahead.

Training is progressing, however the reliability of the units is still very much under scrutiny. Daily cancellations and unit swaps are the way it’s going.

A few units have already become donors for spares, and 398001 is currently parked up apparently missing various bits waiting to be rebuilt. It is missing various parts from lights, air conditioning units and front ends. They have a parts supply issue with the manufacturer and the 398 may now be an obsolete class. They did mention an order for an additional 12, I don’t have anything further on this.

There is also an ongoing issues with the TCU or train control units, and overheating of the traction motors which is causing the loss of dynamic braking stability. There have been brake failures and one unit on training earlier this month failed in its attempt to stop at a station because of this. It ran through.

At current time, when this fault is occurring they are swapping the unit out for another, if availability is there.

The cause is apparently linked to when not under the wires the regeneration braking is dispersing the excess energy as heat into the brake resistors. Operating at higher speeds in train mode, on discontinuous electricity, is not going well. It overheats and cuts out. They ideally need to be under 25k all the time as designed. One of the fixes being proposed is to overcharge the batteries with excess heat from the brakes. This will reduce the life of the battery and possibly have other effects too!

Sadly the 4tph in the Treherbert line has now also been put back and won’t be happening in December from the 14th. Realtime trains has the updated schedule reflecting this. The units are in not fit state to accommodate the service increase, and won’t be anytime soon. They aren’t ready and there is a struggle now to cover the three on the Cardiff Bay daily.

Multiple running also won’t be happening testing has again failed. In one instance the doors on the front unit opened on the correct side and the rear on the wrong side. You can also apparently have no brakes working on the rear and only on the front set! Without a review of the coupler I can’t see how software will change that.

I know you think I’m sceptical of these, I did voice my opinion after leaving the industry and I still don’t see these things happening on the scale they planned.

It’s time they came out and told the truth, the project is in a serious state of affairs and the lack of communication from the CEO in the last couple of months only makes me think there’s something wrong behind the scenes.

The door procedure is also proving to be a disaster and cameras are unable to be used in rainy conditions or heavy sunlight due to bleaching. To get around this they are switching the units to full conductor mode at crew discretion.

And finally your favourite the air conditioning. It can only adjust marginally by a few degrees up and down over the outside air temperature. Crew have no control over it whatsoever, the windows can be opened or closed in the saloon. It’s an urban metro system design for city centre use and not that you’d get with a new modern train.

We have had a hot summer which has not helped. Like the Mk4 sets it is what it is, and the software update has not changed it.

It’s not going to change they are going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s what they’ve bought!

Happy tram-training and make sure you make alternate arrangements if you plan to catch a CVL service anytime soon. It’s a mess.

He's back, and apparently the fleet is due to all spontaneous combust the second it rains or is sunny, and the slight reliability we have seen clearly is all in our heads

 

[craigybagel]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 13:48 ==


Does this happen in the rest of the UK, or world?

When I was going through training for my first railway job, at an Intercity TOC (who's fleet all featured numerous toilets as you'd expect) I was shown a certain locked cupboard in a certain carriage of the train and informed that it contained, if I recall the numbers correctly, 50 travel-johns, 50 she-wees, and 5 "solid waste disposal pouches". This was over a decade ago so it's definitely not unique within the UK. It may be unique for toiletless fleets however.

 

[WelshBluebird]

dly the 4tph in the Treherbert line has now also been put back and won’t be happening in December from the 14th. Realtime trains has the updated schedule reflecting this.

Worth saying they are still showing on RTT from Jan 16th. But obviously that could and likely will change, but they haven't been removed entirely like what you could read this quote as saying.

 

[MikePJ]

Rail Express this month has a long feature with an interview with Marie Daly, who is chief operating officer with TfW. She is quoted saying that the plan for the 398s is to be fully in service by May 2027.

Edit: direct quote added at moderator’s request:

Full deployment of the 398s, which should be complete by May 2027, now depends on depot and driver training and the completion of a small amount of infrastructure work. As well as running through to the newly enlarged station at Cardiff Bay in passenger service, sets are now appearing on test at Cardiff Cent-ral, often running in pairs which may be required at times to maintain adequate capacity, particularly until timetables are stepped up.


"There is a cascade plan which will take us up to May next year and it gives us a good opportunity to see how they're performing and to deal with any issues," Marie explains. "The quicker we can get them out, the better; it's good for them because they've been stood for some time.”

 

[James James]

I’m sure I remember reading that emergency provision was now made somewhere in Europe following an expensive (for the railway) court ruling. Can’t remember where or when, though.

Dutch rail sprinter units have that: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15220297 . I can't find anything about a court ruling, but the parliament has apparently legislated that all trains must have toilets going forward, including retrofitting existing trains.

Anyhow, I have my popcorn ready. Is anyone keeping tally on the claims?

 

[chargesmith]

Is the claim about emergency toilet facilities on board really that outlandish? Sounds like a pragmatic response to provide some "relief" in the event of a stranding and mitigate against negative publicity. As a person sometime needing to use a facility urgently at short notice, I would be pleased to discover TfW had made some provision, if I ever needed it.

Surely if it was true, it would also be true of trains that do have toilets as well?

After all, if you're delayed for long enough the onboard tanks are eventually going to fill up and you're going to be in exactly the same position as having no onboard toilets.

Also all the other new TfW units only have one toilet on board anyway so if that fails for any reason in service, you're down to zero.

Also given how much negative publicity TfW have received about the 398s (long before they entered service as well) surely they would happily go public about such a contingency? As would other TOCs who would surely have similar situations such as TfL?

The fact that we've not heard it before the poster in question told us about it suggests to me that it's definitely false.

In addition, if you spot any posts that are breaking forum rules, please report them to the moderators.

The only way we're going to make this thread a pleasant environment is if we have zero tolerance to nonsense, the moderators can't read every post so we need to help them out where we can.

 

[Markdvdman]

a guy I see on the train every day on my commute said he caught a 398 from Cardiff to Pontypridd as he was going to the market and get back on a train for Merthyr Vale. He said it was a horrible ride, shook like a Pacer all the way. He said they were fast though so he was not impressed! I did say to him they are testing and some are praising so do not think it will remain that way!

 

[tfw756rider]

Also all the other new TfW units only have one toilet on board anyway so if that fails for any reason in service, you're down to zero.

Not true, the 26 3-car 197s have two toilets (one accessible and one small).