TfW class 398 Stadler Citylink tram trains

[AdamWW]

What company would realistically do that though? No company likes to give out negative PR on itself.

Most people don't want to know the finite details, they just want a train to turn up.

I've seen companies acknowlege they have missed deadlines and give an explanation.
It looks better to me than just pretending it never happened when clearly it did. The negative PR ls already there. They have a chance to make things a bit better by explaining.
I don't claim to know what most people want, but my experience when talking to people during disruption is that generally they do want know why they are stuck at a station with no trains turning up. Isn't that just human nature?

 

[Pete_uk]

What company would realistically do that though? No company likes to give out negative PR on itself.

Most people don't want to know the finite details, they just want a train to turn up.

Company maybe, but a public service?

 

[5021]

Are we sure there are actually brake issues or is it just what some are suggesting ?.

Again - possibly an information vacuum naturally being filled by conjecture.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2026 ==

The only previous refererence I've seen to "brake issues" with these units is this: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G39665/2026-09-16/detailed
from 16th September which I wouldn't regard as gospel. 398029 had worked the corresponding service the day before, the first to run in passenger service over NR metals

 

[Peter Sarf]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2026 ==

The only previous refererence I've seen to "brake issues" with these units is this: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G39665/2026-09-16/detailed
from 16th September which I wouldn't regard as gospel. 398029 had worked the corresponding service the day before, the first to run in passenger service over NR metals

That is true.

Thanks for reminding me I had neglected to add the NR use to my list (below).

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). First use in service use of a 398 on NR metals 15/09/2026.
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.
First use in service use of a 398 on NR metals 15/09/2026 (398029)

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)

. . . Milestone : First use in service use of a 398 on NR metals 15/09/2026 (398029)

 

[Snow1964]

Clearly not enough serviceable 398s (again)

Due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time between Pontypridd (PPD) and Cardiff Bay (CDB):

We expect the incident to last until 23:59 on 02/10/2026 and disruption to services is expected until 23:59 on 02/10/2026.

What's Happened?
We apologise for temporary disruption on the route between Cardiff Bay and Pontypridd.

Rail improvement works | Transport for Wales

Transport for Wales | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

tfw.wales

 

[Coleridge]

Clearly not enough serviceable 398s (again)

They were all withdrawn from service indefinitely on 19 September.

Edited to add: TfW's website has now been updated to say that disruption will continue until 23:59 on 09/10/2026, i.e. another week.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 11:34 ==

The disruptions page on the TfW website no longer has an end date for the expected disruption on the Bay line, and merely says that it will continue "until further notice". This has been updated in the past couple of days, which suggests that the 398s might be out of action for a good while yet.

Perhaps someone at TfW has finally realised that the company needs to stop promising timelines that it cannot achieve.

 

[AdamWW]

The disruptions page on the TfW website no longer has an end date for the expected disruption on the Bay line, and merely says that it will continue "until further notice". This has been updated in the past couple of days, which suggests that the 398s might be out of action for a good while yet.

Perhaps someone at TfW has finally realised that the company needs to stop promising timelines that it cannot achieve.

Maybe it was cached in my browser but earlier today I looked and it was saying the disruption was until Friday.

If they don't know when it will finish that's better than giving dates and then extending them, though it doesn't sound like good news.

They seem to have dropped the ticket acceptance on bus services.

 

[Towers]

No updates on this? Seems a reasonably big deal whatever it is that’s going on!

 

[Coleridge]

Maybe it was cached in my browser but earlier today I looked and it was saying the disruption was until Friday.

I'm pretty sure it must have been updated this morning.

 

[Cardiff123]

No updates on this? Seems a reasonably big deal whatever it is that’s going on!

Stadler called it a "minor software issue" in recent press reports. Obviously it's not as minor as first thought.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Stadler called it a "minor software issue" in recent press reports. Obviously it's not as minor as first thought.

I mean it has "only" been a few weeks. I know that is incredibly annoying for passengers, but isn't that much time when it comes to software fixes, especially one that involves things like a train! Basically it is entirely feasible that it is a minor issue, but even minor issues take some time to work out, fix and get that fix out in the world - and that is coming from my web background where a deploy is one click into the cloud (rather than having to be something sent out to actual trains).

 

[John R]

Stadler called it a "minor software issue" in recent press reports. Obviously it's not as minor as first thought.

Maybe it’s the same software issue that affected the F1 cars during the formation lap in Sepang yesterday. (A “little bit” of rain and suddenly many of the cars couldn’t do more than 10mph, for those who don’t follow F1.)

 

[Peter Sarf]

I mean it has "only" been a few weeks. I know that is incredibly annoying for passengers, but isn't that much time when it comes to software fixes, especially one that involves things like a train! Basically it is entirely feasible that it is a minor issue, but even minor issues take some time to work out, fix and get that fix out in the world - and that is coming from my web background where a deploy is one click into the cloud (rather than having to be something sent out to actual trains).

Testing, don't forget the testing. If any safety critical software is changed then the whole lot would need THOROUGHLY testing is my beiief - not just the bits that were meant to be changed. I have done enough software fixes to earlier changes that had unexpected side effects and that was not in a safety critical environment.

 

[Prime586]

Testing, don't forget the testing. If any safety critical software is changed then the whole lot would need THOROUGHLY testing is my beiief - not just the bits that were meant to be changed. I have done enough software fixes to earlier changes that had unexpected side effects and that was not in a safety critical environment.

From the ongoing experience with the 777s it's the testing part of their development process that Stadler seem to be particularly deficient in.

 

[Coleridge]

I mean it has "only" been a few weeks. I know that is incredibly annoying for passengers, but isn't that much time when it comes to software fixes, especially one that involves things like a train!

When the 398s were withdrawn from service, a TfW spokesperson was quoted as saying that the units would return to service "in a few weeks". Now, a few weeks later, they have removed an anticipated end date to the disruption from their website and simply say "until further notice". This suggests very strongly that the fix hasn't been as straightforward as they thought (or hoped) it would be.

Presumably, there will need to be a further period of testing before the units can return to passenger service. Perhaps my earlier prediction that the units would not be back in public service before 2027 wasn't wide of the mark.

 

[WelshBluebird]

When the 398s were withdrawn from service, a TfW spokesperson was quoted as saying that the units would return to service "in a few weeks". Now, a few weeks later, they have removed an anticipated end date to the disruption from their website and simply say "until further notice". This suggests very strongly that the fix hasn't been as straightforward as they thought (or hoped) it would be.

None of that means the issue isn't "minor" though which was my point. It could be that they had hoped it could be fixed by configuration but instead needs an actual code fix. That can very much still be "minor" depending on what it is.

 

[Peter Sarf]

None of that means the issue isn't "minor" though which was my point. It could be that they had hoped it could be fixed by configuration but instead needs an actual code fix. That can very much still be "minor" depending on what it is.

Indeed. Could be a minor fix BUT will still be a big test if its affecting safety critical systems. Everything possible then has to be covered.

 

[Daniel Boone]

https://business.senedd.wales/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=982&MId=16288&Ver=4
As mentioned previously, the Senedd Economy, Energy and Connectivity Committee are due to convene tomorrow with Jon Travis (Deputy Director of Rail and TFW) appearing before the committee for an hour.

No one from the TFW executive team is making an appearance.

Seems unlikely but let's see if any questions about the 398s are put to the Deputy Director.

 

[Coleridge]

Seems unlikely but let's see if any questions about the 398s are put to the Deputy Director.

Judging by the content and tone of the Evidence Paper from the Deputy Transport Minister, which is full of high-level gushing praise for TfW and its accomplishments, that would appear very unlikely.

 

[AdamWW]

I had the pleasure today of travelling on a class 701 "Arterio".

Now, as well has having loos they also have the advantage of actually being considered safe to let out on the main line at the moment.

But aside from that I found the interior less welcoming than a 398. Some of it is subjective of course - I don't find that large quantities of bare stainless steel add to the ambience and I'm sure some people like it.

But less subjective is the thin seats, lack of tray tables in the predominately airline seating, and tiny fixed tables at the four seat bays. Less window too.
Also of course no level boarding.

Now I haven't done a long trip in either but given the choice of what to travel up the Valleys on, from that brief experience I think I'd pick the 398.
Nice to see the GBR livery in the flesh though.

(And yes I do realise that a 701 wouldn't even make it out of Central due to the lack of wiring).