Mordac
Established Member
Not to mention the football yesterday!
-
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
Ah thanks. I was just looking at the summary of services from the depot.
I see now that the path is also listed today with a similar comment but only shown if I choose the "CAN" option.
I've never got the hang of the different levels of cancellation.
tfw756rider
On Moderation
The schedules are now showing as:
"STP schedule
17th July 2026 only"
and
"Great Britain (Network Rail, VSTP)"
It looks like they're back on as VSTP (Very Short Term Plan) schedules.
nigelsporne
Member
I am not sure this is correct but I have seen a report of signalling problems between Radyr and Cardiff leading to a reduction in services. There doesn't appear to be a regular Pontypridd to Bay service so is this why there are no 398s out today?
VR494
Member
From a source regarding 398’s
“The Class 398 tram trains have been temporarily withdrawn from service while we look into an issue with how data is recorded from the train. We hope to resume 398 training next week and passenger services as soon as possible.”
“The Class 398 tram trains have been temporarily withdrawn from service while we look into an issue with how data is recorded from the train. We hope to resume 398 training next week and passenger services as soon as possible.”
Last edited:
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
Can I ask what source that is please?
No, for the last week or so there hasn't been a regular direct service from Pontypridd to the Bay (except on Sunday, I think). It only runs when it's a 398 - the rest of the time it's a shuttle between Queen Street and the Bay.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Though the paths to/from the depot don't seem to have been reinstated, so we will see.
VR494
Member
I have asked for you and this was reportedly sent out to staff in a brief.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Regarding the bucket and curtains, I’ve spoken to various people who are involved on the project and they have confirmed that a bucket/chemical toilet is indeed planned and will be located in the emergency cupboard. This will be available should the train ever become stranded, and a screen erected for privacy.
A bucket and shower screen is how staff have described it after seeing photos of the proposed design.
Last edited:
Thank you. I, for one, appreciate the background information that you are providing.
chargesmith
Member
Given you've claimed there's no fire extinguishers on board, I would think adding one of these to the so-called "emergency cupboard" would be a better use than a bucket and a screen.
If you're going to make stuff up, at least keep it consistent. And if you're genuinely hearing this stuff from another source, please use some critical thinking before posting it so you don't embarrass yourself further.
VR494's posts seem pretty consistent to me. If you believe their claims to be incorrect then provide an alternative, rather than simply vilify them.
Consistency is not always a virtue...
On the contrary, I'd suggest that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims is on the person making them. Taking one - that there will be further units purchased - as an example, public procurement rules are straightforward, so the claim should be evidenceable. If it is actually a messroom rumour, then being honest about that would help the conversation a lot (and, in fairness, the claims about emergency toilet facilities are attributed in that way).
So we have one member criticising VR494 for being inconsistent, and another suggesting that it is the very consistency that makes his posts unreliable.
OK.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's not true. VR494 said on two occasions (2 June and 9 July) that there are no fire extinguishers in the passenger saloons. It shouldn't be difficult to prove or disprove this, considering the units are - or, at least, were - out on passenger service.
The provision of a chemical toilet in the emergency cupboard is quite bizarre, but not beyond the realms of possibility. In the PR video about the new tram-trains that TfW released a few months ago, much of the time was devoted to discussion of the lack of toilet provision. Clearly, it's an issue.
OK.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's not true. VR494 said on two occasions (2 June and 9 July) that there are no fire extinguishers in the passenger saloons. It shouldn't be difficult to prove or disprove this, considering the units are - or, at least, were - out on passenger service.
The provision of a chemical toilet in the emergency cupboard is quite bizarre, but not beyond the realms of possibility. In the PR video about the new tram-trains that TfW released a few months ago, much of the time was devoted to discussion of the lack of toilet provision. Clearly, it's an issue.
Last edited:
Both can be true. Personally, I find a constant succession of poorly sourced posts making claims of fact tell me a lot about the person, especially when those claims are frequently provably wrong. It also means that I discount what they say - meaning that if they do eventually say something that is important and true, it's likely to be missed.
It should be possible to prove many of VR494's claims right or wrong, but his critics rarely go beyond vilification, seemingly because they don't want to believe the claims being made, or appear offended by them, and without ever offering an alternative explanation.
Perhaps, as a start, one of the members who has travelled on a 398 could post a photograph showing fire extinguishers on board. That should be very easy to do.
As I have said before, all I - and, no doubt, many other members here - want is an accurate picture of the state of play with these new trains. It is clear that the roll-out of the tram-trains is not entirely going to plan, but it's impossible to get information from official sources regarding the issues and delays (a certain number of which are, of course, to be expected with a new class of unit). So all we have is the reports posted here.
The 777s had a similar problem when they were first introduced on the Kirkby branch - the train's location data was not consistently being shared with the OTMR.
We don't need to disprove every claim repeatedly in case people didn't pay attention but it was claimed that these units were as good as scrap and wouldn't be ready for anything close to a summer roll out, and yet they were in passenger service for multiple weeks.
More interesting conversation though what is an OTMR? I'm guessing it's a train management system of some sort? If the trains lying about it's location I'm guessing they can catch that because they'd know at least which signal block it's in right?
Is it often the case that software issues ground a fleet or is this actually a safety issue (like say wrong doors randomly opening as on the 555s)
More interesting conversation though what is an OTMR? I'm guessing it's a train management system of some sort? If the trains lying about it's location I'm guessing they can catch that because they'd know at least which signal block it's in right?
Is it often the case that software issues ground a fleet or is this actually a safety issue (like say wrong doors randomly opening as on the 555s)
chargesmith
Member
Absolutely. Multiple people have disproved multiple claims multiple times and it's tiring to do this over and over because someone else pops up who can't be bothered to read the whole thread before accusing people of simply vilifying clear nonsense.
I'm probably not going to contribute to this thread much longer because it's getting a bit farcical now.
OMTR = On Train Measurement Recorder, the 'black box'.
The wrong side door release issue also originated on the 777s. The passenger controls for the doors on both sides of each vestibule are 'commoned' together (in reality, all they do is send a message to the door control computer), so when 'pre-arming' of the doors was still enabled, a button press on either side indicated a door on that vestibule needed to be opened. The driver controls which side is released, so if they selected the wrong side accidentally, the track-side doors would open even if the passenger had pressed the platform-side button. The quick fix was to disable the door 'pre arm' feature in the door control software (which was later applied to the 555s as well).
The equivalent of an airliner's "black box" - recording information that is potentially useful in the aftermath of an incident.
(I believe that, as with airliners, they are actually coloured orange though).
As for this thread - I'm finding the thread very interesting and at times useful (e.g. finding out when the first passenger run was going to be).
I can ignore stuff that I want to.
(Edited to add)
And I wouldn't feel comfortable suggesting that anyone stops posting even if I didn't like their posts so long as they were within the forum rules.
Last edited:
Chris125
Established Member
They entered public service in June, that alone proved much of his speculation and negativity wildly wrong - since late last year almost everything he posted on this forum fed the impression these units were fundamentally flawed and if they ever entered service it would be far, far later than planned.
I though they had entered service far, far later than planned?
I don't think the fact that they entered public service in June either proves or disproves anything that has been said about the 398s. But the fact that so few have been in public service, and none at all at the moment, might suggest a problem, no?
The fleet is currently grounded due to the data recording issue. As @VR494 says this was briefed out yesterday to staff. The 398s arent my area at all so not really sure of what happens in general but I can vouch for them on this suspension.
Well they stated that they would enter service in late 2027/28 at the earliest as recently as the start of June, just weeks before they entered service, which I do believe them entering service in June 2026 disproves.
Chris125
Established Member
I'm sure you know I'm referring to the first plan that was actually concrete and achievable, the one referenced by VR494 since he started posting and others too IIRC.
We were literally told this on May 10th, and I'm sure I could find plenty of other examples suggesting similar:
I’m sorry to be repeatedly negative, but I can’t see these things happening. They need to cut the loss and look at alternatives. The May times they’ve promised are not going to happen, the mainline is going to short of units for the uplift they require. They had planned to have them out for June, but this is not happening now.
Of course new trains to a new design, radically different to anything that operator has used before, has problems! But the idea they were so flawed they might never enter service was ludicrous.
chargesmith
Member
As I recall, they also claimed they were too dangerous to enter public service as they had serious braking issues and accused TfW of ignoring the issues.
Forum members signposted them to raise their concerns directly with the regulator, no word as to whether this actually happened, but the consensus among members was that unions would be rightfully making an issue of it if this were true.
Diedinium
Member
There's an internal update email from the 16th July that has detailed that the 398s are temporarily out of service due to an issue with the way data is recorded from the train - so presumably an issue with the OTDR that they've noticed.
States that they hope to have them back out for training runs by next week and passenger runs as soon as possible.
As someone who actually works for TfW I would very much encourage readers of this thread to discount the statements of certain people on here claiming there is stuff apocalyptically wrong with these trains - they are just having the same mild teething issues that most new trains have.
States that they hope to have them back out for training runs by next week and passenger runs as soon as possible.
As someone who actually works for TfW I would very much encourage readers of this thread to discount the statements of certain people on here claiming there is stuff apocalyptically wrong with these trains - they are just having the same mild teething issues that most new trains have.
Do you know if they have a bucket and shower screen in the emergency cupboard?