TfW class 398 Stadler Citylink tram trains

[D365]

The attached map appears to be open source, what it does not show is the length of the cable network which is earthed. Internal maps however do show this for driver training regarding beacons, I will not confirm locations for reasons mentioned.

Considering it's from the TfW website, I highly doubt it's open source.

I assume "public domain" is what is meant here.

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

I had assumed that the reason that the Rhymney line electrification uses surge protectors to allow close clearances to bridges was because it was done later and this method wasn't available or hadn't been considered in the earlier schemes.

Surge arrestors, rather than protectors.

 

[positron]

There's already a map of PES which doesn't look anywhere as extensive as you are saying. Are you saying it's more than this? https://tfw.wales/sites/default/files/2021-10/tfw_interactive map_02.pdf

Tbf this map is slightly outdated, there's a newer one that's been posted here (still a couple of years back) that shows more PES on the treherbert line.

 

[AdamWW]

I doubt they do too, but, as both @VR494 and I have already tried explaining, the 398s are from the Spanish part of Stadler, which was formerly another company (Vossloh), or part of it.

Personally I have no problem following the explanation.

What I don't follow is what seems to be an argument that Stadler somehow don't have the same responsibility regarding them because of this.

 

[positron]

I had assumed that the reason that the Rhymney line electrification uses surge protectors to allow close clearances to bridges was because it was done later and this method wasn't available or hadn't been considered in the earlier schemes.

If there's a reason that it couldn't and can't be used on the routes through Pontypridd I'd be fascinated to hear what that is.

I'd hoped the work on the mainlines to get wires under the valleys bridge would have opened the door to making this sort of work easier. Obviously the valleys stuff was probably planned before they'd even finalised that, but I would hope it could now be applied in some places at least.

One gap that doesn't really make sense to me is the one at taffs well because coming out the depot right onto a cat free section just feels like an odd choice.

 

[Snow1964]

What I don't follow is what seems to be an argument that Stadler somehow don't have the same responsibility regarding them because of this.

Stadler have to deliver a train that meets the contract specifications.

If the user didn't specify everything, and wants it to perform and do more than they asked for, and specified, then it's the users problem.

 

[Daniel Boone]

Stadler have to deliver a train that meets the contract specifications.

If the user didn't specify everything, and wants it to perform and do more than they asked for, and specified, then it's the users problem.

I find the notion that Stadler were not briefed on how TFW intended to use them very unlikely. If Stadler had concerns about their eventual use-case, I assume they would've raised them with the operator. There is of course a chance that concerns were ignored.

 

[AdamWW]

I find the notion that Stadler were not briefed on how TFW intended to use them very unlikely. If Stadler had concerns about their eventual use-case, I assume they would've raised them with the operator. There is of course a chance that concerns were ignored.

It was suggested above that the trains were ordered before the decision to use intermittent electrification was made. This is not, however, how I thought things happened.

 

[Daniel Boone]

All wrong.

 

[tfw756rider]

All wrong.

What was, wasn't or is all wrong?

 

[Daniel Boone]

Sorry I linked to something but it was incorrect.

 

[tfw756rider]

The issue with a combined battery and overhead mode as well is a bi-product of heat transfer from the battery, and the 756’s are having issues with ESS strings failing to connect, once they loose the 3rd out of 4th battery, which some are running around with only 3, the dynamic braking system also shuts off and reverts to pneumatic disc application. The train then has to come out of service.

Thanks for more information about the battery issues on the 756s. What are ESS strings (and what does ESS stand for)?

The OHLE on the TAM is also earthed for vast majority, meaning it is pointless to trains running under it anyway. This is due to the low bridges other infrastructures they could not guarantee clearance from.

Huh? Are you saying that most of the OverHead Line Equipment on the Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr lines isn't actually of much use?

Pantograph wear is also becoming an issue and a few 398’s have had to lend parts to 756’s, pantographs for service.

Which 756s are going around with Class 398 pantographs on them?!

 

[CarrotPie]

What are ESS strings (and what does ESS stand for)?

I believe Energy Storage System, which is the 2026 word for "battery". No idea on the strings, though.

 

[56xx]

I believe Energy Storage System, which is the 2026 word for "battery". No idea on the strings, though.

 

[AdamWW]

I believe Energy Storage System, which is the 2026 word for "battery". No idea on the strings, though.

I usually find when there's a technical term like that there is a good reason for using it as opposed to a more obvious word, and I suspect that an energy storage system consists of more than just the battery.

 

[John R]

It was suggested above that the trains were ordered before the decision to use intermittent electrification was made. This is not, however, how I thought things happened.

That wasn’t my understanding either, though I don’t have anything more than what is in the public domain.

As I recall it the project as announced included both discontinuous electrification and the tram trains. Though since then I seem to recall some modest reduction in the electrified sections as the project cost rose and areas of economy were sought.

 

[AdamWW]

As I recall it the project as announced included both discontinuous electrification and the tram trains.

Indeed. And a short section of "street" running in the Bay essentially as a demonstration.

Though since then I seem to recall some modest reduction in the electrified sections as the project cost rose and areas of economy were sought.

There certainly do seem to have been quite few changes as things evolved. And of course the short section beyond Cardiff Bay station got removed but now we have the promise of tramway style running between the Bay and Central as a separate project.

 

[positron]

Indeed. And a short section of "street" running in the Bay essentially as a demonstration.



There certainly do seem to have been quite few changes as things evolved. And of course the short section beyond Cardiff Bay station got removed but now we have the promise of tramway style running between the Bay and Central as a separate project.

We actually ended up with more electrification in the bay too. Originally that was going to be entirely catenary free.

Perhaps as a result of engineering problems elsewhere so they had to balance the battery range of the 398s by adding some to the bay.

Also I guess without that wiring they couldn't do cross rail as the trams would never charge.

 

[40029 Saxonia]

Have all 36 Class 398s now been delivered to the UK?

 

[800001]

Have all 36 Class 398s now been delivered to the UK?

No. Several still to arrive.

 

[6opher]

Huh? Are you saying that most of the OverHead Line Equipment on the Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr lines isn't actually of much use?

No that’s not the case. There are PES (Permanent Earthed Sections) under some bridges but not for the vast majority of the OLE like is being suggested.
Couple of small neutral zones too but majority of the wired sections are electrified and drawing power to charge the trains batteries so not sure why the person is saying that.

 

[VR494]

No that’s not the case. There are PES (Permanent Earthed Sections) under some bridges but not for the vast majority of the OLE like is being suggested.
Couple of small neutral zones too but majority of the wired sections are electrified and drawing power to charge the trains batteries so not sure why the person is saying that.

The PES section commencement is controlled by the track side beacon locations. Until the train reaches the second beacon the VCB remains open and the train is switched to battery mode with the pantograph still raised.

The issue is, some of these sections are way longer than you’d think, and are not just under a one specific bridge and are set up to cover a vast portion of the line in one chunk. This can include multiple sections in one go, with only a few 100 yards of cable actually providing power in between.

On one specific location the VCB is open for over 1 mile in PES. Only to be opened and closed again within 100’s of yards of each other.

 

[StripeyNick]

Have all 36 Class 398s now been delivered to the UK?

4 left to arrive as 032 is listed at Old Dalby so guessing that went straight there

 

[6opher]

The PES section commencement is controlled by the track side beacon locations. Until the train reaches the second beacon the VCB remains open and the train is switched to battery mode with the pantograph still raised.

The issue is, some of these sections are way longer than you’d think, and are not just under a one specific bridge and are set up to cover a vast portion of the line in one chunk. This can include multiple sections in one go, with only a few 100 yards of cable actually providing power in between.

On one specific location the VCB is open for over 1 mile in PES. Only to be opened and closed again within 100’s of yards of each other.

I know all of this but even with the one longer PES, it’s nowhere near the vast majority of OLE, which is what you said. I was just letting the other person know that isn’t the case

 

[positron]

The PES section commencement is controlled by the track side beacon locations. Until the train reaches the second beacon the VCB remains open and the train is switched to battery mode with the pantograph still raised.

The issue is, some of these sections are way longer than you’d think, and are not just under a one specific bridge and are set up to cover a vast portion of the line in one chunk. This can include multiple sections in one go, with only a few 100 yards of cable actually providing power in between.

On one specific location the VCB is open for over 1 mile in PES. Only to be opened and closed again within 100’s of yards of each other.

I'm assuming that's Ton Pentre to just short of llywnypia and then the station itself is PES again.

Are the beacons setup any different for PESed stations Vs PESd tracks?

 

[stadler]

There’s also an issue with the proposed door procedure, and testing has shown it to be time consuming.

At current the proposed procedure will be at an arrival station the train will read the platform dimensions from the ASDO beacon, this will then tell the TCMS how many doors to release. The driver will then release the doors, and correct side door enable will prevent an offside release.

For departure the train manager will signal 1-2 to the driver which will be repeated. The driver will then close the doors, check the PTI on the monitor and signal aspect and proceed. There will be no ready to start signal from the Train Manager.

A degraded method of work is being discussed whereby if rain water or of if driver is unable to see, would see the Train Manager dispatch in the usual way, closing the doors and giving a ready to start signal.

Aslef have put forward a proposal to have the guards close the doors and drivers only open them, as per GWR IET, however management are still pushing the latter despite concerns from testing.

This process will also apply to 756.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

Also from December 2026 the new timetable will remove dwell time and the proposed 4 an hour could look something like this:

Treherbert would see two trains an hour to Cardiff Bay via Llandaff. Changes would see current Cardiff central services that terminate continue back to Treherbert via the city line, and there would be a new service introduced to enter Cardiff via the city line and return via Cathays. Creating a mega loop with the current Merthyr and Aberdare services.

Aberdare and Merthyr would see additional services to Cardiff bay added.

From what i have heard one of the issues is that the 231/398/756 has been set up to only allow full driver door operation or full guard door operation and the method is changed with a switch located somewhere. If it is set to full driver operation then only the driver can open and close the doors and the buzzer is the only button the guard can use. If it is set to full guard operation then only the guard can open and close the doors and the buzzer is the only button the driver can use. So using the driver open guard close method would probably require some modifications.

This six bell method that TFW are proposing is very odd. The guard buzzes the driver to close the doors but does not fully despatch or give a right away buzzer. It is a very weird method half way between the ten bell despatch and the Southern OBS method. Why not just do full ten bell despatch and have the guard also give the right away and check the PTI and signals etc.

Traditional ten bell despatch (as currently used on the XC/220/221 and CH/165/168/172 and SN/377 trains (and also on GWR/165/166 and C2C/357 previously) would be a better option. That would mean that the driver would release the doors but the guard would still despatch and the driver would not be responsible for checking the PTI and cameras. So when the train is ready to depart the guard buzzes 1-2 (and the driver repeats 1-2 back) and the driver presses close doors. Then the guard checks that all doors are shut and closes their local door and buzzes 2 (and the driver repeats 2 back) and the train departs. That method would probably be more likely to be accepted by ASLEF and RMT especially as it is already used by other operators. It would still allow fairly quick dwell times.

I am amazed that they have still failed to agree on any method. These two documents are from over three years ago and mention this weird six bell method. Now three years later they still can not come to an agreement.

Hmm...I apologise for going slightly off-topic here, but what on earth qualifies them to be called a "train manager"? They're on what is basically just a fancy tram, not a train, and they won't even be allowed to "manage" the doors. TM makes more sense when they have control of the doors and various other jobs, not when they're basically a buzzer-pressing RPI.


Considering it's from the TfW website, I highly doubt it's open source.

The train operators in the UK seem to love giving ridiculous job titles. TFW used to call them a "Conductor" until last year. Then for some reason they changed it to the far less suitable "Train Manager" title.

Why on earth did they go for the faff of ASDO when unlikely to have more than 3 units coupled (121m or 395 feet long) considering how much work has been done on the platforms.

Two units coupled are no longer than a 756 at 81m or 265 feet long, and how many workings are expected to be booked for more than double units anyway.

It makes me wonder how anyone thinks slowing the door procedure, and cost and long term reliability of ASDO equipment is better choice than adding a few metres of platform, on lines that were having line closures for work anyway.

That is exactly what i was wondering. I can not imagine ASDO being used on the 398s anywhere. Maybe if they decide to run twelve coach 398s for busy trains when special events are on but that seems very unlikely.

 

[Peter Sarf]

From what i have heard one of the issues is that the 231/398/756 has been set up to only allow full driver door operation or full guard door operation and the method is changed with a switch located somewhere. If it is set to full driver operation then only the driver can open and close the doors and the buzzer is the only button the guard can use. If it is set to full guard operation then only the guard can open and close the doors and the buzzer is the only button the driver can use. So using the driver open guard close method would probably require some modifications.

This six bell method that TFW are proposing is very odd. The guard buzzes the driver to close the doors but does not fully despatch or give a right away buzzer. It is a very weird method half way between the ten bell despatch and the Southern OBS method. Why not just do full ten bell despatch and have the guard also give the right away and check the PTI and signals etc.

Traditional ten bell despatch (as currently used on the XC/220/221 and CH/165/168/172 and SN/377 trains (and also on GWR/165/166 and C2C/357 previously) would be a better option. That would mean that the driver would release the doors but the guard would still despatch and the driver would not be responsible for checking the PTI and cameras. So when the train is ready to depart the guard buzzes 1-2 (and the driver repeats 1-2 back) and the driver presses close doors. Then the guard checks that all doors are shut and closes their local door and buzzes 2 (and the driver repeats 2 back) and the train departs. That method would probably be more likely to be accepted by ASLEF and RMT especially as it is already used by other operators. It would still allow fairly quick dwell times.

I am amazed that they have still failed to agree on any method. These two documents are from over three years ago and mention this weird six bell method. Now three years later they still can not come to an agreement.


The train operators in the UK seem to love giving ridiculous job titles. TFW used to call them a "Conductor" until last year. Then for some reason they changed it to the far less suitable "Train Manager" title.


That is exactly what i was wondering. I can not imagine ASDO being used on the 398s anywhere. Maybe if they decide to run twelve coach 398s for busy trains when special events are on but that seems very unlikely.

My bold.
So if there is a switch that dictates if it is all driver controling door and dispatch OR all guard controling door and dispatch but not a mixture. Will the ten bell description work if the driver is controlling the doors because does the facility for the guard to keep their local door open exist or get disabled ?.

 

[stadler]

My bold.
So if there is a switch that dictates if it is all driver controling door and dispatch OR all guard controling door and dispatch but not a mixture. Will your ten bell description work if the driver is controlling the doors because does the facility for the guard to keep their door open exist ?.

I believe putting the key in the panel keeps the local door open regardless of whether the switch is set to driver control or guard control. So ten bell should still work fine. The guard keeps their key turned after giving 1-2 which leaves the local door open when the driver closes the other doors. Then to close their local door they just turn their key switch off and then right back on to give the 2 right away signal. So exactly like on other ten bell trains. This method should still work fine on the 398s from what i have heard.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I believe putting the key in the panel keeps the local door open regardless of whether the switch is set to driver control or guard control. So ten bell should still work fine. The guard keeps their key turned after giving 1-2 which leaves the local door open when the driver closes the other doors. Then to close their local door they just turn their key switch off and then right back on to give the 2 right away signal. So exactly like on other ten bell trains. This method should still work fine on the 398s from what i have heard.

Thanks, makes sense.

 

[VR494]

I believe putting the key in the panel keeps the local door open regardless of whether the switch is set to driver control or guard control. So ten bell should still work fine. The guard keeps their key turned after giving 1-2 which leaves the local door open when the driver closes the other doors. Then to close their local door they just turn their key switch off and then right back on to give the 2 right away signal. So exactly like on other ten bell trains. This method should still work fine on the 398s from what i have heard.

This was not the case during the door test runs, the gaurd will not be closing their local door as per XC, and the driver will be responsible for closing them all. The guard must ensure they are within the train after giving the 1-2 signal to the driver. It is totally up to the driver to observe the monitor and carry out the remainder of the disptach process. The 231/756 need a software modifcation as currently they need to return to depot to have door modes changed via a USB. It has been mentioned a switch will probably be retrofitted.

Also the DRI agreement currently does not cover drivers opening doors on the VOG metro, so Aslef have asked for more cash for the April pay deal to have this amended

 

[chargesmith]

With regards to door opening protocols I believe this was agreed with unions. Given how many other TOCs are trying to do away with having a guard (or conductor or train manager depending on what each TOC calls them) altogether I totally understand the rigidness.

If they can agree a "driver opens, guard closes" protocol I would welcome it as a passenger as I think it would speed up journeys without compromising safety, but that's up to them and not me. We need to understand the context around why the rules exist as they are, they are trying to protect guards jobs, and with that, us as well.