Yes it will actually be more like the first stage of Metrolink through Manchester. Which was of course run by vehicles described as trams even though they spent almost all their time on former heavy rail routes, running under colour light signals and with the stations keeping their high platforms.
-
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
Yes it will actually be more like the first stage of Metrolink through Manchester. Which was of course run by vehicles described as trams even though they spent almost all their time on former heavy rail routes, running under colour light signals and with the stations keeping their high platforms.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Daniel Boone
Member
For those not relentlessly checking RTT. Movements out of Taff's Well Depot resumed yesterday and are continuing today.
Was lucky enough to see one of these yesterday, followed my train up to Aberdare. Lots of people in orange in the back.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Thanks for passing on the news.
chargesmith
Member
Excellent news, thanks for sharing.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
RTT is showing a cancellation today, which actually has a reason which I don't think I've seen before on the test runs (M0 - onboard safety systems) - will need to wait and see if the next scheduled service comes out as planned at around 1400 before speculating as to whether it's serious or not...
Last edited:
1401 ran.
VR494
Member
The training has been suspended again due to issues with the units and elements of the course content being in dispute with trade unions. There are issues with the brakes not coming in, and the door protocols being taught are against the conductor‘s restructuring agreement. They have until 8th of June to get a unit in service on the Pontyprid to Cardiff Bay diagrams. I personally cannot see them getting interoperability and ORR approval on these. They are plagued with faults, some serious, and training has commenced even though there are no units fit for service. With fault free runs being used as training trains. Crews competence will eventually elapse and they’ll only need to do it again on a refresh.
They’ve messed up and ordered the wrong type of traction. The best thing would be to look at selling some back to recoup and look at other options. Preferably keeping some of these for the cross rail and placing orders for more 3 car 756 units for the TAM. The 4 an hour is also unofficially mothballed behind the scenes.
Keep watching, it’s going to be an interesting season on the CVL, especially now mainline want their 231’s.
Has it been determined if the faults are as a result of poor build from Stadler or due to TFW's lack of care while they've been sat around? Two very different outcomes. If it's manufacturer issue then surely they wouldn't sell them back, they'd be seeking Stadler to fix or replace.
The 231's won't go to mainline if the trams aren't in service. There aren't enough 150's to cover Valleys work. Things will run as it does now.
VR494
Member
The 231’s are going to be leaving the CVL unfortunately, whether the 398’s are ready or not. They will short form as much as they can.
The plan was to utilise the 150’s in their place, and you’ll probably see cancellations in the coming weeks on services deemed to be non essential outside of busy periods.
I don’t know who’s more at fault, but I imagine most software and electronic issues are caused by constant disruption to the electronic circuits which this discontinuous electricity supply maybe causing. There’s also not enough power in the system to meet the demand due to cost savings on feed stations.
A unit leaves the depot on battery, has had its software reset, a few cycles of the VCB and pantograph and the screen is full of warnings for various things. This happens to the 756’s too and units often need a full shut down and reset at the end of a run to clear issues with batteries and other things.
If they let the guards operate the doors on these, the ASDO and door issues could be resolved straight away.
Chris125
Established Member
Accusing TfW of messing up would carry much more weight if you didn't then immediately propose something literally crazy.
- Stadler tram-trains already operate in the UK every day, aside from widespread use abroad
- TfW have an entire depot designed only for tram-trains
- TfW need tram-trains for Cardiff Crossrail
- You yourself say the electrification already struggles with the significantly more power hungry Flirts
VR494
Member
They were available with toilets onboard from the factory but chose not to specify them either. Look at the ones being delivered to Austria at the moment for their network.
The tram-trains purchased are not designed for this kind of work, they are designed for light rail systems with a little heavy rail. They need a product that can do 98% heavy rail all day, and interwork with other lines for service delivery.
Whoever sold them must have been a good sales person, they need a bonus!
Chris125
Established Member
If that was true then the logical suggestion would be modifying the 398s or buying tram-trains with the 'correct' spec.
What actually needs to be ‘heavy rail’ on the Core Valleys given there is no freight and some committed on-street running in the Bay Area and CrossRail section to Central? What is preventing these units from being operated the same way they would be in say Manchester on the Metrolink infrastructure? Ie what is the actual problem with having a vehicle which is designed for ‘light rail systems’?
Genuine question.
Genuine question.
chargesmith
Member
I've seen the units up close and there is absolutely no way that there is sufficient space onboard these units for a full size accessible toilet, it would practically take up half the inside of the middle coach. Can you provide a reliable source for this claim?
Then again you also claimed among other things that the units don't have passenger A/C, when Stadlers own product information for the 398 on their website states that they do.
What does this actually mean in practice?
chargesmith
Member
When the units were ordered in around 2018/19, in response to a question about onboard toilets the then Welsh Government Transport Secretary Ken Skates stated that they wanted more on-street sections on the CVL in future phases and they couldn't run heavy rail units on these.
The only proposal I ever saw using on-street running was an extension from Merthyr station to Prince Charles Hospital on a Mark Barry blog post so I don't know if this is still on the cards, but on-street running may be needed more on Cardiff Cross rail to join bits of the infrastructure up where the heavy rail lines have since been built on.
So far as I can see they are being operated in a way that's similar to Metrolink.
Much of that is on converted heavy rail routes with the same stations that were there before. If anything I wouldn't be surprised if stations were more closely spaced in the Valleys, i.e. more tramlike than Metrolink.
I believe the whole Metrolink network is now operated on line of sight rules but originally I'm fairly sure that this only applied to the short street running section with the rest using colour light signals (though I think not the same signalling system as before).
I am quite puzzled about what we are doing in the Valleys that apparently none of the other purchasers of Citylink tram-trains have done.
Now possibly these are not the same as other trains marketed under the Citylink name (they seem quite different to the 399s), but that would then be a different issue.
VR494
Member
Service delivery, and from a train controller's point of view, at the moment during times of disruption, sets can be stepped up to form services at short notice on other lines throughout the CVL. The 398's will present a challenge during disruption because of where they can be used.
The 398's are a lot less robust in design, they are trams with some additional systems to interact with the signalling systems such as AWS and TPWS. They do not meet full heavy rail specifications and will need dispensations from Network Rail to operate on the lines they own and operate. They cannot be in a platform that is permissive with a heavy rail unit at the same time either.
Trains are also exposed to higher speeds and varying track conditions, with more demand on the brakes and traction motors. They also suffer from more rigorous hunting oscillation, which is not good for the tram wheels at high speeds over prolonged periods.
Sorry, but that is not a valid reason to not get a certain type of traction. Its an inconvenience but not a show stopper. 153s worked only half of Valleys services previously. Its no different. If things go horribly wrong then the Flirts can still be used on most routes.
Chris125
Established Member
None of this is unusual and systems that combine sections of street running with longer distance, higher speed operation have operated successfully for many decades in this country and abroad.
And indeed with trains that are at least nominally similar.
Interesting. I'd have thought that a tram would exhibit more demand on brakes and motors as they would generally do more starting and stopping.
A web search suggests that Metrolink has a maximum speed of 50 mph and this is routinely reached on the former heavy rail sections.
Wikipedia says that a 398 has a maximum speed of 60 mph which doesn't sound vastly more though I don't know what governs hunting - perhaps it's a nonlinear function of speed.
And I don't know how much time they spend at their maximum speed.
DJH1971
Established Member
Any more on when they are finally going to enter service?
BillStampy
Established Member
Had a chat recently, they want one out next month, whether that'll happen or not is not for me to know.
Mainsideman
Member
Are TAM lines still classed as heavy rail?
VR494
Member
The lines to Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr are still classed as heavy rail and feature in the sectional appendix. They are however privately owned, except for a small section on the city line, which are still the responsibility of NR.
Once crew are trained up on 398 line of sight operations, which will be for the Bay line first, it will without doubt be rolled out in other areas where capacity can be increased without the need for major infrastructure upgrades.
The writing is very much on the wall for the future of the TAM, it will slowly be replaced with a system similar to Manchester in the future, featuring a zero timetable as well.
They Rhymney line may get 398’s to Caerphilly and Coryton in future, if the order for more units goes through.
Who owns them? Have they not been transferred to the Welsh government? I understand that Amey maintains the infrastructure but I didn't think they owned it.
Would they get enough time under the wires? Or is this assuming electrification to Penarth and maybe through Caerphilly tunnel?
Certainly they would seem a more suitable type of stock for the Caerphilly-Penarth-Coryton services.
Mainsideman
Member
Can line of sight be used on heavy rail? That is very suprising
I believe that the Metrolink Bury and Altrincham lines went from British Rail "heavy rail" operation to trams operating under colour light signals to trams operating on line of sight.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Isn't that basically what "permissive block" is?