TfW class 398 Stadler Citylink tram trains

[endofthelines]

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.

I asked the guard when I rode on a 398 a few weeks back and he said there was talk of having chemical toilets just in case but they weren't on board yet. He wasn't sure where they'd put them as the only storage cupboard is small.

Maybe others can try ask the guards and see if this is a general understanding?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I asked the guard when I rode on a 398 a few weeks back and he said there was talk of having chemical toilets just in case but they weren't on board yet. He wasn't sure where they'd put them as the only storage cupboard is small.

Maybe others can try ask the guards and see if this is a general understanding?

I wonder if the hazards of keeping chemical toilets on board add up to more than the occasional requirement to actually need them ?.

 

[chargesmith]

No 398s out today at all.

Am not looking forward to the wild speculation as to why, but those be the facts.

 

[trainspotter4]

Anyone have any ideas what is going on with the 398s today, seems like all have been withdrawn from service and there is no training/testing runs going on neither as of early hours this morning?

 

[VR494]

No 398s out today at all.

Am not looking forward to the wild speculation as to why, but those be the facts.

Anyone have any ideas what is going on with the 398s today, seems like all have been withdrawn from service and there is no training/testing runs going on neither as of early hours this morning?

Nothing official on the website that I can, but speaking to some still in the field, I have been informed they were sent a notice yesterday by union representatives “Due to the ongoing reliability issues, the 398 fleet were being grounded from midnight yesterday pending discussions with the manufacturer.”

I would imagine training will also have been suspended as well. Let’s see how long it lasts for.

 

[Sheridan]

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.

To be fair, on this specific point, if it was true I can imagine TfW would want to keep it quiet. If there is this provision, it can only be for dire emergencies, and if people become aware of it I can well imagine people demanding to use it when the circumstances don’t really require it which could lead to awkward situations and friction between passengers and traincrew.

 

[StripeyNick]

I had a message late last night to say that they were out of service until further notice. No doubt my source had the same info as VR494's

 

[Towers]

Wooops….

Oh dear Have to wonder if there’s any link to the first ‘in service’ failures and the associated recovery issues? Continuing the toilet theme, I could see the unions taking issue with crew potentially being stranded without facilities for an extended period of time if one was to sit down between stations. But it could be many things, of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2026 ==

To be fair, on this specific point, if it was true I can imagine TfW would want to keep it quiet. If there is this provision, it can only be for dire emergencies, and if people become aware of it I can well imagine people demanding to use it when the circumstances don’t really require it which could lead to awkward situations and friction between passengers and traincrew.

It just wouldn’t work, would it - how many punters are they likely to be carrying up the Valley on the last Saturday night service, 100 or so? How many ‘emergency toilets’ are they going to be carrying, presumably nowhere near enough if half the tram all decide they need to go; then what? Share them? And which poor soul is going to dispose of them all, where and how? It’s a daft idea, for a variety of reasons!

Of course, turning the Valleys into a tramway is also a daft idea for a variety of reasons, but there we are…

 

[trainspotter4]

The ticket acceptance with local bus operators is in place until at least end of day Sunday so seems like minimum this weekend but wouldn't be surprised if this spills into next week.

 

[Towers]

The ticket acceptance with local bus operators is in place until at least end of day Sunday so seems like minimum this weekend but wouldn't be surprised if this spills into next week.

Presumably this is in addition to rail services running with alternative stock?

 

[trainspotter4]

Presumably this is in addition to rail services running with alternative stock?

We'll see but I will be surprised if they can find anything, Cardiff Bay <> Pontypridd has been curtailed back to the Cardiff Queen Street shuttle with 150242.
There isn't exactly a surplus of Sprinters right now so if this does spill into next week, wouldn't be surprised if it will be a single 150 (or unlikely but 153) doing shuttles.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2026 ==

What's interesting also is we've not seen a new unit delivered in quite some time now, I believe it was 398034 which was the last to be delivered but cannot even remember when now.

 

[BillStampy]

We'll see but I will be surprised if they can find anything, Cardiff Bay <> Pontypridd has been curtailed back to the Cardiff Queen Street shuttle with 150242.
There isn't exactly a surplus of Sprinters right now so if this does spill into next week, wouldn't be surprised if it will be a single 150 (or unlikely but 153) doing shuttles.

Can only be a 150. Valley crew 153 competency has now long expired.

 

[VR494]

Can only be a 150. Valley crew 153 competency has now long expired.

Always said removing 153 competence from CVL crews was a rather silly error of judgement. But that's railway politics at it's finest there.

The truth of the matter, whether people are able to accept it or not is this is only the start of things to come. The 150's are coming to the end of their lives, the decision not to C6 them will be painful in months to come. The 197's are also suffering mass reliability issues and the 158's are due to leave soon too.

Going back to the 398's, it was said over and over it would not work. But those above maintained ignorance and ploughed on anyway, the depot design is a prime example. They have also sat around for too long and internal parts have no doubt suffered damage as a result.

Using them intensively as trains is another issue, the units are not made for that, more like to odd sprint now and then on a small section of heavy rail. Not running them on full OLE and just charging and depleting an onboard battery is another with this (funfair OLE). The flirts also have issues, but they do have the backup of a diesel unit and a far more superior range.

That's all you can do really is just sit back and laugh at it. Some good ideas, just really poor execution!

 

[Towers]

Do we know whether the reported lease of the 158s to GWR has been signed and sealed yet?

 

[Peter Sarf]

We'll see but I will be surprised if they can find anything, Cardiff Bay <> Pontypridd has been curtailed back to the Cardiff Queen Street shuttle with 150242.
There isn't exactly a surplus of Sprinters right now so if this does spill into next week, wouldn't be surprised if it will be a single 150 (or unlikely but 153) doing shuttles.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2026 ==

What's interesting also is we've not seen a new unit delivered in quite some time now, I believe it was 398034 which was the last to be delivered but cannot even remember when now.

According to my list 398023 was the last 398 entering service on 08/09/2026. That is eleven days ago (eight working days), even if it feels like longer !. To be fair the gaps have been 1, 1, 8, 11, 14, 3, 10, 8, 15 & 6 days - that is an average of 7.7 days but a variance from 1 to 15 days. So eleven days is not a comparatively significant time.

Part of me thinks service entry has been quite rapid - once it started.

I also think a surprise along the way is par for the course with new fleets unfortunately. Made worse with new infrastructure (t how else would they do it). We can only wait and see but I would be very surprised if the 398s ended up abandoned as some people suggest. More likely it will be an exercise to alleviate any issues and/or some changes will be made - that is the way all too often with new fleets. All too common unfortunately.

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)

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I would be very surprised if the 398s ended up abandoned as some people suggest. More likely it will be an exercise to alleviate any issues and/or some changes will be made - that is the way all too often with new fleets. All too common unfortunately.

At worst it might be that they end up in sidings for a few years until the Cardiff Crossrail street running operations are built and then used on those with full sized trains working the CVL.

 

[CapitalStar378]

At worst it might be that they end up in sidings for a few years until the Cardiff Crossrail street running operations are built and then used on those with full sized trains working the CVL.

But where will the replacement rolling stock be coming from in the meantime?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

But where will the replacement rolling stock be coming from in the meantime?

Well that would be the key question, but then again, I'm not in the camp who thinks they'll be done away with anyway. I reckon they'll be fine and making good progress by Christmas.

 

[Cardiff123]

But where will the replacement rolling stock be coming from in the meantime?

There is no replacement rolling stock - that's why whatever the problems are, the 398s will have to be made to work.
The 150s are dropping away, and then if 398 services are cancelled, it'll be a case of get the bus, as is the case this weekend.
231s can't stay on the Rhymney line forever either, they need to move over to mainline pretty soon to alleviate shortages to Cheltenham & Ebbw Vale and replace 150s/153s.

 

[VR494]

There is no replacement rolling stock - that's why whatever the problems are, the 398s will have to be made to work.
The 150s are dropping away, and then if 398 services are cancelled, it'll be a case of get the bus, as is the case this weekend.
231s can't stay on the Rhymney line forever either, they need to move over to mainline pretty soon to alleviate shortages to Cheltenham & Ebbw Vale and replace 150s/153s.

The units themselves are just not fit for purpose, and without them the depot is too due to it's design. You just can't make these things work if they are a fleet of ornaments.

It's a good thing for the TAM anyway, they are just awful for anyone commuting 1 hour plus.

They are full of electrical faults software patches won't fix, already in need of replacement are the majority, and there are no available spares to hand on the market. A certain German order for 500 + units of Citylink hasn't helped either; and have supposedly bought everything spare parts wise available!

A handful have already had the cannibalise treatment I have been told today. 398001 and various others just to keep the kind of working ones running.

The 231's won't be going anywhere soon, mainline crew might be learning them soon, but that will be to take them through to Bridgend on the VOG. And if anything they'd just swap a 231 out for a 150 off the mainline.

The Flirts are fantastic units and anyone who is wishing them gone for these will soon regret it when they have to use them.

 

[Coleridge]

I don't think it's possible for TfW to abandon the 398s, even if they wished they could: they've simply invested too much time, effort and money in the project now to scrap it.

As I understand it (I'm sure you all know better than I do), Taff's Well depot is a dedicated hub for the 398s and unsuitable for any other class of unit. That, alone, pretty much guarantees that TfW will soldier on.

 

[John R]

It's a good thing for the TAM anyway, they are just awful for anyone commuting 1 hour plus.

In whose opinion?

All the reports I have seen have said that they are perfectly ok in terms of passenger environment, including by those who admit to being surprised to say so.

 

[Coleridge]

All the reports I have seen have said that they are perfectly ok in terms of passenger environment, including by those who admit to being surprised to say so.

In fairness, passengers have so far only been able to experience the 398s on short services, on a route that was previously operated by 40-year-old diesel units.

Opinions might (or might not) change once people start using them to travel the entire length of the valleys.

 

[John R]

In fairness, passengers have so far only been able to experience the 398s on short services, on a route that was previously operated by 40-year-old diesel units.

Opinions might (or might not) change once people start using them to travel the entire length of the valleys.

They’ve been running from Pontypridd to Cardiff, no? So around 30 minutes which should be long enough to form a view.

 

[Caaardiff]

In fairness, passengers have so far only been able to experience the 398s on short services, on a route that was previously operated by 40-year-old diesel units.

Opinions might (or might not) change once people start using them to travel the entire length of the valleys.

The vast majority of people will not want to use a toilet on a train. There will be some that will use it but as someone who catches valleys trains regularly, the toilets are hardly used, mainly for hiding from guards. There's now alternatives in place at stations for those that need it.

Toilets aside, they are comfortable, nippy trains that are a vast improvement on 150's. Granted probably a downgrade on the Flirts but only marginally.

I think opinions of enthusiasts with a greater interest in the railway will often differ to the general public who just want a comfortable train and hopefully a seat to travel on.

 

[trainspotter4]

I fully agree with what @Caaardiff said, every fleet will always have it's flaws but the general travelling public couldn't care what they're on, if it's a 'passenger experience' improvement - which let's be fair over 150s it's without a doubt reasonable to say it is, then that's what matters to any transport organisation. The toilet debate I'm sure will live on for a bit until people see it as the new norm and move on, what's done is done and it's unlikely to change. We just have to hope/rely on the fact that Transport for Wales probably can't make any alternative happen so these have to work - or fun times ahead!

 

[positron]

Let's be real new FLIRTs are 2 or 3 years away from happening even if they skipped all the procurement nonsense and did a direct order with infinite money now.

The 150s aren't going to make it 3 more years.

So the 398s will simply have to be made to work. It's not beyond human ability to make more parts and to rewire dodgy electrics. This idea that they'll simply give up is stupid.

Perhaps long term they will move them to the Penarth - Coryton and Caerphilly services and have FLIRTs back on the valleys. Someone would have to take the fall though and the financial hit, and it's not a great look if it Stadler got more FLIRT orders while their 398s don't work.

If the 398 project can't be made to work it's almost such a big failure that the UK government should be able to pull rank fold TfW into GBR and take over it all...

 

[CapitalStar378]

What is Stadler contracted to do about ongoing failures? Surely TfW wouldn't be saddled with the 398s if they weren't workable (not suggesting that this is the case).

It seems that these units work elsewhere so I wonder what the specific issues to the 398s are.

 

[Coleridge]

The vast majority of people will not want to use a toilet on a train. There will be some that will use it but as someone who catches valleys trains regularly, the toilets are hardly used, mainly for hiding from guards. There's now alternatives in place at stations for those that need it.

Toilets aside, they are comfortable, nippy trains that are a vast improvement on 150's. Granted probably a downgrade on the Flirts but only marginally.

I think opinions of enthusiasts with a greater interest in the railway will often differ to the general public who just want a comfortable train and hopefully a seat to travel on.

i didn't mention the (lack of) toilets, nor was it on my mind when I wrote that. I'm simply saying that people's attitudes might change once they start taking regular long journeys on these units. Or they might not.

 

[trainspotter4]

What is Stadler contracted to do about ongoing failures? Surely TfW wouldn't be saddled with the 398s if they weren't workable (not suggesting that this is the case).

It seems that these units work elsewhere so I wonder what the specific issues to the 398s are.

Regardless of contract (as for TfW to go down this road, things have hit rock bottom); Stadler will always put effort into sorting/assisting with this as it's not like they're exiting the UK market, they need to hold up reputation.
During the interview with Green Signals, James Price made clear TfW had issues with CAF early on and pointing blame at each other but same reason why they 'overcome' this, TfW/CAF have a service to provide to UK railway.

Not saying that the 398s are without it's faults - that's obviously documented here but fleets across the UK are becoming ever more complex to introduce, look at the 810s/777s/175s - whilst unrelated, it shows the fragility.
This is no different in that sense, I'm sure it will go around the houses for the coming months (and yes it's late but so is anything in rail at the moment), what's been delivered is hell of an improvement over the ATW days.

I do think people are comparing the 398s too closely to the 399s and European versions, whilst a 'standard platform'; the way the units are being used/implemented is obviously very different or it wouldn't be this hard.