Transport for Wales "more new trains" - continued discussion

[tfw756rider]

There has been previous discussion about the "more new trains" that the higher Welsh Government has asked Transport for Wales to procure, to prevent the situation of a minority of old trains remaining in service even after the original 2018 order of 148 units (across classes 197, 231, 398 and 756) is fully in service.

However, in the Class 398 thread over in Traction & Rolling Stock, @VR494, who joined the forums less than a month ago (as of me posting this) but, generously, has already provided a lot of "behind-the-scenes" information, has now said the following:

Listening to the board’s ambition, they may even be looking to order more of these things as well to cover other CVL lines in the future. Enjoy your flirts while they last, they are destined for other things in years to come.

The 756’s maybe destined for mainline deployment at a later date. It’s likely more 398’s will be ordered. Penarth and Coryton will likely be getting 398’s at some point in the future allowing 3 car 756 onto Cardiff-Bristol services.

Putting aside any introduction difficulties of the 398s, what do we think of the idea that the valleys lines might get more 398s, and then if that happens, 756s would become available for use elsewhere, such as proposed services between Cardiff and Bristol?

 

[MarkyT]

There has been previous discussion about the "more new trains" that the higher Welsh Government has asked Transport for Wales to procure, to prevent the situation of a minority of old trains remaining in service even after the original 2018 order of 148 units (across classes 197, 231, 398 and 756) is fully in service.

However, in the Class 398 thread over in Traction & Rolling Stock, @VR494, who joined the forums less than a month ago (as of me posting this) but, generously, has already provided a lot of "behind-the-scenes" information, has now said the following:




Putting aside any introduction difficulties of the 398s, what do we think of the idea that the valleys lines might get more 398s, and then if that happens, 756s would become available for use elsewhere, such as proposed services between Cardiff and Bristol?

It would make the product more consistent for similar shorter-distance journeys, with the FLIRTs remaining only on the longer-distance Rhymney - VOG diagrams through Queen Street. If trimode FLIRTs were used on the mostly-electrified Bristol - Cardiff Axis, that might provide sufficient charging time to extend those trains as the stoppers to Swansea entirely on battery, especially if a wiring island could be established around Swansea to top up for the return. A moderate wiring extension west from Cardiff could also help. (keep the diesel on board but plan to avoid using it routinely).

 

[Envoy]

It remains to be seen how the 398’s operate once they are in service.

Surely, Filton to Bristol and the route through Bath to Chippenham will get electrified and that would open up the way for fully electric stopping services on the Cardiff to Bristol route?

 

[Farigiraf]

I can't think of many regional TFW routes other than Cardiff-Bristol/Cheltenham where you could make full use of the batteries on the FLIRTs - you'd need to wire Cardiff to Swansea and the North Wales Coast to reap the most benefits. Though a 756 running on diesel is still a better experience for the passenger than a 197 or 158 even if it's not as green as it could be. More 398s make sense, it's a Metro after all so you'd want to standardise the rolling stock as much as possible. However, if the Welsh gov had the money and will, it would be a massive win (both politically and for passengers) to 'do a GA' and order FLIRTs for every regional line, although I'd wait for battery ranges to get a bit higher before committing to FLIRTs for the Heart of Wales, for example.

 

[The exile]

Surely, Filton to Bristol and the route through Bath to Chippenham will get electrified and that would open up the way for fully electric stopping services on the Cardiff to Bristol route?

Hope springs eternal! “All” it needs is is 5-6 route miles and a couple of platforms at Temple Meads. Pl.1 should be easy - unfortunately the “right side” is under the train shed so a bit more complicated.

 

[Envoy]

Hope springs eternal! “All” it needs is is 5-6 route miles and a couple of platforms at Temple Meads. Pl.1 should be easy - unfortunately the “right side” is under the train shed so a bit more complicated.

And they have just renovated the glass ceiling at Temple Meads so all the more reason to get rid of diesel traction and stop the fumes rising up. Then we also have the issue of fumes affection peoples health. Polluting cars now enter a pay zone in central Bristol yet the trains remain diesel powered. Same goes for Bath - a city confined by hills (trapping air pollution) with historic buildings yet trains emitting diesel fumes.

The difference regarding fumes at Cardiff Central now - with so many electric trains is most noticeable.

 

[anthony263]

And they have just renovated the glass ceiling at Temple Meads so all the more reason to get rid of diesel traction and stop the fumes rising up. Then we also have the issue of fumes affection peoples health. Polluting cars now enter a pay zone in central Bristol yet the trains remain diesel powered. Same goes for Bath - a city confined by hills (trapping air pollution) with historic buildings yet trains emitting diesel fumes.

The difference regarding fumes at Cardiff Central now - with so many electric trains is most noticeable.

I think Bristol tm is now ready for wires. Heard a proposal was to wire filton bank to Bristol TM through to Bedminster or parson street.

I think the wires will need extending on the Rhymney line at least to lisvane and Thornhill possibly at least to just short of Caerphilly tunnel aame with the Caerphilly side due to range of the 398s.

Another poster has said a 756 could easily havw enough range to do Cardiff to Maesteg and hack on batteries without the need for the generator to charge the batteries .

Im sure they could do Cardiff to Swansea too.

If you wired say landore to Swansea station plus the GWR/Hitachi sidings a 756 could recharge during layover if they separate swanline and Pembroke Dock services again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I was TfW I'd be giving serious consideration to ordering a replacement fleet of 5 car long distance trains (with two classes and catering faciltiies) to replace the Mk4 sets and take over all long distance work, releasing 197s to replace the older DMUs on the Heart of Wales and Borderlands (including to get rid of the 230s). I would look to order enough 5 car sets both to replace all Mk4 sets but also so that all Manchester-South Wales services would be formed of these instead of 197s, creating a cascade. I suppose freeing up 756s for that is another option, but 197s are probably more suitable for the rural work (due to having a 2 car option and being basic, simple mechanical units).

If you do both you could probably release enough 197s not only to see off the older DMUs but also to allow all North Wales Coast services to be a minimum of 4 car (some 5, some 6) which is direly needed particularly in summer. 2 car sets should never be running anywhere bar the Conwy Valley, Heart of Wales and Borderlands on their own, let alone to Llandudno in August (and at very busy times of year the Valley could really do with 3 car if frequency can't be upped). Consideration could be given to removing the stupid catering cupboard and replacing it with 4 bike spaces, replacing the other role of the 153s.

 

[anthony263]

See if caf could build another batch of Mk5A's to work with class 67s or 99s

They definitely need to order class 756/1's

 

[stadler]

If I was TfW I'd be giving serious consideration to ordering a replacement fleet of 5 car long distance trains (with two classes and catering faciltiies) to replace the Mk4 sets and take over all long distance work, releasing 197s to replace the older DMUs on the Heart of Wales and Borderlands (including to get rid of the 230s). I would look to order enough 5 car sets both to replace all Mk4 sets but also so that all Manchester-South Wales services would be formed of these instead of 197s, creating a cascade. I suppose freeing up 756s for that is another option, but 197s are probably more suitable for the rural work (due to having a 2 car option and being basic, simple mechanical units).

If you do both you could probably release enough 197s not only to see off the older DMUs but also to allow all North Wales Coast services to be a minimum of 4 car (some 5, some 6) which is direly needed particularly in summer. 2 car sets should never be running anywhere bar the Conwy Valley, Heart of Wales and Borderlands on their own, let alone to Llandudno in August (and at very busy times of year the Valley could really do with 3 car if frequency can't be upped). Consideration could be given to removing the stupid catering cupboard and replacing it with 4 bike spaces, replacing the other role of the 153s.

I would simply order more 197s to replace all of the MK4 and 153 and 230 trains. That would be much simpler than having yet another new train type. They already use the 197s on similar routes so i think they would work fine.

 

[Kite159]

If I was TfW I'd be giving serious consideration to ordering a replacement fleet of 5 car long distance trains (with two classes and catering faciltiies) to replace the Mk4 sets and take over all long distance work, releasing 197s to replace the older DMUs on the Heart of Wales and Borderlands (including to get rid of the 230s). I would look to order enough 5 car sets both to replace all Mk4 sets but also so that all Manchester-South Wales services would be formed of these instead of 197s, creating a cascade. I suppose freeing up 756s for that is another option, but 197s are probably more suitable for the rural work (due to having a 2 car option and being basic, simple mechanical units).

If you do both you could probably release enough 197s not only to see off the older DMUs but also to allow all North Wales Coast services to be a minimum of 4 car (some 5, some 6) which is direly needed particularly in summer. 2 car sets should never be running anywhere bar the Conwy Valley, Heart of Wales and Borderlands on their own, let alone to Llandudno in August (and at very busy times of year the Valley could really do with 3 car if frequency can't be upped). Consideration could be given to removing the stupid catering cupboard and replacing it with 4 bike spaces, replacing the other role of the 153s.

Something like a 810 would be suitable for the TfW 'long distance' route. Has the advantage of being able to switch to electric mode at Crewe to run into Manchester and use the wires from Newport into Cardiff.

TfW can rejig the timetable between Shrewsbury & Cardiff, to make it 2 trains an hour, the Manchester - Cardiff train can be more limited stop and a Holyhead/Shrewsbury - Cardiff service can be run with 197s and be a stopper

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn't a sensible option just to be order a bunch more 231s.

They can go into service without worrying about future electrification but could later be converted to electrodiesels should the situation warrant it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would simply order more 197s to replace all of the MK4 and 153 and 230 trains. That would be much simpler than having yet another new train type. They already use the 197s on similar routes so i think they would work fine.

I don't think any more pure DMUs should be purchased full stop.

 

[EveningStarr]

Whilst electrification is ideal, surely a reliable, accessible, convenient and attractive rail service, even if it's diesel, should be a priority to get people onto trains instead of using their cars? 200 people commuting on a diesel train going to where they need is better than 200 cars commuting.
I mean greater frequency, more stations, more routes, quicker journey times etc are the attractors to potential passengers. As @HSTEd says, something like the Class 231s would indeed be best, as they have the fast acceleration and mod cons of a new EMU, and can be altered as and when their routes are electrified.

If CAF Newport want more work, some decent long-distance stock should be looked at, ideally Bi-mode or Tri-mode. I like the Mk4s, not just because they're loco-hauled and so less noisy in the carriage, but the seating is far superior to any other TfW stock. The Mk5s, if they can be built properly, could be a suitable supplement and replacement for the Mk4s, once their time is up, and in my opinion should be put on all long-distance TfW routes. Also new locos would need to be sourced - would the 93s or 99s be any good for a TfW passenger service?

I'd echo what a few people have said and say more loco-hauled services (or a suitable, comfortable BiMU) from Swansea and Cardiff to Holyhead and Manchester would release the 197s to shorter and less busy journeys.

Regarding the CVL, I'm still yet to be convinced the 398s were a good idea. Now that we've got them though, presuming they work properly eventually, they could be used more effectively than on Treherbert and Merthyr heavy-rail routes. Once the Hirwaun extension is opened, they could run from there to the Bay and onto Splott and Cardiff East/Parkway, as those are the only parts of light rail on the current CVL plans. More 756s should be bought for Merthyr, Treherbert and City Lines, being more suitable and meaning the 398s could be used on acutal tram lines/light rail as per their raison d'etre.

That being said, the Coryton Line too is suitable for these with the short distances between stops, and to running them to the Bay once the Rhiwbina Loop is built would be a good way of getting 4tph. There was talk too in the Capitol Region document of reopening Caerphilly to Newport via Machen with tram-trains, as this would be much easier to rebuild the lost parts, and could do street running in Newport to avoid congestion on the main lines and Ebbw Vale line. If this is to go ahead, it would also be sensible to build a light-rail line from Taffs Well to Caerphilly, although there's quite a bit of housing in the way now. This would provide easier access to and from Taffs Well Depot for the Caerphilly-Newport route, and would also provide a cross-valleys rail service (which if you've been in Caerphilly at rush hours, you'll know is needed!).

Regardless of what new and additional stock is acquired, they'll need somewhere to store and maintain it. For FLIRTS, I would suggest the old bitumen plant in Caerphilly, south of the line just east of the station, as that is brownfield land and housing has been opposed several times. It could have easy rail access at both ends, plenty of space for sidings and I'm sure adequate maintenance facilities could be installed to relieve the burden off Canton and creating more local jobs. It would also be a stabling point of course, increasing options at startup and run down of the service each day, with mainline FLIRTS interworking to cycle through the facility when required...

All fun to speculate and get creative...

 

[amahy]

I would simply order more 197s to replace all of the MK4 and 153 and 230 trains. That would be much simpler than having yet another new train type. They already use the 197s on similar routes so i think they would work fine.

I’ve said this elsewhere before, but 197s are not up to specification for many of the routes they operate. They have poor suspension, so have very rough riding over jointed track, and their reliability is a disaster. So why should TfW reward CAF with more orders of a poor train?

 

[anthony263]

Ive attached some screenshot's and a pdf copy of the latest report from transport for Wales about future plans including electrification to Swansea.

That said another part of the document mentions electrification Cardiff to Bridgend and Cardiff to Cogan although I think the wires should continue to Penarth.


All well and good some good ideas but no brackla station which is long overdue as well as wheres the money going to come from?

 

[trainspotter4]

A few things that come to mind reading this and the vision document from today, the idea that 197s replace the 230s is a firm no, as it's clear that whatever serves the Borderlands line will run onto the Merseyrail network which has a no diesel rule from my understanding meaning there will always be a small sub-fleet for that line. The document did potentially hint at the Class 777 again in the form of a BEMU but this is not new let's be fair so it sounds like a TfW variant may be in the pipelines.

On the Class 756 moving to mainline and potential follow on order, surely some form of modifications will be necessary to do this as their max speed is 75 unless they were to use relief lines consistently which would make sense when the Burns stations are delivered, surely there should be an aspiration to at least get them to 90 similar to the 231s for mainline operation? I know obviously Sprinters do 75 on the mainline currently but moving forward, especially from a capacity view point, minimum 90 max speeds is probably needed.

The vision today to be fair didn't massively mention long distance fleet changes, it did say if the North Wales Main Line was electrified then they would invest in a new electric capable fleet, which I think would be when we see the end of the Mk4s, not before this purely because economies of scale. Whatever we think about what CAF delivers and their quality, the Class 897s are being built in Newport so if that factory order books dry up, politically it's a no brainer to go for a CAF product despite the enthusiast preference for Stadler. And for all we know a similar product to the 897s actually probably fit what TfW are likely looking for from a Mk4 replacement; by the time they actually get to replacing the Mk4s, the 897s should be delivering slash in service so they can base it on that but I don't think the Mk4s are going anywhere anytime soon until some electrification arrives, reliability has been decent in recent weeks for them so seems like things are going well for the fleet.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Feb 2026 ==

The one thing which I forgot to mention and is looking almost guaranteed is a follow on order for 398s for Penarth/Coryton and likely Caerphilly regardless of on the ground views. If there is interest to get electrification from Cardiff to Cogan, that will provide enough coverage needed to allow for 398s but I think the issue won't be rolling stock here but infrastructure. Unless TfW assumed responsibility for such a small section of track, Network Rail will want to only build infrastructure which can work for any customer, not just TfW and the CVL electrification is quite bespoke even excluding the discontinuous aspect. I suppose by the time this happens GBR and everything will be in so will change the landscape but I think the blocker for this will be policy rather than anything else.

 

[Topological]

I would simply order more 197s to replace all of the MK4 and 153 and 230 trains. That would be much simpler than having yet another new train type. They already use the 197s on similar routes so i think they would work fine.

Same

I worry that people want doors at the ends on what is a regional route.

I am a regular user of the Marches. The Mk4s are tired, but they are lovely for the ride. They are just not suitable for the route. Yes Cardiff and Manchester are cities, but this is not an Intercity route. The saving on dwell times and acceleration is clear in the timetable (Compare the 09:53 197 and 10:53 Mk4 from Cardiff to confirm the benefits 197s bring)

The 197s need another depot, Chester is not big enough and it already feels like the addition of Machyllneth with not help greatly.

The only area where I would not use 197s is Merseyrail, because there a solution involving 777s that can go into the Liverpool loop feels better.

 

[amahy]

Same

I worry that people want doors at the ends on what is a regional route.

I am a regular user of the Marches. The Mk4s are tired, but they are lovely for the ride. They are just not suitable for the route. Yes Cardiff and Manchester are cities, but this is not an Intercity route. The saving on dwell times and acceleration is clear in the timetable (Compare the 09:53 197 and 10:53 Mk4 from Cardiff to confirm the benefits 197s bring)

The 197s are no more suitable for the Marches than the Mk4s! Awful ride quality, harsh lighting, and poor air-con all make them uncomfortable to ride on for long periods of time. As I said in a previous post, why should TfW, or any other UK TOCs, reward CAF with yet more train orders, when their existing trains are poor quality. Especially the 197s, which have been a disaster in terms of reliability.

Doors at the ends are not a problem either. There are many routes operated by trains with end doors that have more frequent stops than the Marches. Wigan to Leeds being operated by 158s, for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wigan to Leeds being operated by 158s, for example.

Not many Northern services are truly suited to end doors, to be fair. It's just what they've got as the home of the ageing 1980s and 1990s DMU. You can be sure the new fleet won't be end doored, and I'm not sure a TfW new build long distance fleet would or should be either. The 175s were all very nice, but they were totally unsuitable to North Wales summer crowds, for instance, the 197s handle this far better.

 

[Topological]

The 197s are no more suitable for the Marches than the Mk4s! Awful ride quality, harsh lighting, and poor air-con all make them uncomfortable to ride on for long periods of time. As I said in a previous post, why should TfW, or any other UK TOCs, reward CAF with yet more train orders, when their existing trains are poor quality. Especially the 197s, which have been a disaster in terms of reliability.

Doors at the ends are not a problem either. There are many routes operated by trains with end doors that have more frequent stops than the Marches. Wigan to Leeds being operated by 158s, for example.

There are and the 158s are not suitable for the Wigan to Leeds either. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I use the line a lot and am perfectly happy with the 197. In any case you can build smoother riding trains with doors at thirds and better circulation.

New trains have harsh lighting. So like it or not that is what we will have.

 

[amahy]

There are and the 158s are not suitable for the Wigan to Leeds either. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I use the line a lot and am perfectly happy with the 197. In any case you can build smoother riding trains with doors at thirds and better circulation.

New trains have harsh lighting. So like it or not that is what we will have.

You say that two wrongs don’t make a right, then say that multiple new train types being built with harsh lighting means that that’s ok.

I agree with your second paragraph. If the issues were fixed, 197s would be decent trains.

 

[Topological]

You say that two wrongs don’t make a right, then say that multiple new train types being built with harsh lighting means that that’s ok.

I agree with your second paragraph. If the issues were fixed, 197s would be decent trains.

Unfortunately it would be wrong to keep building new trains with harsh lighting, but I believe it is not something we have any choice about. I am not an industry insider, but assume that lighting is part of the accessibility requirements and/or something which has been implemented for the safety of passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You say that two wrongs don’t make a right, then say that multiple new train types being built with harsh lighting means that that’s ok.

I agree with your second paragraph. If the issues were fixed, 197s would be decent trains.

Harsh lighting isn't a requirement for new trains. The 196s don't have harsh lighting (it's still that blueish colour, but it's indirect and quite subdued). The Lizzie 345s even more so.

It's just that TfW and Northern chose the cheaper lighting option for the 195/197 and WMT paid a bit more for a nicer setup. Shame that's the only good thing about the otherwise cramped and tiny-windowed 196s!

 

[HSTEd]

Unless TfW assumed responsibility for such a small section of track, Network Rail will want to only build infrastructure which can work for any customer, not just TfW and the CVL electrification is quite bespoke even excluding the discontinuous aspect. I suppose by the time this happens GBR and everything will be in so will change the landscape but I think the blocker for this will be policy rather than anything else.

There is form for Network Rail operating bespoke electrification equipment for the benefit of a single operator though - the Tyne and Wear Metro line to Sunderland.

Plus the bespoke Sheffield Supertram 750V installation.

EDIT: Forgot the Supertram was still operated at 750V even though the equipment is 25kV capable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately it would be wrong to keep building new trains with harsh lighting, but I believe it is not something we have any choice about. I am not an industry insider, but assume that lighting is part of the accessibility requirements and/or something which has been implemented for the safety of passengers.

This is demonstrably not correct. It's probably easier and cheaper just to spec it bright and harsh, but it's absolutely not required. There are enough new units that don't have it that way to prove that point.

It's just like seating in 80x - they chose the cheap option. People were claiming uncomfortable seats were the only option for new trains until FirstGroup and Transport UK coughed up a bit more and got more comfortable seats in their 8xx.

 

[Topological]

This is demonstrably not correct. It's probably easier and cheaper just to spec it bright and harsh, but it's absolutely not required. There are enough new units that don't have it that way to prove that point.

It's just like seating in 80x - they chose the cheap option. People were claiming uncomfortable seats were the only option for new trains until FirstGroup and Transport UK coughed up a bit more and got more comfortable seats in their 8xx.

Does that mean it is commercially optimal to specify harsh lighting? I assumed people wanted soft lighting but operators were first to specify harsh. At least that means it is easier to get softer lighting into new trains.

I did not mention seating because seating is clearly a choice. The 197s are not bad compared to the other trains I travel on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does that mean it is commercially optimal to specify harsh lighting?

Yes. It's cheaper just to have LED tubes doing direct lighting and no spots, and it's cheaper to comfortably exceed the required standard than to be close to it and have to spend time and money testing and adjusting, and few people would refuse to travel as a result of the lighting being a bit bright so providing better lighting isn't a commercial priority (plus some passengers prefer it bright as it feels safer). In any case I don't remember anything (apart from maybe the GWR HSTs) being worse than the grossly overlit original Mk3 coach - small wonder that pretty much all the 1990s refurbs replaced the lighting completely.

 

[tfw756rider]

Harsh lighting isn't a requirement for new trains. The 196s don't have harsh lighting (it's still that blueish colour, but it's indirect and quite subdued). The Lizzie 345s even more so.

It's just that TfW and Northern chose the cheaper lighting option for the 195/197 and WMT paid a bit more for a nicer setup. Shame that's the only good thing about the otherwise cramped and tiny-windowed 196s!

And the internal "saloon to vehicle gangway connection" doors, and the in-body (rather than in-window) side destination displays etc.

 

[amahy]

Unfortunately it would be wrong to keep building new trains with harsh lighting, but I believe it is not something we have any choice about. I am not an industry insider, but assume that lighting is part of the accessibility requirements and/or something which has been implemented for the safety of passengers.

There is a law surrounding minimum lighting levels on trains, but perhaps stupidly, there is no maximum level. However, as evidenced by other trains that are much more dimly lit, there is no need for 195/197 lights to be as bright as they are.