What's the issue with the 398s aside from the lack of toilets, per-unit capacity?
Being as we have not yet had a chance to try out the 398’s in service, it is rather hard to make a judgement on their suitability for the chosen routes.
Modern trams seem to be designed around space for standing passengers, with fairly limited seating capacity (although the Manchester Metrolink is the only UK tram system I have much experience of, and I don't think I've ever been on a tram-train anywhere). Even though I try to avoid peak time travel (most of my Metrolink trips were at weekends; my weekday commute was on foot) I still ended up sat on the floor quite a few times (admittedly that's partly a result of my ASD where I won't sit down next to a stranger who's already there). There is no way I would tolerate anything like the hour-long (roughly) journey between Cardiff Central and Merthyr Tydfil without being able to sit down. Envoy makes a good point that we haven't seen 398s in service yet, so I must admit I don't know how it'll actually work out, but limited ability to get a seat is perhaps the main reason I'm not keen on tram-trains going north of Taffs Well / Caerphilly (alongside keeping the infrustructure to heavy-rail standards to faciltiate future extensions such as Aberdare-Glynneath-Swansea and possibly something to Brecon in the much-more-distant future). While the lack of toilets for an hour-long journey is also concerning, I avoid using on-board toilets if possible and would only be likely to do so on a trip of that length because of the lack of facilities (and/or their openning hours and/or being put behind paywalls) at/near stations these days.
there are a few things I would consider, using what we've got and could have (rather than a 'this is what I would've done from the start'):
Good point; KeolisAmey came up with an interesting mix of proposals in their winning bid for the Wales & Borders 'franchise' (I think called an ODP contract by Welsh Government rather than a franchise), some of which I perhaps would not have thought of but could potentially be made good use of. For example, I don't think I would have ordered FLIRTs (certainly not with the Anglia-style pointy cabs) for the Metro routes; but they seem to be a reasonably useful product that can be put to good use (unlike the 195s, 196s and 197s, but that's not a rant for this thread).
The tram-trains would be absolutely ideal for the quick stop-start local services on the Coryton line and, ideally, would free up 756s for use on Merthyr/Treherbert diagrams.
Exactly. Change up the destination pairs so that Coryton services can go the Cardiff Bay (and on to the Cardiff Docks / Splott extension) and be run by 398s. Extending from Coryton to Taffs Well at the other end too (partly to give access to the depot). I forget whether the wires from Radyr make it as far as Ninian Park, so they may need extension there, but again the 398s could do Cardiff Docks / Splott - Cardiff Central - Radyr - Taffs Well over the new nothing-like-Crossrail-find-a-better-name on-street link. There's plenty of useful things that can be done with a tram-train, but hour-long journeys to the Heads Of The Valleys shouldn't be among them.
- Use the 398s on an Aberdare>Cardiff Bay route (via Cathays and Queen Street), ready for the Hirwaun and Cardiff Docks/Splott extension. This is where they were bought for, making use of the street running capabilities. Aberdare would lose a direct service to Central until more services are introduced. The Merthyr 'superloop' setup could instead go to Treherbert, using 756s - units much more suited to the busier two Taff routes.
Now, you see Hirwaun in my view makes the case
against deploying the tram-trains to Aberdare stronger. This would make the journey longer, making the better comfort provided by heavy-rail stock even more important. Indeed, if the possible 'electrification' of the 231s (with their greater furnishable space compared to a 756) includes replacing some of the diesel engines with traction batteries (ie. making the internals of the 'thrash cupboard' much more like a 756) I would even suggest using those on the resulting Swansea-Aberdare-CDQ-CDF-Fairwater-Hirwaun loop. In my opinion, the only services running through to Cardiff Bay (or anywhere else that requires street-running capabilities of the 398s) should be ones that stay within about a 20 minute radius of Cardiff Central (ie. Caerphilly, Taffs Well and Penarth).
- The reason 398s can't be used on the Coryton diagram is, apparently, because the battery life is very short, so they can't make it from Heath down to Penarth and back. Could they instead run Coryton>Cardiff Bay? Build that passing loop at Rhiwbina and put 2tph COY>CDB using 398s and 2tph COY>PEN>CPH using 756/0s or, if further electrification is carried out on the Penarth and Caerphilly lines, 398s could do this too?
You rasie an interesting question there. I had always assumed that Caerphilly tunnel was not going to have OHLE (or, at least, it would not be energised) and that the 398s didn't have large enough batteries to make it through. Was it actually the diagram as a whole which didn't work, I wonder? If the relevant lines (including to Penarth) were otherwise electrified throughout, leaving just Caerphilly tunnel as a 'dead' section, could the 398s then be deployed on Caerphilly-Penarth and Caerphilly-Taffs Well (via Cardiff Central, Ninian Park and Fairwater)?
