Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway: progress updates

[dp21]

True, I think it all just comes down to preference.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

It's actually ridiculous that the newer trains are being replaced first - I’m sure many people would be annoyed if they were on a 40 year old 455 instead of a 3 year old 707.

As a passenger the 455s are more comfortable than the 707s

 

[Malcolmffc]

As a passenger the 455s are more comfortable than the 707s

Certainly not on a hot summer day!

 

[Dstock7080]

SWR have submitted a planning application to London Borough of Hounslow to re-use the former Feltham marshalling yard site “to build a new train depot . . . . to accommodate some of SWRs new fleet of Class 701 trains”.

 

[spark001uk]

I thought they would just use their current depots, ie Wimbledon etc as and when they displace the outgoing stock?

 

[swt_passenger]

They still need more depot space overall, there’s knock on effects from the extra 18 x 442s. Obviously they won’t be at Feltham, but something will be. There’s also the point that the bulk of the Aventra fleet is 10 car, so they’ll possibly be too long for many existing 8 car places, and you’ll get less of them in 12 car facilities.

Feltham additional stabling has actually been in the pipeline for quite a few years, this is just the next stage as the plans go in. I do think though it’s misleading to imply it will accommodate “ SWR’s new fleet of class 701 trains”. “Some of...” will probably be less worrying for the nimbys that are about to raise numerous objections.

 

[spark001uk]

Yes I guess that would make sense for now. However, if their original statement of their goal of a totally 'homogeneous' fleet of Aventra is true, then eventually all depots will be modified to become Aventra friendly will they?

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes I guess that would make sense for now. However, if their original statement of their goal of a totally 'homogeneous' fleet of Aventra is true, then eventually all depots will be modified to become Aventra friendly will they?

It is not really totally homogenous, there’s still all the 450, 444, 158/9. What I’m thinking for example is that they might have to put say 450s into Woking, which was recently modified for 455s. A current site might not be expandable at all, so worst case you might end up with 5 car 701s wasting 8 car sidings.

Just had a search back, and in the short thread we had last year about stabling plans on SWR, it was suggested that the new facility (assumed to be Feltham only because it was mentioned in a track access application), would be getting 10 x 10 car roads, and CET, minor maintenance and wash plant. So 100 vehicles, which does broadly correspond to the 90 x 442 vehicles...

 

[TEW]

What I’m thinking for example is that they might have to put say 450s into Woking, which was recently modified for 455s.

The extra stabling space at Woking, planned for the December 2017 timetable change, actually still hasn't been delivered. There is no stock stabled in either the up or down yards at Woking usually, although an 8-car 455 is sometimes stabled in the Up Yard due to engineering work. The level of work originally planned looks very unlikely to take to place now.

 

[swt_passenger]

The extra stabling space at Woking, planned for the December 2017 timetable change, actually still hasn't been delivered. There is no stock stabled in either the up or down yards at Woking usually, although an 8-car 455 is sometimes stabled in the Up Yard due to engineering work. The level of work originally planned looks very unlikely to take to place now.

I didn’t think much had happened there, come to mention it. Perhaps it’s even more likely that the new 701 fleet’s relative lengths compared to the existing fleet really have moved the goalposts...

 

[TEW]

I didn’t think much had happened there, come to mention it. Perhaps it’s even more likely that the new 701 fleet’s relative lengths compared to the existing fleet really have moved the goalposts...

Other issues more at Woking. The Down Yard was to gain CET equipment and was to stable 12-car 450s iirc.

 

[Goldfish62]

The Feltham proposal is not new. It's been on the cards for a few years. SWT were talking about it. Staines sidings can only accommodate two 10 car trains and Strawberry Hill is not ideal for the Windsor lines.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Feltham proposal is not new. It's been on the cards for a few years. SWT were talking about it. Staines sidings can only accommodate two 10 car trains and Strawberry Hill is not ideal for the Windsor lines.

As I said a little while ago. It’s really been a bit of an open secret hasn’t it, there weren’t many other suitable options.

 

[Goldfish62]

As I said a little while ago. It’s really been a bit of an open secret hasn’t it, there weren’t many other suitable options.

Exactly.

 

[swt_passenger]

Exactly.

What beats me is why if it’s theoretically “operational railway land” they can’t just re-open it. I wonder what happened to the other application to use it as the works lay down area and temporary offices for Feltham resignalling...

Just looking at an aerial view, I’d assume Strawberry Hill is not geared up for many ten car trains either.

 

[AverageTD]

Just looking at an aerial view, I’d assume Strawberry Hill is not geared up for many ten car trains either.

I see 707s there sometimes but always just 5 cars stored separately

 

[Bigfoot]

Just looking at an aerial view, I’d assume Strawberry Hill is not geared up for many ten car trains either.

Strawberry can take 5x10 cars currently.

 

[Goldfish62]

What beats me is why if it’s theoretically “operational railway land” they can’t just re-open it. I wonder what happened to the other application to use it as the works lay down area and temporary offices for Feltham resignalling...

Just looking at an aerial view, I’d assume Strawberry Hill is not geared up for many ten car trains either.

The railways need planning permission like everyone else does..

 

[Dstock7080]

I do think though it’s misleading to imply it will accommodate “ SWR’s new fleet of class 701 trains”. “Some of...” will probably be less worrying for the nimbys that are about to raise numerous objections.

Sorry, i was quoting the SWR letter but have altered my post.

The Feltham proposal is not new. It's been on the cards for a few years.

As I said a little while ago. It’s really been a bit of an open secret hasn’t it, there weren’t many other suitable options.

Apologies, i couldn't find the other thread about Feltham depot.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry, i was quoting the SWR letter but have altered my post.
[…]
Apologies, i couldn't find the other thread about Feltham depot.

My apologies too, I should have been clearer that I was referring to the source letter.

The earlier “stabling thread” wasn’t originally about Feltham, it wouldn’t have been at all obvious, but an un-named new depot was mentioned. Here it is if anyone’s looking:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...and-stabling-alterations.134781/#post-3078588

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This site at Feltham, is that the wasteground that was always littered with burnt-out cars back in the mid-2000s, just down the line (away from London) from Feltham station?

 

[swt_passenger]

This site at Feltham, is that the wasteground that was always littered with burnt-out cars back in the mid-2000s, just down the line (away from London) from Feltham station?

Yes that’s the place. On the right heading towards London. The diversion after the bridge collapse a few years ago used a small part of the area.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes that’s the place. On the right heading towards London. The diversion after the bridge collapse a few years ago used a small part of the area.

The site I meant is on the left if facing towards London... if there were burnt-out cars on both sides then Feltham is clearly more of a dump than I thought!

 

[Goldfish62]

The site I meant is on the left if facing towards London... if there were burnt-out cars on both sides then Feltham is clearly more of a dump than I thought!

No, it's the huge expanse of land almost immediately after leaving the station on the right hand side. There are still some tracks and shells of buildings from the old marshaling yard in amongst the undergrowth.

 

[broadgage]

Some other interesting tidbits about these units:

geared for 100 mph operation;
fitted with at least one two hundred and thirty (230) volt power socket and one twelve (12) Watt USB Port per pair of seats for use by passengers;
fitted with commissioned and operational media servers;
fitted with corridor connection gangways of a minimum width of at least 1,160mm and central saloon gangways of a minimum width of at least 750mm;
fitted with “bio-reactor” toilets that only need their effluent tanks emptying every forty five (45) days; (all around pg 339)

The first 2x 10 car units should be accepted into use by 15/09/2019, the last 6x 5 car units by 8/12/2020 (pg 434)

I think these may be the first of Grayling's Alternative fuel trains!

I am very doubtful indeed about "bio reactor" toilets that only need emptying every 45 days.
I am well aware of composting toilets, these are used in places without mains drainage and work well.
It seems unlikely to work in the confined space of a train, anyone got more details as to how they are intended to work.

 

[ic31420]

I am very doubtful indeed about "bio reactor" toilets that only need emptying every 45 days.
I am well aware of composting toilets, these are used in places without mains drainage and work well.
It seems unlikely to work in the confined space of a train, anyone got more details as to how they are intended to work.

https://www.akwauv-protec.com/Bioreactor.htm

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/technology/single-view/view/lower-train-toilet-costs.html

Sound's expensive.

 

[broadgage]

Thanks for the links.
This sounds a grand idea in theory, but I remain a bit doubtful about the costs and complexities and consequent un reliability in actual use.

 

[Goldfish62]

Given that the contractual service entry date of the first unit is only a year away I'm surprised that we haven't seen any internal mock-up yet.

 

[hwl]

Given that the contractual service entry date of the first unit is only a year away I'm surprised that we haven't seen any internal mock-up yet.

Bombardier probably have enough other issues till they have finished the 345s and got the 710s in service!

 

[Goldfish62]

Bombardier probably have enough other issues till they have finished the 345s and got the 710s in service!

Surely it's for SWR to commission a mock-up, not for Bombardier to decide they can't be bothered?!