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

[Clarence Yard]

This is very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised. First clearly aren't very happy with how the new government is changing the railways, not only because of the obvious nationalisation and removal of their revenue across many operators, but also a few recent moves to restrict Open Access, which has become the company's new strategy going forward. That's a different topic entirely, but since they have little to loose on their franchised TOCs, it's far from impossible they're doing what you're suggesting.

Does anyone remember during the peak of the COVID pandemic when there was a chance First was going to have to abandon their franchises (including SWR) because they were in such a dire financial situation?

What is rumoured is bull. FG are making a fortune out of fees from the DfT so they are not trying to break anything. They are doing exactly what the DfT is telling them to do because co-operation with the DfT gets you the biggest bucks, even when you know it is daft. The longer they are on an NRC, the more millions they can earn from each TOC in fees.

And there was no chance that pre-covid FG were going to abandon any franchises. That was just wild rumours by those that wanted them gone or who were just posing, for effect. They had the financial and legal position more than covered and when the old style franchises were ended in 2020, they made money out of that too.

 

[Flange Squeal]

Sentiment amongst the Guards I've spoken to lean towards them being somewhat dismayed that the Drivers are retaining the agreed-upon salary boost for DODC operation when they aren't now actually retaining the responsibility and potential liability of closing the doors. Though things are suspiciously quiet on this front.

Just to clarify this point. Rather than being a specific salary boost for doing doors, the pay deal in question also included a whole host of other changes to terms and conditions totally unrelated to doors which were implemented. I’m no longer there so don’t have access to the documentation now, but from memory the change to Method of Operation only took up 1 of around 15 pages.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I believe this is the case also, and I firmly believe DCO ( with onboard staff ) will become the standard method of operation across the country eventually

I agree for train services including SWR mainline services outside London and other metro areas but the standard method of operation for train services in the London metro area is driver only operation with no second onboard staff and the SWR metro services are very much the exception in still having guards.

What is rumoured is bull. FG are making a fortune out of fees from the DfT so they are not trying to break anything. They are doing exactly what the DfT is telling them to do because co-operation with the DfT gets you the biggest bucks, even when you know it is daft. The longer they are on an NRC, the more millions they can earn from each TOC in fees.

That makes sense but why has there been so little progress in bringing the 90 new class 701 Arterio trains into service? Is the DfT happy with this?

 

[Goldfish62]

What is rumoured is bull. FG are making a fortune out of fees from the DfT so they are not trying to break anything. They are doing exactly what the DfT is telling them to do because co-operation with the DfT gets you the biggest bucks, even when you know it is daft. The longer they are on an NRC, the more millions they can earn from each TOC in fees.

Agreed, of course the rumours are rubbish. The reputational damage to FirstGroup if it was doing what the rumours claim would be severe and impact on its ability to do business with any organisations anywhere in the world in the future.

The current situation is surely down to incompetence and no doubt some lack of motivation within SWR given that they have just four months left. For all we know the Interim MD may know by now what his future is beyond May.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Why has there been so little progress?

Problems with the stock, problems with the staff, problems with the DfT signing off the resources needed and wanting to do it all on the cheap - it’s a classic case of how not to do it.

I suspect the DfT are quite happy with the delays, if it is saving them money. Of course, that won’t stop them saying that come the summer, it will all be done better, even if they are sticking to the existing plan which, of course, they have been heavily involved in and approved!

 

[43066]

Indeed, there won't be any dispute over this particular nugget. This was all agreed through the Unions in the previous agreement, and allowed for the recruitment of Metro Guards to resume when it was previously frozen.

Thanks for confirming.

Sentiment amongst the Guards I've spoken to lean towards them being somewhat dismayed that the Drivers are retaining the agreed-upon salary boost for DODC operation when they aren't now actually retaining the responsibility and potential liability of closing the doors. Though things are suspiciously quiet on this front.

Interesting! I can understand that - on the other hand if guards are being kept surely better to keep them keep them busy and as useful as possible.

 

[Goldfish62]

Why has there been so little progress?

Problems with the stock, problems with the staff, problems with the DfT signing off the resources needed and wanting to do it all on the cheap - it’s a classic case of how not to do it.

I suspect the DfT are quite happy with the delays, if it is saving them money. Of course, that won’t stop them saying that come the summer, it will all be done better, even if they are sticking to the existing plan which, of course, they have been heavily involved in and approved!

Agreed on all that, although I think you'll find that the DfT isn't as bombastic as it used to be under the previous government. Whatever the civil service likes to think, it is still answerable to its ministers of the time.

It's really important that a high calibre person heads up DOL-owned SWR to push things through. Who'd want to take on such a mess, though?

 

[7031]

You know what I find utterly mad? In the time that since the initial order of the 701s, my city in a certain eastern country went from having two metro lines to having six, with a further two under construction. The line that goes past my home hadn't even started construction when they were ordered, yet now has 34 stations.

It really is impressive just how long the 701s have taken at this point. By the time they enter service they'll seem dated...

 

[markle]

deleted

 

[43066]

- Fix the lighting issues and implement DCO as originally intended; guard remains on each service for passenger assistance, retreats to the rear cab during crush load
- Don't fix the lighting issues, implement DCO but with platform dispatch at every station (also has positive passenger benefit of station staffing from start to end of service)
- Extend platforms where necessary such that the rear driver's cab has access to the platform (but then also requiring either monitors or platform dispatch, at least at some stations)
- Proceed with guarded despatch per the current operating procedures, with the guard returning to the rear cab during crush loading; platform dispatch required during crush loading, with stations skipped where platform dispatch not available (generally should be fairly predictable when crush loading is likely, and stations staffed accordingly)
- Tensabarriers cordoning off a vestibule (surely there must be a design that allows for quick release in an evacuation?)

The fourth option (possibly with a bit of Tensabarrier/guards office mixed in) is surely the only viable one, hence it’s the direction they’re going in. If the lighting was easy to fix they’d have just done it and implemented DCO as booked; not enough staff for platform dispatch at all locations, not going to be viable (or even possible) to extend platforms sufficiently.

Perhaps also some clever diagramming to ensure double five cars are used when and where crowding is likely - obviously that rather defeats the object of having ten car units in the first place, and I’m not sure how viable/practical it would be.

 

[SWT_USER]

The fourth option (possibly with a bit of Tensabarrier/guards office mixed in) is surely the only viable one, hence it’s the direction they’re going in. If the lighting was easy to fix they’d have just done it and implemented DCO as booked; not enough staff for platform dispatch at all locations, not going to be viable (or even possible) to extend platforms sufficiently.

Perhaps also some clever diagramming to ensure double five cars are used when and where crowding is likely - obviously that rather defeats the object of having ten car units in the first place, and I’m not sure how viable/practical it would be.

I tend to agree with this, although I'm not convinced the Tensabarrier approach will work and people will just spill in to it on crush loaded trains.

I suspect all the easy platform extensions have been done now, and SWR are not capable of clever diagramming as we've seen over the past few months.

I suspect the permanent solution will ultimately be DCO... But no doubt we'll have a few unsatisfactory temporary fixes before we get there.

 

[43096]

Why has there been so little progress?

Problems with the stock, problems with the staff, problems with the DfT signing off the resources needed and wanting to do it all on the cheap - it’s a classic case of how not to do it.

But it is never down to the rank incompetence of SWR or First management. Strange that.

I suspect the DfT are quite happy with the delays, if it is saving them money. Of course, that won’t stop them saying that come the summer, it will all be done better, even if they are sticking to the existing plan which, of course, they have been heavily involved in and approved!

Hard to see how they are saving money paying the lease on two sets of trains.

 

[I_am_Nobody]

Proceed with guarded despatch per the current operating procedures, with the guard returning to the rear cab during crush loading; platform dispatch required during crush loading, with stations skipped where platform dispatch not available (generally should be fairly predictable when crush loading is likely, and stations staffed accordingly)

From my understanding speaking to people I know at SWR, this is the current way of working, with it mostly being not-to-call orders issued where the rear cab is not accommodated. How useful is a flimsy tensabarrier really going to be? I’ve seen the on-board ones on other Aventra stock, I wouldn’t even bother getting it out the cabinet! XD

 

[Thames99]

And now we're on page 400 of this discussion ...

 

[I_am_Nobody]

And now we're on page 400 of this discussion ...

Just goes to show how badly the rollout has gone!

 

[markle]

deleted

 

[Goldfish62]

RE Tensabarriers - how I'd envisage it would be an entire vestibule been barriered off, with passengers asked not to board / alight there. The only 'pressure' on the barriers would be crowding from the gangways, which in general is far less dense than crowding at vestibules.

I tend to find SWR passengers are (mostly) a fairly respectful bunch, I personally don't see it being a huge issue - albeit a bit tedious for the guard to keep asking people at stations not to board through their set of doors. This could potentially be reduced through exterior markings, yellow box hashing on the floor of the vestibule, etc.

It of course makes a complete nonsense of the intended completely walk-through 10 car trains.

Reminds me of the old tube stock (eg 1938, 1959, A60) where the guard was located at the inner-most door of the last carriage and raised a metal bar to cordon off the area when the train got busy (at other times the guard would sit on one of the passenger seats between stations).

 

[SWT_USER]

I can't see a Tensabarrier type situation working, or being accepted by staff.. Imagine a guard trying to do that at Putney on a morning peak service or Twickenham on a rugby day. No chance at all.

 

[Robski]

RE Tensabarriers - how I'd envisage it would be an entire vestibule been barriered off, with passengers asked not to board / alight there. The only 'pressure' on the barriers would be crowding from the gangways, which in general is far less dense than crowding at vestibules.

I think (but I’m not 100% sure) that the guard operating panel is only at one set of doors on each side of each carriage, located diagonally opposite to each other - i.e. to close the doors on a platform on the other side of the train, they would need to walk through the carriage - which would prevent such a solution from being effective. If they were located directly opposite each other then they could just stand alongside the passengers.

 

[Goldfish62]

I think (but I’m not 100% sure) that the guard operating panel is only at one set of doors on each side of each carriage, located diagonally opposite to each other - i.e. to close the doors on a platform on the other side of the train, they would need to walk through the carriage - which would prevent such a solution from being effective. If they were located directly opposite each other then they could just stand alongside the passengers.

Surely this isn't case. I'm assuming it's the same as on the 455s. One pair of doors in the same vestibule in each coach. I can't see any logic or reason for doing otherwise.

 

[7031]

Fixing the 'not to call' orders with more platform despatch staff would be a good improvement!

RE Tensabarriers - how I'd envisage it would be an entire vestibule been barriered off, with passengers asked not to board / alight there. The only 'pressure' on the barriers would be crowding from the gangways, which in general is far less dense than crowding at vestibules.

I tend to find SWR passengers are (mostly) a fairly respectful bunch, I personally don't see it being a huge issue - albeit a bit tedious for the guard to keep asking people at stations not to board through their set of doors. This could potentially be reduced through exterior markings, yellow box hashing on the floor of the vestibule, etc.

To be fair whilst I appreciate the creativity this is hardly the kind of solution we should accept on some brand new stock...

 

[swrfanatic]

Scrap DCO and DOO.

 

[Goldfish62]

Scrap DCO and DOO.

I don't know whether that's meant to be a serous comment, but if you've been following recent posts you'll understand that that does nothing to resolve the issue.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I suspect all the easy platform extensions have been done now, and SWR are not capable of clever diagramming as we've seen over the past few months.

I do try to keep out of involvement in anything other than the historic side of things (honest mods..), but sometimes......So, from times past, pre FG/SWR etc, the 10 car platform extension programme was extremely exhaustive and complex, by the time all non station platform items, such as driver related hop-ups to allow change end to take place at a whole host of locations (everywhere a reversal away from a station platform may, yes may happen), but in many cases would likely seldom be used, were also taken in to account. This latter a result primarily of non through gang-wayed 10 car formations (455+455+456).

Certain platform extensions were such that the resulting extension was very tight for a 10 car (455+455+456, or 10 car 458/707), due in such cases to infrastructure restraints (bridge parapets/signal position/sighting issues, etc etc), effectively meaning whilst all passenger doors (being at 1/3 and 2/3 positions coach body wise) were safely accommodated, the rear driving cab/door may not be. But in all such circumstances the guard had an intermediate cab to work from. Here's the rub: prior to the Franchise (as was) change in 2017, AFAIR, ALL relevant operational information was required to be/and was submitted (to DfT) for other bidders to acquaint themselves of any matters arising, so when it is mentioned (up thread) that it now transpires that a 10 car 701 (no longer physically overall than a 10 car 455/455/456 or 10 car 458) can not operate at certain stations when the guard has to operate from the rear (10th car) cab, this comes as a bit of a surprise, as all the relevant information was there for those who needed to know.

Question has to be asked, in ordering the 701 fleet as a type, which for the record I personally thought was (as far as the SW network was concerned) a step change for the good in passenger and operational terms, did certain 'facts', such as an assumption about DOO (I will say no more), but more crucially other issues partly train to platform interface etc, in certain operational circumstances, just get overlooked/ignored?

Franchise bid work (back then) could be extremely intense, with totally unrealistic deadlines for answers to very complex questions, and so I suspect errors/shortcuts did occur in relation to the 2017 refranchise of the SW network, but only those involved can answer that one!

Some might say now, 'we are where we are'.....

PS: forgot to mention the above comment about 'clever diagramming'.....if those involved in such matters are those I am thinking of, they will be more than capable of finding workable solutions to almost any situation, provided they are allowed to do so.....I will say no more!

PPS: BOLD added for clarity.

 

[markle]

deleted

 

[3973EXL]

701026
5Q87 Long Marston - Eastleigh East Yd

Realtime Trains | 5Q87 1234 Long Marston Gbrf to Eastleigh East Yard | 30/01/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q87 1234 departure from Long Marston Gbrf to Eastleigh East Yard on 30/01/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 5Q88 1833 Eastleigh East Yard to Wimbledon Park Depot Sdgs | 30/01/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q88 1833 departure from Eastleigh East Yard to Wimbledon Park Depot Sdgs on 30/01/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Farnham 1200

701023
701007
701051
701048
701052

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Someone here mentioned a while ago that staff moral was at the floor. I think this applies to passengers too considering the current situation….

 

[Robski]

Surely this isn't case. I'm assuming it's the same as on the 455s. One pair of doors in the same vestibule in each coach. I can't see any logic or reason for doing otherwise.

From this picture there appears to be only one in each vestibule.

 

[willontrains]

Is it a bit ridiculous? Yes.

But as a passenger, personally I'd far rather get the trains in service, even with a slightly ridiculous workaround.

The alternative appears to involve sitting around moaning about how the trains should have been better designed and how the rollout should have been better managed and faster, whilst we suffer worsening crowding and reliability issues on the 455s.

I'd suggest to take a look at my previous post(s) which explain that without a more sensible workaround 701s will have to runfast at certain stations.

Also, I haven't heard any notable reliability issues on the 455s?

 

[swrfanatic]

From this picture there appears to be only one in each vestibule.

View attachment 173687

Similar to what it is in the 455, 458's only have GOP's in coaches where there is a wheelchair area.