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

[markle]

deleted

 

[OneTrackMinded]

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?

It’s more than just reliability - they’re end of life in general. I regrettably would like to remind you (and everyone else here) about summer on a 455…

 

[Bikeman78]

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?

Which stations are at risk of being skipped?

Class 455s are still doing 20,000 miles between failures, so they are a long way from being unreliable.

 

[Flange Squeal]

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.

It's certainly the case on the units in service I've been on. The guard panels are indeed spaced diagonally opposite rather than directly opposite each other, with the passenger communication (passcom) alarm taking up the right hand space on the other diagonally opposite doors. I'd imagine they've all been built the same?

Similar to what it is in the 455

In terms of having one per side of each carriage (508 coaches excepted as those have since been removed and plated over), as opposed to one at every doorway on Desiros, then yes. But what is being discussed here is the placement of them, which is not like 455s. The ones retrofitted to 455s are on either side of the same vestibule, where as the panels on 701s are positioned at vestibules at opposite ends of the carriage.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Given the amount of interest/comment on the subject in question, and aware that some in the industry will be viewing this forum, may I make the suggestion that perhaps arrangements can be made to invite a selected number of representatives from such groups (as this) to attend a visit to Wimbledon TC depot to gain a fuller/more open understanding of the issues involved. Perhaps I was fortunate in being involved in a time when there wasn't so much introspection by those besotted with social media etc as in todays world, but it was what it was.

Invite those who have issues with your issues to view first hand at rail level , what is involved, and be open as far as you can. As some one involved with the 508 introduction/405 withdrawal, the current situation is by miles the worst ever I have known, if even from my armchair, so you (in the industry) need to get a grip.

 

[Goldfish62]

It's certainly the case on the units in service I've been on. The guard panels are indeed spaced diagonally opposite rather than directly opposite each other, with the passenger communication (passcom) alarm taking up the right hand space on the other diagonally opposite doors. I'd imagine they've all been built the same?

Wow - really surprised at that! My uneducated guess is that there was originally to be no guards panel and the only way one could be designed in as described due to the passcom being in the way?

 

[DelW]

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.

I've seen what happened (in a different industry) when a successful company was sold to new owners, who then cleared out many middle and senior managers and replaced them with the new owner's staff. Much inherited and institutional knowledge was lost, which couldn't be regained, and serious and expensive mistakes were made as a result. The company was sold on at a substantial loss within a few years.

The parallel is inexact, but maybe the post-Covid cost-plus contracts saved FG and MTR from the financial costs of the mistakes they've made with the 701s (and other fleets).

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

Posters on here who I believe are in a position to know, have said that unavailability of spare parts for obsolete equipment, and upcoming need for major overhauls, will eliminate the 455s fairly quickly within the next year or so.

 

[Goldfish62]

Posters on here who I believe are in a position to know, have said that unavailability of spare parts for obsolete equipment, and upcoming need for major overhauls, will eliminate the 455s fairly quickly within the next year or so.

And that's what SWR are quoted as saying in Modern Railways. One thing is sure - Wimbledon are doing an heroic job keeping them running as well as they are - the most reliable ex-BR EMU yet again!

 

[I_am_Nobody]

Wow - really surprised at that! My uneducated guess is that there was originally to be no guards panel and the only way one could be designed in as described due to the passcom being in the way?

That would reasonably make sense. The Aventra stock is generally built to be DOO, running as such on most of the GA network. The Guard initially on SWR was meant to key on, step out to make sure nobody needed assistance, board and key off, so wouldn't really need GOPs everywhere... now that DOGC has returned, I can see the need for more GOPs arising, otherwise it'll be the 458s all over again... they're not ideal for Guards with their lack of GOPs!

 

[Deepgreen]

And that's what SWR are quoted as saying in Modern Railways. One thing is sure - Wimbledon are doing an heroic job keeping them running as well as they are - the most reliable ex-BR EMU yet again!

I'm very tempted to draw a parallel between relative IT simplicity of the 455s and their reliability. I may be wrong of course.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I'm very tempted to draw a parallel between relative IT simplicity of the 455s and their reliability. I may be wrong of course.

Similar comparisons were made when the 455s were introduced. There's very little that can go wrong with a slam door.

 

[ScottGallagher]

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?

If the money and conditions are right someone will take it on!

 

[OneTrackMinded]

If the money and conditions are right someone will take it on!

As I've mentioned a few times before, I have my fingers crossed that since SWR is the first franchise to be nationalised under Labour and this new plan, that they'll put extra focus and funding into it in order to create good PR for the rest of the nationalisation project. Which again is why it would look bad for them not to get the 701s rolling out quicker..!

 

[Class450/4DES]

So the Class 701 has finally and usurpingly made it onto History in the Dark's "WORST TRAINS EVER" series. Seen at the 6:05 mark.

 

[60159]

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

Are these able to be viewed from a passing train or anywhere else? Are there normally any at Feltham and can they be viewed?
ie can you get numbers?

 

[Bikeman78]

Invite those who have issues with your issues to view first hand at rail level , what is involved, and be open as far as you can. As some one involved with the 508 introduction/405 withdrawal, the current situation is by miles the worst ever I have known, if even from my armchair, so you (in the industry) need to get a grip.

I'm too young to recall the SUB to class 508 switch. I do vaguely recall shiny space age trains in amongst the thousands of slam door trains, which must have been 508s. I do recall the 465/466 and 357s when new. With the former, the BREL and Met-Cam units would not talk to each other. The 357s had various problems such that a motley collection of classes 310/312 and 317 were hired in to cover for a year. Both of these seem like a walk in the park compared to the class 701s.

Posters on here who I believe are in a position to know, have said that unavailability of spare parts for obsolete equipment, and upcoming need for major overhauls, will eliminate the 455s fairly quickly within the next year or so.

Perhaps someone could elaborate, on a new thread if necessary. The traction equipment is quite new. I think that most of the other systems are quite similar to class 150s, and most of them have no replacement on order. It's a shame that the Southern units weren't harvested for spare parts.

 

[MotCO]

I'm too young to recall the SUB to class 508 switch. I do vaguely recall shiny space age trains in amongst the thousands of slam door trains, which must have been 508s.

I seem to recall that the sliding doors caused problems with the introduction of the 508s.

 

[willontrains]

I seem to recall that the sliding doors caused problems with the introduction of the 508s.

508s were infact a large issue for 455s, until one caught fire and the GOPs were removed from them

 

[Towers]

No union is accepting operational staff attempting to dispatch trains from behind a Tensabarrier whilst fighting off angry passengers trying to board a crush loaded train. Nor would any reasonable person particularly want to be stood in that space fielding abuse from passengers for an entire journey/shift. That isn’t going to be the solution here!

 

[Goldfish62]

No union is accepting operational staff attempting to dispatch trains from behind a Tensabarrier whilst fighting off angry passengers trying to board a crush loaded train. Nor would any reasonable person particularly want to be stood in that space fielding abuse from passengers for an entire journey/shift. That isn’t going to be the solution here!

Quite. It's an insane idea and we really should just stop talking about it!

 

[markle]

deleted

 

[class701]

It might be cheaper/quicker at this stage, to order new driving cabs for all (or most) of the 60 ten-car units and make them five-car units.Thus putting the guard back in the middle of the train as per the norm on SWR. Alstom Derby are twiddling their thumbs atm anyway. Why have no five-car units even reached SWR yet anyway? What's the excuse there? The five-cars should be in service first in pairs. Now there's an idea!

 

[cvinall]

So when / where is the compromise going to come from? There doesn't seem to be any obvious or quick fixes that don't involve at least a degree of compromise.

It rather feels like the unions are sitting there, arms folded, saying "we don't like that" at every attempt to get these trains into service.

Yes the rollout has been awful. Yes, the trains should have been better designed. But we are where we are now and relitigating the past doesn't change the situation.

Failure to make some compromise and help get these trains into service will, I fear, lead to a situation where the suburban service beings to fall apart as the 455s reach end of life, parts become impossible to find, etc.

And I would humbly suggest that working in an environment with persistently short formed / cancelled trains, chronic overcrowding, and high frustration for passengers, isn't going to be a pleasant working environment for union members either.

I won't often defend unions actions but, in this case, in the face of unworkable proposals from SWR management (&or DfT - who knows?), someone has to stand up and say it won't work, with the power to stop it happening. The tragedy here is that all the expertise isn't collaborating to find something workable, instead of the veto tennis we seem to be seeing.

 

[PG]

It might be cheaper/quicker at this stage, to order new driving cabs for all (or most) of the 60 ten-car units and make them five-car units.Thus putting the guard back in the middle of the train as per the norm on SWR. Alstom Derby are twiddling their thumbs atm anyway. Why have no five-car units even reached SWR yet anyway? What's the excuse there? The five-cars should be in service first in pairs. Now there's an idea!

Not so sure about it being particularly cheap! Would it not involve hefty modifications to the inner fifth carriages?
However it, at first glance, appears to offer a way forward out of the current hole that SWR are in, always assuming that Derby are actually able to manufacture 100-120 cabs now?

 

[Bikeman78]

So when / where is the compromise going to come from? There doesn't seem to be any obvious or quick fixes that don't involve at least a degree of compromise.

It rather feels like the unions are sitting there, arms folded, saying "we don't like that" at every attempt to get these trains into service.

Yes the rollout has been awful. Yes, the trains should have been better designed. But we are where we are now and relitigating the past doesn't change the situation.

Failure to make some compromise and help get these trains into service will, I fear, lead to a situation where the suburban service beings to fall apart as the 455s reach end of life, parts become impossible to find, etc.

And I would humbly suggest that working in an environment with persistently short formed / cancelled trains, chronic overcrowding, and high frustration for passengers, isn't going to be a pleasant working environment for union members either.

Any sensible business would be able to keep the 455s going for as long as it takes. Spare parts might be costly to obtain, but not impossible. The Belgians have just finished using EMUs dating from the 1960s. Going back the the arrival of the Networkers, the unrefurbished EPBs were far more battered than the SWR 455s are now but they kept going. They were essentially in as built 1950s condition. The 455s have had an extensive refurb and also modern traction equipment installed.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Any sensible business would be able to keep the 455s going for as long as it takes. Spare parts might be costly to obtain, but not impossible. The Belgians have just finished using EMUs dating from the 1960s. Going back the the arrival of the Networkers, the unrefurbished EPBs were far more battered than the SWR 455s are now but they kept going. They were essentially in as built 1950s condition. The 455s have had an extensive refurb and also modern traction equipment installed.

Anything is possible if you have the money…

 

[class701]

Any sensible business would be able to keep the 455s going for as long as it takes. Spare parts might be costly to obtain, but not impossible. The Belgians have just finished using EMUs dating from the 1960s. Going back the the arrival of the Networkers, the unrefurbished EPBs were far more battered than the SWR 455s are now but they kept going. They were essentially in as built 1950s condition. The 455s have had an extensive refurb and also modern traction equipment installed.

They could all be painted in BR blue/grey (spanners) livery with new seat covers, and the passengers would think the new fleet had arrived. Job done!

 

[Bikeman78]

Anything is possible if you have the money…

The only other options are to get the 701s moving or start cutting back the timetable.

They could all be painted in BR blue/grey (spanners) livery with new seat covers, and the passengers would think the new fleet had arrived. Job done!

You jest but, during the class 357 crisis, plenty of passengers thought that the smart looking class 312 hired in from First Great Eastern were new trains.

 

[class701]

The only other options are to get the 701s moving or start cutting back the timetable.


You jest but, during the class 357 crisis, plenty of passengers thought that the smart looking class 312 hired in from First Great Eastern were new trains.

Where are all the 5-car 701s and why are they not in service in pairs? They could fill in the shortfall in stock next week.

 

[Goldfish62]

However it, at first glance, appears to offer a way forward out of the current hole that SWR are in, always assuming that Derby are actually able to manufacture 100-120 cabs now?

The problem there is that it requires money, and in order to release that money it requires a business case. Good luck to anyone trying to get that through the Treasury!

And who is going to trust the local union branches not to find something else wrong if and when this work were to be undertaken and the modified trains delivered?