• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 707 - SWT: Introduction into service

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
I did finally ride a 707 on February 19th, from Waterloo to Feltham. By way of an additional treat, it even departed from an ex-Eurostar platform.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
Has there been any official news on when the 707 lease ends and where the units are destined. Rumours are flying around but I’m pretty certain it’s GIGO
 

TRAX

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2015
Messages
1,648
Location
France
Where the 707s will go is still an interesting question, alas to which we still have no answer.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
Has there been any official news on when the 707 lease ends and where the units are destined. Rumours are flying around but I’m pretty certain it’s GIGO
The planned 707 off-lease date in the franchise agreement was of course Dec 2019, which obviously looks impossible now, but maybe they could achieve next summer?
 

moley

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2011
Messages
270
The planned 707 off-lease date in the franchise agreement was of course Dec 2019, which obviously looks impossible now, but maybe they could achieve next summer?
I’m sure that the ROSCO will be glad to have done extra lease payments given there is no confirmed next user.

That said, with Desiro refurbs finished and 442 introduction complete, you might just manage a temporary reshuffle pending the new stock arriving.
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
The planned 707 off-lease date in the franchise agreement was of course Dec 2019, which obviously looks impossible now, but maybe they could achieve next summer?
There are a lot of rumours at present that they will be off at the end of the lease due to them having a new home agreed. Only rumours but it has been known for trains to move on at the end of the lease without a ready replacement. (TPE 170s, LO 172s)
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
There are a lot of rumours at present that they will be off at the end of the lease due to them having a new home agreed. Only rumours but it has been known for trains to move on at the end of the lease without a ready replacement. (TPE 170s, LO 172s)
The 172s stayed with LO considerably beyond their original date due to the non-availability of 710s. I can't see the industry or DfT allowing SWR to be in a situation where it's suddenly 30 units short.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
There are a lot of rumours at present that they will be off at the end of the lease due to them having a new home agreed. Only rumours but it has been known for trains to move on at the end of the lease without a ready replacement. (TPE 170s, LO 172s)

I wonder if we’ve heard the same rumours? Sounds like it.
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
The 172s stayed with LO considerably beyond their original date due to the non-availability of 710s. I can't see the industry or DfT allowing SWR to be in a situation where it's suddenly 30 units short.
They still left before the 710s entered service though and led to a reduced service being operated on the Gospel Oak to Barking line.
 

Bigfoot

Member
Joined
2 Dec 2013
Messages
1,103
There's a rumour (although nothing to back it up) that the 707s may not go anywhere at all.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
They still left before the 710s entered service though and led to a reduced service being operated on the Gospel Oak to Barking line.
Yes, but they still stayed long after they were supposed to leave.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
As in stay with SWR?
I wonder about this - the 701 fleet offers no real capacity uplift in the metro fleet at all as it is today, but the capacity benefit was of course the 707s when they were introduced (and indeed the 701s that replace them) not replacing anything. That being said, they did allow 450s to be cascaded to longer-distance routes, so some of that gain would have been lost for capacity benefits to the faster services. I assume the 450s the 442s will displace aren't coming back onto metro routes in which case in a few years' time there could well be another capacity shortfall. If there's room to retain the 707s it could be useful but I somewhat doubt there is, and it also breaks a franchise pledge about toilets.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
Easily rectified, they were built to have toilets fitted should they have needed them.
They’d also have to have their standing capacity increased from 3 to 4 per sq m, and their dwell times improved, as per the franchise ITT...
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
They’d also have to have their standing capacity increased from 3 to 4 per sq m, and their dwell times improved, as per the franchise ITT...
That doesn't seem insurmountable, the 707s are very similar inside to the 700s which had high levels of standing capacity in mind. As far as I can tell the 701 interior will be basically identical to that of the 707 but with a toilet added.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
That doesn't seem insurmountable, the 707s are very similar inside to the 700s which had high levels of standing capacity in mind. As far as I can tell the 701 interior will be basically identical to that of the 707 but with a toilet added.
Not so easily modified in practice, the 700s wouldn't get the standing density required under the SW franchise guidance.

There has been plenty of discussion on this before.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Not so easily modified in practice, the 700s wouldn't get the standing density required under the SW franchise guidance.

There has been plenty of discussion on this before.
Has an interior layout diagram of the 701s been published illustrating how they will achieve it? Because honestly if the 707s don't cut it, I don't really see how the 701s will.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Has an interior layout diagram of the 701s been published illustrating how they will achieve it? Because honestly if the 707s don't cut it, I don't really see how the 701s will.
The 707 struggle for number of reasons but the internal cable routing through vestibule area and the ceiling access panel design means that you can't fit enough (any more) grab rails in the vestibule area.
Also requirements for foot space under seats which doesn't fit with the duct design ( inc size) and the lack on inter seat spacing.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
The 707 struggle for number of reasons but the internal cable routing through vestibule area and the ceiling access panel design means that you can't fit enough (any more) grab rails in the vestibule area.
Also requirements for foot space under seats which doesn't fit with the duct design ( inc size) and the lack on inter seat spacing.
The grab rails issue sounds vaguely familiar now that you mention it, I'd forgotten standing space requires a certain number of them. I'm curious about the need for foot space under seats, didn't realise that was a requirement though I can see why it would make sense with two-abreast in the aisles.

This raises an interesting conundrum though - if some were to be retained for extra capacity (I'll believe it when I see it), would it matter if they didn't meet the standing room spec? After all, a train with insufficient standing space is surely more beneficial than no extra train at all. I'm just not sure whether there's room to be slotting extra trains into what already looks like a busy timetable.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
I wonder about this - the 701 fleet offers no real capacity uplift in the metro fleet at all as it is today, but the capacity benefit was of course the 707s when they were introduced (and indeed the 701s that replace them) not replacing anything. That being said, they did allow 450s to be cascaded to longer-distance routes, so some of that gain would have been lost for capacity benefits to the faster services. I assume the 450s the 442s will displace aren't coming back onto metro routes in which case in a few years' time there could well be another capacity shortfall. If there's room to retain the 707s it could be useful but I somewhat doubt there is, and it also breaks a franchise pledge about toilets.
Toilets can be easily retrofitted, but the leasing costs are high and SWR is in financial trouble so could probably do without an extra 30 units "just in case".
The 707 struggle for number of reasons but the internal cable routing through vestibule area and the ceiling access panel design means that you can't fit enough (any more) grab rails in the vestibule area.
Also requirements for foot space under seats which doesn't fit with the duct design ( inc size) and the lack on inter seat spacing.
Yes, the heater ducting under the seats is the most intrusive I've experienced. The 701s will have underfloor heating, eliminating the issue completely.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
The grab rails issue sounds vaguely familiar now that you mention it, I'd forgotten standing space requires a certain number of them. I'm curious about the need for foot space under seats, didn't realise that was a requirement though I can see why it would make sense with two-abreast in the aisles.

This raises an interesting conundrum though - if some were to be retained for extra capacity (I'll believe it when I see it), would it matter if they didn't meet the standing room spec? After all, a train with insufficient standing space is surely more beneficial than no extra train at all. I'm just not sure whether there's room to be slotting extra trains into what already looks like a busy timetable.
DfT moved the goal posts for the SW and subsequent SE tender hence limiting the places they could go without major modification.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Toilets can be easily retrofitted, but the leasing costs are high and SWR is in financial trouble so could probably do without an extra 30 units "just in case".

Yes, the heater ducting under the seats is the most intrusive I've experienced. The 701s will have underfloor heating, eliminating the issue completely.
Losing the Thameslink contract was probably one of the best things that happened to Bombardier in that they had to reassess was was needed from a future product in more time and detail.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,181
Its almost as if the DfT are scorning Siemens. They’re the only manufacturer without any UK surface orders aren’t they? And yet Hitachi and Bombardier have 3 year lead times. Seems suspect to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top