Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

Samzino · 1 Jan 2024

Invincible said:
Isn't it Alstom not being paid as the Angel/SWR lease has not yet started?

PG said:
My thanks too. It has prompted me to delve into this. It transpires that Bank of Luxembourg is owned by CIC (Crédit Industriel et Commercial), which is a subsidiary of the French bank Crédit Mutuel.
So effectively the funds received by Alstom (a French company) are underwritten by a French bank - although I accept that this wasn't the case when the trains were ordered!

Above by PG I believe Alstom had received funds for the 701s from Rock Rail SWR LTD?, below also from Snow.

Snow1964 said:
No further charges have been registered by Rock Rail SW since June

Still 45 charges (42 trains, plus the general one, simulators, and specified spares)

Automerge,
update 31st August

Another charge (number 46) has been registered by Rock Rail covering unit 701 027, however this unit was already covered by charge 42

ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

The updated list of 701s with charges to Deutche Bank Luxembourg is now

004, 006, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 022, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 037, 038, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 052, 509, 512,

(40 units 10car, 2 units 5car)
410 vehicles of 750 (which is 54.66%)

Missing units are :
001-003, 005, 007-010, 020-021, 036, 039, 053-060,
501-508, 510-511, 513-530

RailUK Forums

Stephen42 · 1 Jan 2024

JonathanH said:
It is suggested up thread that there is no penalty, because they are simply paid to run the service, and any penalty would simply be a money go round for the DfT. Who would the penalty be payable to, and who would benefit as a result?

Operators are paid a fixed fee (on top of accepted costs) and a performance based fee. Part of the performance based fee is assessed based on delivery of the business plan including the commitments. There is some subjectivity as some commitment dates could slip for reasons largely out of the operator control or to allow the operator to focus elsewhere, so it's possible to have a few failures and get top marks depending how they well they've tried to rectify.

I wouldn't be surprised if the delay is only a couple of weeks it would bother the DfT that much. It's when existing fleet can be retired (or the 2 remaining class 707s moved across) and finding reasons they can delay accepting units from Rock Rail that has the financial impact.

Class15 · 1 Jan 2024

norbitonflyer said:
Are there any which never entered service? (there have of course been subclasses, such as the GWR 769/9s).

Interesting question: there are a few (e.g. Nightstar stock) that underwent extensive testing and were completely ready for service but were then deemed unnecessary. For 701-style situations, I don’t believe there are any precedents.

Wyrleybart · 1 Jan 2024

You could be forgiven for thinking the following
The dispute between SWR management and ASLEF is the reason why the 701s are not in service, but that doesnt explain why all 90 (is it ?) units are not on depots, accepted and waiting to go into traffic. This is particularly relevant as the test drivers of the 701s are from a different company to SWR who are waiting for them to be commissioned.

Goldfish62 · 1 Jan 2024

Wyrleybart said:
You could be forgiven for thinking the following
The dispute between SWR management and ASLEF is the reason why the 701s are not in service, but that doesnt explain why all 90 (is it ?) units are not on depots, accepted and waiting to go into traffic. This is particularly relevant as the test drivers of the 701s are from a different company to SWR who are waiting for them to be commissioned.

Now I'm confused. I thought the dispute was with the RMT.

cactustwirly · 1 Jan 2024

Wyrleybart said:
You could be forgiven for thinking the following
The dispute between SWR management and ASLEF is the reason why the 701s are not in service, but that doesnt explain why all 90 (is it ?) units are not on depots, accepted and waiting to go into traffic. This is particularly relevant as the test drivers of the 701s are from a different company to SWR who are waiting for them to be commissioned.

Because there isn't enough space for all of them, and some units may still have faults preventing them from being accepted

swr444 · 1 Jan 2024

Goldfish62 said:
Now I'm confused. I thought the dispute was with the RMT.

No

TT-ONR-NRN · 1 Jan 2024

swr444 said:
No

RMT are telling members not to drive them though, right?

swr444 · 1 Jan 2024

TT-ONR-NRN said:
RMT are telling members not to drive them though, right?

ASLEF is predominantly the drivers union.

RMT are not in dispute, they are in talks which have already been mainly resolved. This was due to the change in method of working during degraded situations which wasn’t part of the original deal signed…

TEW · 1 Jan 2024

TT-ONR-NRN said:
RMT are telling members not to drive them though, right?

No. The RMT raised issues with SWRs proposed methods of operation for guards and platform staff. Largely because they were proposing different things to different grades. That was resolved within weeks of it being escalated though. I don't know why the soft launch was postponed from before Christmas. The soft launch is agreed with both unions, with the final method of operation and training plans to be agreed based on how that goes.

Goldfish62 · 1 Jan 2024

TEW said:
No. The RMT raised issues with SWRs proposed methods of operation for guards and platform staff. Largely because they were proposing different things to different grades. That was resolved within weeks of it being escalated though. I don't know why the soft launch was postponed from before Christmas. The soft launch is agreed with both unions, with the final method of operation and training plans to be agreed based on how that goes.

So there's no dispute then?

TT-ONR-NRN · 1 Jan 2024

swr444 said:
ASLEF is predominantly the drivers union.

RMT are not in dispute, they are in talks which have already been mainly resolved. This was due to the change in method of working during degraded situations which wasn’t part of the original deal signed…

Yes I know that sorry, I didn’t mean to put drive I meant operate

TEW · 1 Jan 2024

Goldfish62 said:
So there's no dispute then?

No. The dispute was settled in 2021. The RMTs concerns were addressed before it got to a dispute this time.

TT-ONR-NRN · 2 Jan 2024

TEW said:
No. The dispute was settled in 2021. The RMTs concerns were addressed before it got to a dispute this time.

Amazing. Thanks for the clarification.

Goldfish62 · 2 Jan 2024

TEW said:
No. The dispute was settled in 2021. The RMTs concerns were addressed before it got to a dispute this time.

So there is absolutely no disagreement between the parties and full training and introduction into service can proceed apace without the need for any further discussions?

TEW · 2 Jan 2024

Goldfish62 said:
So there is absolutely no disagreement between the parties and full training and introduction into service can proceed apace without the need for any further discussions?

The soft launch can proceed. Beyond that is to be agreed. But I don't know if that is because SWR only wanted to agree it for the soft launch, or if the unions wanted a review after that.

DelW · 2 Jan 2024

TEW said:
The soft launch can proceed. Beyond that is to be agreed. But I don't know if that is because SWR only wanted to agree it for the soft launch, or if the unions wanted a review after that.

(My bold) - which would seem to give either union the opportunity to further delay full introduction, should they wish to do so. In the present (apparent) state of mutual hostility within the industry generally, from which SWR doesn't seem to be exempt, I'd have thought that's quite a possibility?

DMckduck97 · 2 Jan 2024

Rumblings of this so called soft launch and involving this Friday and Saturday.

Watch this space in that regard

OneTrackMinded · 2 Jan 2024

We've had about 90 of these "launch date rumours" on this thread now, none of them ever turn out to be anything

Goldfish62 · 2 Jan 2024

DelW said:
(My bold) - which would seem to give either union the opportunity to further delay full introduction, should they wish to do so. In the present (apparent) state of mutual hostility within the industry generally, from which SWR doesn't seem to be exempt, I'd have thought that's quite a possibility?

But the state of industrial relations in the industry hasn't been stopping other TOCs introducing new trains, so I don't see why it should with SWR. Not sure I understand how deliberately delaying new trains entering service would benefit anyone.

DelW · 2 Jan 2024

Goldfish62 said:
But the state of industrial relations in the industry hasn't been stopping other TOCs introducing new trains, so I don't see why it should with SWR. Not sure I understand how deliberately delaying new trains entering service would benefit anyone.

It could potentially be another weapon against management / SWR / DFT, just as strikes, ASOS, etc. have been. But we shall see - the history of this fleet's 4+ years of inaction does engender pessimism.

markle · 2 Jan 2024

DMckduck97 said:
Rumblings of this so called soft launch and involving this Friday and Saturday.

Watch this space in that regard

There are several promising 5Q services to W&ER on Friday, not showing for other days this week.

Realtime Trains | Departures from London Waterloo all day on 05/01/2024

Train information at London Waterloo all day on 05/01/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Currently showing as empty coaching stock, will be interesting to see if these switch to passenger services.

southern442 · 2 Jan 2024

OneTrackMinded said:
We've had about 90 of these "launch date rumours" on this thread now, none of them ever turn out to be anything

You say this, but have they ever given us a specific date that's been so close to the announcement of said date? This seems a little different.

Goldfish62 · 2 Jan 2024

DelW said:
It could potentially be another weapon against management / SWR / DFT, just as strikes, ASOS, etc. have been. But we shall see - the history of this fleet's 4+ years of inaction does engender pessimism.

Deliberately blocking entry to service of new trains is on dodgy grounds legally I'd have thought. Striking, overtime bans and working to rule are the only legal forms of industrial action, are they not?

TT-ONR-NRN · 2 Jan 2024

Goldfish62 said:
Deliberately blocking entry to service of new trains is on dodgy grounds legally I'd have thought. Striking, overtime bans and working to rule are the only legal forms of industrial action, are they not?

Definitely worth looking into. If it isn't found to be a legal form of action, hopefully it may halt the boycott of 458/4s too.

norbitonflyer · 2 Jan 2024

southern442 said:
You say this, but have they ever given us a specific date that's been so close to the announcement of said date? This seems a little different.

See posts 6760 and 6798. Extras appeared on Thursday 14th on RTT (with Class 2 headcode) to run the following week (18th).
Knowing my luck it will be Friday - the only date so far suggested that I won't be able to haste to Felthleham and behold this wonder that will/may/should/probably won't come to pass.

Snow1964 · 2 Jan 2024

cactustwirly said:
Because there isn't enough space for all of them, and some units may still have faults preventing them from being accepted

I think about 50 (10car) and 15 (5car) are accepted by SWR, something like 580 of 750 vehicles.

There are about 3 units of each length that haven't been seen.

There was also handful of early units that went back to Derby for modifications and updates, not sure if they are still back there

Not totally upto speed but there are about 15-20 units that could go into service anyday as they are in various SWR depots or on training. (Although numbers will be limited by currently untrained staff rather than unit availability)

About another 40 units need to be pulled from store, but are apparently ready.

D365 · 2 Jan 2024

Snow1964 said:
Not totally upto speed but there are about 15-20 units that could go into service anyday as they are in various SWR depots or on training. (Although numbers will be limited by currently untrained staff rather than unit availability)

About another 40 units need to be pulled from store, but are apparently ready.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that many of the accepted units are "entry into service" ready. Let alone the stored units which may not even be ready for training. Certainly it's only a very limited number of units that are currently ready for the "soft launch".

TT-ONR-NRN · 2 Jan 2024

D365 said:
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that many of the accepted units are "entry into service" ready. Let alone the stored units which may not even be ready for training. Certainly it's only a very limited number of units that are currently ready for the "soft launch".

What makes you think that?

Com166 · 2 Jan 2024

Class450/4DES said:
Its now gone past December 2023 and is now 2024. The wiki page for the Class 701 now says "In Service: TBA".View attachment 149492

The previous MD of SWT was very proud of the seat handles on his 707’s which allowed 2 to hold on without touching hands- not so on these 701’s . No lessons learned

Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member