Not for those of us that use SWR, sadlyNothing worrying about this, it's fantastic news
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway: progress updates
- Thread starter WWTownEnth
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
Of course it isn't (shakes head)Nothing worrying about this, it's fantastic news
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Nothing worrying about this, it's fantastic news
Better than the alternative, which is yet more short-formed trains.
I finally managed to get on a Class 701 on my way home from London Waterloo and have to say I was impressed with it. Very bright and spacious. Having been on other Aventra trains like the 345s, 710 and 720, it did feel very familiar design wise.
Last edited:
Oh dear. I was only paying attention to the metro routes which seem a lot better than last week.
mansonlo49
Member
been on every aventra series they quite impressed me which i like then
Goldfish62
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 11,836
It's not news for those of us who have read updates on these forums on the units being sent away for the work over the past year or so.Nothing worrying about this, it's fantastic news
Big Jumby 74
Established Member
Quite so. Obviously the current situation has necessitated a change/amendment to relevant contracts, based to some degree (perhaps?) on best estimates for full 701 roll out. As an aside, someone mentioned the 5 car (701) introduction recently - as has been done to death, the suburban stabling capacity on the SW network is insufficient for every suburban train to stable each night if all are formed 10 car, and so a number of trains (early a.m./late p.m.) will be required to run as 5 cars, possibly having joined at (perhaps) Waterloo, to make up a 10 car early am peak, and then split from a 10 car late evening, before stabling somewhere where a 10 car can not be accommodated - and that latter includes many sidings at both Clapham and Wimbledon depots, hitherto used for 8 cars, but not long enough for 10 cars.
Here's an idea. Bring back 4tph on the Dorking line with alternate 5-car followed by 10-car, and share a platform at Waterloo with another 5-car service, bringing back 4tph on a second route. If successful, it could be rolled out to other routes like Chessy, Hampton Court and Shepperton. So two services running out of some platforms rather than just one. It happened in the past and with modern units there is no more crawling about under the train getting dirty.
Are there enough paths to implement a timetable with an additional 8 trains per hour on the Main Slow lines between Waterloo and Raynes Park? We are currently at 14 paths per hour, and re-introducing 2 more on the line to Epsom will take that to 16. Add two more Chessington, two more Hampton Court, and two more Shepperton services will take it to 22 paths per hour.
Already it's frequently stop/start from signal to signal later in the day as any earlier minor delays can seriously break the timetable.
There's six platforms currently used for mainline suburban services. You can quite easily manage a higher TPH with that number of platforms without having to complicate matters with two services sharing the same platform.
Big Jumby 74
Established Member
With the greatest of respect, mixing formations (length wise) on what is essentially a 'standard' pattern of train lengths and platform usage at Waterloo, is a recipe for disaster. In timetable planning one should (ideally) plan for worst case scenario, ie: major disruption, be that points failure at Waterloo closing platforms, of bridge strike somewhere further out, resulting in all services having to (ie) share Fast lines, or slow lines, and hence (possibly, depending on individual circumstances) be restricted to using certain groups of platforms at the terminus.
In such circumstances a standard pattern of formations (within the suburban group of routes) and associated crew diagrams should allow for a simplified, and faster service recovery.
There was a reason the pre 2017 main suburban services at Waterloo worked well, in general. Everything 8 car 455, and a standard platform usage (1-4 as a base), with 5,6,7 brought in to play (between main fast train usage) for such trains as the peak hour Epsom's and a handful of other suburban peak services. This is a simplified answer by the way, the detail is far too much to add here.
Top train working, ie: two departures sharing the same platform, is never an ideal situation, particularly at a terminal station given the additional walk passengers will have in order to join the 'front' train. This was always in my time, a last resort, but did creep in to the plan more in recent times out of necessity to provide platform space for longer formations using adjacent platforms. A necessary evil.
ALL these services used to be 4tph for the past 30+ years and it worked fine, so how come they can no longer fit into Waterloo? As you rightly say, it is stop/start pretty much the whole way to Clapham Junction now. What has changed? Could it be the poor service (2tph) is actually slowing the loading/unloading, thus reducing available paths vs the old days.
Big Jumby 74
Established Member
The old paths 4tph (pre 2017) or something designed along the same margins, will still work. But it was based on fixed formations (8 cars in and out) that maximised capacity, both train and (Waterloo) platform wise. The same can still apply today, provided all services in the peaks are 10 car. My reference above to breaking down 10 cars in to 2 x 5 cars late evening (or making up same in the early pre am peak) would not impact this, as these changes are at the extremities of the operating day when fewer services are in the mix at Waterloo. Some will remember in the early 10 car 458/5 programme, that the first two services from Staines to Waterloo, ran as 5 cars, which then combined at Waterloo to form one 10 car - this was because the stabling capacity at Staines, at that time, could not accommodate a 10 car, so two five cars had to run separately and then combine. The same applied in reverse late evening, when the last two Staines terminators were formed 5 car 458, having been a 10 car that was split at Waterloo previously, again, because two 5 cars were required to stable at Staines, but had to use separate sidings.
PS: may be we are coming from a different angle, discussion wise, in which case I apologise. The drift of my comments were perhaps more about the utilisation of 5 car 701s, which others had seemingly questioned up thread.
PS: may be we are coming from a different angle, discussion wise, in which case I apologise. The drift of my comments were perhaps more about the utilisation of 5 car 701s, which others had seemingly questioned up thread.
I don't remember Chessington being 4tph, and I've lived here for more than 20 years. I'm pretty certain Hampton Court was only 2tph as well. Can't say for Shepperton.
Big Jumby 74
Established Member
You are correct indeed. Obviously Raynes P to Motspur P has always had the most services p/h, with 4 p/h south of MP to Leatherhead, but other than that all individual branches 2 tph as a rule (excepting again Norbiton to Teddington incl). That said my comments about overall capacity which in effect relate to Raynes Park to Waterloo I stand by.
Recognising that we're veering into distinctly off topic territory, I have a timetable from the mid 50s with 3 trains per hour (20 min intervals) off peak on Kingston Rounder / Hampton Court / Shepperton / Chessington South / Guildford via Cobham / Epsom (or beyond). Difference was Woking services were fast from Surbiton.
Bringing back on topic, the advantage of the 701s is that their faster acceleration / braking should be able to help with service recovery, reducing the need for the current gaps in service frequency that are there to aid service recovery.
I think there used to be 18 per hour in the high peak evening out of Waterloo, the standard 2 per hour on every route plus the extra Epsoms at 1700/1730/1800/1830. Similar in the morning inbound peak but I think the extras came from Teddington via Kingston (plus the short lived weird Esher starter that ran fast from Raynes Park). Don't think the suburbans have ever had more than 16 per hour off peak (2 on each of the 8 routes).
SWR definitely still runs extra trains at peak hours on the Epsom lines making 4tph for those short periods. There's an extra Dorking and Guildford service per each rush hour.
I've noticed in the evening peak, these 2 extra trains skip Earlsfield, Raynes Park and Motspur park (presumably because those will still get the Chessington trains)
Having 4tph on the Epsom lines in the off peak would be lovely though
I've noticed in the evening peak, these 2 extra trains skip Earlsfield, Raynes Park and Motspur park (presumably because those will still get the Chessington trains)
Having 4tph on the Epsom lines in the off peak would be lovely though
NSEWonderer
Established Member
Does anyone know if the apparent extension to the lease of 455s has actually gone through? https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/020266-2025
OneTrackMinded
Member
It’s three years for contingency reasons as mentioned in the contract
NSEWonderer
Established Member
Im aware but I have no clue if its going forward yet. Usually should say signed right?
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Tyhe Shepperton brranch aslo had 4tph in the peaks, 2 via Richmond and 2 via Kingston. The current (2004) timetable rather made this pointl;ess by running them from waterloo 1 minute apart. Likewise, Strawberry Hill may have 4 trains to Waterloo per hour (two each via Richmond and Kingston) but there are still 29 minute gaps as they pass each other there.
Mortlake, North Sheen, St Margarets and Whitton used to have 4tph, but the cutting back of the Hounslow loop service to terminate at Twickenham means they now only have two.
They don't arrive at Shepperton one minute apart though (and clearly couldn't do that in practice). Rather than being pointless, the 'via Richmond' service became a semi-fast which was beneficial for the stations west of Fulwell, giving a journey time saving of 12 minutes.
Can't really be an accident that the 1743 from Waterloo is one of the services 701s are providing additional capacity on.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Should be, but in my experience most Shepperton line passengers were used to gravitating to the Main Line side and the "via Wimbledon" 's so only those in the know realised the 1743 was a better bet than the 1742 despite leaving later.
I occasionally used the 1743 "via Richmond" to get to Strawberry Hill, and it was almost empty by Strawberry Hill. Conversely, when I was a regular commuter to Kingston, the Shepperton via Wimbledon services at 12/42 past the hour were always busier than the rounders at 27/57, even though they were supposedly both serving the same stations (ie only as far as Teddington - passengers for beyond Teddington should be using a rounder the other way round, or the Shepperton via Richmond, as the case may be)
59CosG95
Established Member
It's been a spectacularly tantric introduction into service, hasn't it?
Robert Carroll
Member
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 59
Over the busiest three hours of the evening, pre-Covid, there used to be 16 trains to the Epsom line. Now, there are eight. The position in the morning is not quite as bad but there is still a half-hour or so gap ahead of the 07:17 from Worcester Park and the service drops to half hourly after around 08:30.
WWTownEnth
Member
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 240
Any news on when we are likely to see 701s take over some more of “their” diagrams which are currently being covered by other units