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

[AM9]

They're 20m coaches, not 23m.

So even less takers for them on lease.

 

[Taunton]

Meanwhile the old team just roll on. I had a good old, reliable, 455 on Waterloo to Windsor just two days ago, been a long time since I had that combination. One of the cars was one of the original 1970s-era 508 trailers; I wonder if they will still be going, with this delay still not sorted out, on their 50th anniversary?

 

[Goldfish62]

One of the cars was one of the original 1970s-era 508 trailers; I wonder if they will still be going, with this delay still not sorted out, on their 50th anniversary?

The Class 508s were introduced in 1979 so next to no chance!

 

[Trainbike46]

Is there not a legal requirement that all new third rail classes must be compatible with overhead wires and have test capability tested and verified.

Hence why it was also done on the 707s.

The pans are then removed.

As I understand it, it's not a legal requirement, but it is practical to have all third rail units be dual-voltage

At the end of the day, there are only 3 third rail operators (4 if including LO/TfL), so if a 3rd rail only unit goes off-lease, it may be hard to find a new lessee. If it can also be used with OHLE, then there's loads more options, so it is really a de-risking strategy

 

[Snow1964]

Is there not a legal requirement that all new third rail classes must be compatible with overhead wires and have test capability tested and verified.

Hence why it was also done on the 707s.

The pans are then removed.

Not legal, and ORR (office of rail) might not have issued authority to operate in this form at this stage

However the owner (a Leasing ROSCO) usually wants it certified from manufacturer, in case they subsequently lease it as dual voltage

 

[AM9]

Not legal, and ORR (office of rail) might not have issued authority to operate in this form at this stage

However the owner (a Leasing ROSCO) usually wants it certified from manufacturer, in case they subsequently lease it as dual voltage

Or even as an ac EMU. It really ought to be a condition of acquisition for EMUs, - the incremental cost is pretty minimal considering DC bus architecture with three phase inverters/motors is pretty standard now.

 

[physics34]

If DfT are having to pay leasing charges on top of existing fleet im sure pressure will be bought to bare on SWR to get the show on the road pronto

Lessons to be learnt... have standardised fleets... im assuming if they had 710 style cabs theyd have been in service at least a year ago.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Lessons to be learnt... have standardised fleets... im assuming if they had 710 style cabs theyd have been in service at least a year ago.

possible they also have this ABSDO requirement as well that was non standard

 

[Goldfish62]

Lessons to be learnt... have standardised fleets... im assuming if they had 710 style cabs theyd have been in service at least a year ago.

The cabs issue has been done to death. As I understand it it's software which is the main issue.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The cabs issue has been done to death. As I understand it it's software which is the main issue.

Bombardier developed Aventra to be a standard platform that you only needed spec the paint job and interiors but foolishly they agreed to something different with SWR although i can't believe it was just ABDSO that has caused the need to change the software that much. Im not sure its ever formerly been released but the references to software development being done overseas is almost as though they started from scratch with the 701's.

 

[Goldfish62]

Bombardier developed Aventra to be a standard platform that you only needed spec the paint job and interiors but foolishly they agreed to something different with SWR

That's not true because every Aventra class built to date has been different:

345: 9 car 24m, three doorways, standard cab
701: 5/10 car 20m, two doorways, non-standard cab
710: 4/5 car 20m, two doorways, standard cab
720: 5(/10) car, 24m, two doorways, standard cab
720: 3/5 car, 24m, two doorways, gangway cab.

And as has been pointed out more than once on this thread SWR ASLEF rejected the standard Aventra driver's desk that the early 701s were delivered with, forcing a redesign with a non-standard desk.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That's not true because every Aventra class built to date has been different:

345: 9 car 24m, three doorways, standard cab
701: 5/10 car 20m, two doorways, non-standard cab
710: 4/5 car 20m, two doorways, standard cab
720: 5(/10) car, 24m, two doorways, standard cab
720: 3/5 car, 24m, two doorways, gangway cab.

And as has been pointed out more than once on this thread SWR ASLEF rejected the standard Aventra driver's desk that the early 701s were delivered with, forcing a redesign with a non-standard desk.

point about the "platform" is it contain standard technology of traction package, bogies, auxiliaries and digital architecture that links all the carriages and multiple sets together. Yes teh SWR desk was a mess up but it still contained the same controls, radios, dial, displays just configured differently so the software running it shouldn't have needed changing it.

irrespective of that the 701 experience just shines a light on the folly of keeping making bespoke designs when there was no need. Should have followed the French example with the Bombardier Francilien units where the design was frozen and production build in multiple permutations now approaching 400 units used across all of France.

anyhow i wonder how much more delay is required before NAO undertake an investigation so we can get to the core of what has gone awry here as the railway press seem all too shy these days to do so.

 

[Domh245]

Aventra as a platform was supposed to be a highly flexible one - which enabled operators to order units that met their demands as needed whilst not requiring fully custom solutions on each train. A good idea that they failed rather spectacularly to deliver on

In the pre-2020 context of lots of routes running very marginal on capacity, having units that maximise the capacity without needing (much) expensive/disruptive infrastructure upgrade works made lots of sense. Sure if they were all just 20m doors at thirds EMUs they'd have been a bit cheaper to procure and no doubt quicker into service, but there wouldn't have been much chance of delivering the requirements of the various services they're used on

 

[Wyrleybart]

Anyhow i wonder how much more delay is required before NAO undertake an investigation so we can get to the core of what has gone awry here as the railway press seem all too shy these days to do so.

That would be useful fro ma taxpayers perspective. From what I understand Alstom nee Bombardier built what SWR asked for. But did SWR change their minds ? AIUI they wanted the 2x5 car and 10 car to line up at the same spots on the platform. Was that in the original spec ?

 

[Goldfish62]

That would be useful fro ma taxpayers perspective. From what I understand Alstom nee Bombardier built what SWR asked for. But did SWR change their minds ? AIUI they wanted the 2x5 car and 10 car to line up at the same spots on the platform. Was that in the original spec ?

The spec required metro style standardised minimum dwell times and one of the factors in that is doors that stop in the same place on the platform every time.

Anyway, as far as I'm aware from reading the cab issue is behind us. It's software that's holding it up.

When the 710s were delayed entering service due to booting up taking 45 min the software fix that reduced it to sub 5 min resulted in training and service entry very quickly afterwards. Given that the equivalent software fix was installed on the 701s in December can we therefore conclude that it's been a failure? Or is there a lax attitude towards moving forward compared with TfL's eagerness to get the 710s into service?

 

[VWRO2]

Had a nice chat with a couple of Alstom techs yesterday. Software issues are being sorted but continue to plague these units. The 5 car sets have a mountain of minor issues to sort but they're getting there. I can't give the information regarding entering service, however it isn't anytime soon.

 

[Goldfish62]

Had a nice chat with a couple of Alstom techs yesterday. Software issues are being sorted but continue to plague these units. The 5 car sets have a mountain of minor issues to sort but they're getting there. I can't give the information regarding entering service, however it isn't anytime soon.

Thanks for the update!

 

[Snow1964]

Bombardier developed Aventra to be a standard platform that you only needed spec the paint job and interiors but foolishly they agreed to something different with SWR although i can't believe it was just ABDSO that has caused the need to change the software that much. Im not sure its ever formerly been released but the references to software development being done overseas is almost as though they started from scratch with the 701's.

You are correct, Bombardier even advertised it as scaleable. It should make no difference if bodies are 20m or 24m. It was supposed to work in 5, 9, 10, 5+5 or whatever train length customer wanted.

So why the software is proving so difficult in 2023 on a standard train platform from 2016 is not clear, shouldn't really take 7 years to rectify any software oversight and errors.

There is already a system to stop in certain places and open doors on 345s (and also open platform doors, although this bit isn't on 701s), so why are they trying to reinvent the wheel on the 701s and finding it so hard, rather than use same.

 

[Wyrleybart]

So why are they trying to reinvent the wheel on the 701s and finding it so hard, rather than use same.

Have to admit it has got me foxed.

I recall when I first started on the railway in 1978 there was an awful lot of criticism as to why all train cabs were different and crew training was way too complex. 45 years later and nothing has changed. CAF have built pretty much the same DMU for three different TOCs (yes I know there are minor differences) but why didn't DfT and RSSB etc not order the same train but with different paint. It would surely have massively cheaper for the industry as a whole - but there is the problem. The industry is so fragmented.

 

[Elorith]

Given that the equivalent software fix was installed on the 701s in December can we therefore conclude that it's been a failure? Or is there a lax attitude towards moving forward compared with TfL's eagerness to get the 710s into service?

In the words of someone who is apparently close to someone high up in the chain of command for getting these units functional, the last software push allegedly "f*ckd everything up again!". I definitely can't imagine it's the latter given the pressure from senior management to get them into service.

 

[AM9]

Have to admit it has got me foxed.

I recall when I first started on the railway in 1978 there was an awful lot of criticism as to why all train cabs were different and crew training was way too complex. 45 years later and nothing has changed. CAF have built pretty much the same DMU for three different TOCs (yes I know there are minor differences) but why didn't DfT and RSSB etc not order the same train but with different paint. It would surely have massively cheaper for the industry as a whole - but there is the problem. The industry is so fragmented.

It's strange that despite the aviation industry being, capable of designing flight decks so that different models from the same manufacturer have a minimum of conversion training required, it seems that for the railway, there is still little commonality between versions of the same type. Apart form the actual signalling equipment fitted, why shopuld a 701 be significantly different from a 345, 710,720 & 730. Are class 350s much the same as 450s and 444s to drive? It would seem that most of the problems arise from poor requirement documentation. Surely the RoSCos, NR & TOCs have been involved in specifying what they need for long enough to get that bit right?

 

[phil_]

Just a heads up on something interesting, I've noticed that in the past week and a half, the Eastleigh maintenance depo, which was usually full of 444s and 450s, is now almost entirely 701s, with few old stock visible.

 

[Invincible]

Had a nice chat with a couple of Alstom techs yesterday. Software issues are being sorted but continue to plague these units. The 5 car sets have a mountain of minor issues to sort but they're getting there. I can't give the information regarding entering service, however it isn't anytime soon.

I notice on the Realtime trains website there are a few "5Q1X" paths which can be used for testing (and perhaps training?) on the 701s, so although there are still minor issues, the 701s are still using some of the paths for testing as software updates are released.

 

[Socanxdis]

would the stadler 777 be suitable for use on the sw network

 

[Snow1964]

In the words of someone who is apparently close to someone high up in the chain of command for getting these units functional, the last software push allegedly "f*ckd everything up again!". I definitely can't imagine it's the latter given the pressure from senior management to get them into service.

Something is very wrong in its software structure if it that unstable.

More likely that some undocumented bodges and patches had been done, and when the underlying updates went in, these weren't removed so got something adjusting something that is now corrected at source, therefore making it wrong.

Weak project control management, where right hand and left hand are being controlled separately and don't coordinate

 

[Mikey C]

Surely the 701 software should be similar to that of the 710s and 720s already in service, it's farcical.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the 701 software should be similar to that of the 710s and 720s already in service, it's farcical.

You'd think so. The cab is smaller, but logic dictates that's just configuration, i.e. the same kit is just arranged differently and uses the same software to drive it.

Mind you, logic and the railway...

 

[AM9]

would the stadler 777 be suitable for use on the sw network

Not anywhere that more than 75mph is needed to slot between 100mph trains. The 777s are strictly metro in performance.

 

[Goldfish62]

In the words of someone who is apparently close to someone high up in the chain of command for getting these units functional, the last software push allegedly "f*ckd everything up again!". I definitely can't imagine it's the latter given the pressure from senior management to get them into service.

So sounds like no service entry this year then!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So sounds like no service entry this year then!

roll back to previous release and start again but doesn't say much for the software validation process