• 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

Joined
28 Jun 2012
Messages
742
Location
Epsom Downs
701023 was out last night. It ran 5Q94 from Eastleigh to Waterloo via Chertsey and Richmond. It was at Vauxhall about 2231 but we were at Platform 1 doing DCO camera checks and PTI measurements. It returned from Waterloo at 2318 as 5Q95 to Eastleigh on the main.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,260
Location
Surrey
Rock Rail South Western PLC owners of the 701's have recently posted their 2020 accounts with companies house. Interestingly it shows that Bombardier paid them £49.7m in liquidated damages so with £4m from previous year there up nearly £54m albeit they presumably aren't getting any leasing income until SWR accept the trains.

Rock Rail South Western PLC 2020 accounts

Also from companies house page it shows 701006/011/012 were registered as charge to the lender indicating the lessor had taken ownership of them.
 

alf

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2021
Messages
390
Location
Bournemouth
I am very interested in post 2702 above but I am no accountant.

Can the poster explain the accounting terms in his last 2 lines?

I can make a guess but I would like to be sure.
Does it mean SWR has taken over ownership of the 701’s ?
And what does taking a charge mean, is it unusual?

Many thanks.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,260
Location
Surrey
I am very interested in post 2702 above but I am no accountant.

Can the poster explain the accounting terms in his last 2 lines?

I can make a guess but I would like to be sure.
Does it mean SWR has taken over ownership of the 701’s ?
And what does taking a charge mean, is it unusual?

Many thanks.
The owner of the rolling stock is Rock Rail South Western PLC but they have borrowed huge amounts of money c£900m from banks so like your house if its mortgaged the banks holds the deeds just in case you don't pay the interest. This is same with anything that's leased be it a train, a plane or a bit of machinery but its known as a charge so if Rock rail don't pay the interest/capital the lender has the legal right to take ownership of the asset.

Exactly what criteria Rock were applying to take ownership and what criteria SWR what satisfied to start paying leasing charges im not clear other than some level of fault free running is required. In the world of planes, despite there complications, it seems a lot more straight forward with planes often collected from Airbus after their test flight and straight into service the following day.
 

Nogoohwell

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2020
Messages
85
Location
London
I've just seen 701006 stabled at Feltham depot.
Makes sense, Feltham is an SWR depot and according to an earlier post Nicholas Lewis, 701006 has been accepted by SWR so guess they can start driver training when unions agree to two people working in a cab again.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Makes sense, Feltham is an SWR depot and according to an earlier post Nicholas Lewis, 701006 has been accepted by SWR so guess they can start driver training when unions agree to two people working in a cab again.
I'm surprised it's taking SWR this long to get a working agreement for two people in the cab when another operator in the NSE area regularly has two people in the cab and has done for a while now, sometimes there's 3 people in the same cab!

Even LNER has had agreement for two persons in cab for a while too with controls in place eg regular Covid tests etc so can't understand why it's so different at SWR?
 

Goldfish62

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
11,675
Makes sense, Feltham is an SWR depot and according to an earlier post Nicholas Lewis, 701006 has been accepted by SWR so guess they can start driver training when unions agree to two people working in a cab again.
That's good news.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,260
Location
Surrey
Makes sense, Feltham is an SWR depot and according to an earlier post Nicholas Lewis, 701006 has been accepted by SWR so guess they can start driver training when unions agree to two people working in a cab again.
For clarity i said it had been accepted by the lessor Rock Rail as to what arrangements they have we SWR im not aware. One would have thought it was back to back though given this isn't really like the commercial airline market where the product is standard so a lessor can buy them on spec to lease out.
 

Flange Squeal

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2012
Messages
1,522
I'm surprised it's taking SWR this long to get a working agreement for two people in the cab when another operator in the NSE area regularly has two people in the cab and has done for a while now, sometimes there's 3 people in the same cab!

Even LNER has had agreement for two persons in cab for a while too with controls in place eg regular Covid tests etc so can't understand why it's so different at SWR?
As already mentioned in this thread a few times, SWR do already have two people in cabs for training purposes, using procedures like you describe. The issue appears to be with stock with a centralised driving position such as 707s, which means the trainee and instructor are pushed much closer together than the 158, 159, 444, 450, 455, 456 and 458 stock, on which you can see two people in the cab of. Are the other operators' trains you refer to also central seated Aventra or Desiro City-type fleets, or more conventional stock? I'm guessing the LNER stock in question are Azumas? These do appear to have a more central position than their predecessors, but still offset noticeably to one side. Admittedly not familiar enough with the internal layouts to know exactly what the distance between driving and second seat is though, when compared to Aventras and Desiro Citys.
 
Last edited:

Goldfish62

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
11,675
As already mentioned in this thread a few times, SWR do already have two people in cabs for training purposes, using procedures like you describe. The issue appears to be with stock with a centralised driving position such as 707s, which means the trainee and instructor are pushed much closer together than the 158, 159, 444, 450, 455, 456 and 458 stock, on which you can see two people in the cab of. Are the other operators' trains you refer to also central seated Aventra or Desiro City-type fleets, or more conventional stock? I'm guessing the LNER stock in question are Azumas? These do appear to have a more central position than their predecessors, but still offset noticeably to one side. Admittedly not familiar enough with the internal layouts to know exactly what the distance between driving and second seat is though, when compared to Aventras and Desiro Citys.
The Class 80X drivers seat is only very slightly offset, same as on the 701 and other Aventras. Northern and TPE's CAFs have dead centre seats, as do GA's Stadlers and GTR's 700s.

Plenty of operators' stock have the same driver's seat position as the SWR 707 and 701. Is it really the case that none of them are undertaking training??? Certainly it's reported on this forum that training on 720s is proceeding apace.
 
Last edited:

Bigfoot

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2013
Messages
1,265
The Class 80X drivers seat is only very slightly offset, same as on the 701 and other Aventras. Northern and TPE's CAFs have dead centre seats, as do GA's Stadlers and GTR's 700s.

Plenty of operators' stock have the same driver's seat position as the SWR 707 and 701. Is it really the case that none of them are undertaking training??? Certainly it's reported on this forum that training on 720s is proceeding apace.
There is no 701 training taking place, as there is no unit accepted/delivered having passed fault free running for use by SWR.
 

Goldfish62

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
11,675
There is no 701 training taking place, as there is no unit accepted/delivered having passed fault free running for use by SWR.
I'd heard elsewhere that some had now been accepted, hence 006 being stabled at Feltham depot the other day.
 

Bigfoot

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2013
Messages
1,265
What about the units such as 011, which are at SWR?
(I Believe)
There has been various units in an swr depot, doesn't mean they are under swr care/lease.
I'd heard elsewhere that some had now been accepted, hence 006 being stabled at Feltham depot the other day.
I refer to the above.

If a unit was accepted then swr would probably make a song and dance about it, at least internally to their staff.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,094
Location
West Wiltshire
There is no 701 training taking place, as there is no unit accepted/delivered having passed fault free running for use by SWR.

That’s a pretty damming statement about the quality of the train builders at Derby, that not a single one has been built without faults, and is able to pass the fault free running tests.

Not sure how many they have built (is it about 500 of 750 vehicles?), but if true that not even one unit has successfully passed then you do question what Derby is doing.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,197
That’s a pretty damming statement about the quality of the train builders at Derby, that not a single one has been built without faults, and is able to pass the fault free running tests.

Not sure how many they have built (is it about 500 of 750 vehicles?), but if true that not even one unit has successfully passed then you do question what Derby is doing.
Are you suggesting they have tried all 500 and found them wanting? I think that is a little unlikely.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,094
Location
West Wiltshire
Are you suggesting they have tried all 500 and found them wanting? I think that is a little unlikely.
Of course not because some have been stored and not delivered.

However if it true, that none have passed the fault free running, then the logical question is why not send the ones not up to standard back to be rectified, and take some others from the delivery queue, unless it is expected they won’t pass either.

How can anyone tell if the stored ones have been built to a standard that can pass (or if they are also shoddy) if they are not put through the fault free running test.

Even if the builder sends someone to SW London to fix them, (rather than returning them), it doesn’t get away from simple fact they left the factory in a condition where they were not good enough to pass the fault free test, so were built faulty.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
Even if the builder sends someone to SW London to fix them, (rather than returning them), it doesn’t get away from simple fact they left the factory in a condition where they were not good enough to pass the fault free test, so were built faulty.

It isn't necessarily the build quality that is at fault. Derby could have built an entirely adequate train that is being let down by it's software (As I understand it, very much not derby produced). I would think that is possibly more likely than 'hardware' faults
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,197
Of course not because some have been stored and not delivered.

However if it true, that none have passed the fault free running, then the logical question is why not send the ones not up to standard back to be rectified, and take some others from the delivery queue, unless it is expected they won’t pass either.

How can anyone tell if the stored ones have been built to a standard that can pass (or if they are also shoddy) if they are not put through the fault free running test.

Even if the builder sends someone to SW London to fix them, (rather than returning them), it doesn’t get away from simple fact they left the factory in a condition where they were not good enough to pass the fault free test, so were built faulty.
I’m guessing but I assume this isn’t random faults so they want to get a small number of units working then make the necessary changes to the rest before trying to fault free them. swapping units around the country isn’t free
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,094
Location
West Wiltshire
It isn't necessarily the build quality that is at fault. Derby could have built an entirely adequate train that is being let down by it's software (As I understand it, very much not derby produced). I would think that is possibly more likely than 'hardware' faults

I had wondered about that until this weeks revelations that doors and hardware are problematic on the 345s, and the 701s are same family.

If the software had been getting blame on 345s, and no-one fixed the underlying door and hardware problems for 5 years erroneously thinking it was only software errors, could the 701s have similar problems.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
I had wondered about that until this weeks revelations that doors and hardware are problematic on the 345s, and the 701s are same family.

If the software had been getting blame on 345s, and no-one fixed the underlying door and hardware problems for 5 years erroneously thinking it was only software errors, could the 701s have similar problems.

It's entirely possible that the 701s have whatever fault(s) the 345s have, however based on the fact those are only coming to light now (and as yet, do not appear to have cause issues on other aventras) suggest that the faults are possibly age based (345s being the longest serving), only becoming apparent at higher duties (345s covering the most door cycles/day of any aventra, I'd think?), or possibly even just down to the particular integration. The doors themselves are iFE, who have provided doors on practically all new stock in the UK.

All that said, given fault free running generally doesn't involve door-cycling I think it can safely be ruled out as an (current) issue on the 701s that's preventing progress!
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,260
Location
Surrey
710's appear to be running reasonably reliably and i believe have the same version of software that the 720's and 701's have.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,247
It's entirely possible that the 701s have whatever fault(s) the 345s have, however based on the fact those are only coming to light now (and as yet, do not appear to have cause issues on other aventras) suggest that the faults are possibly age based (345s being the longest serving), only becoming apparent at higher duties (345s covering the most door cycles/day of any aventra, I'd think?), or possibly even just down to the particular integration. The doors themselves are iFE, who have provided doors on practically all new stock in the UK.
As I understand it, the TCMS software on the 345s is derived from the Electrostar TCMS found on later 377s, 379s, and 387s. The TCMS on the 710s, 720s, and 701s ought to be almost completely rewritten.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
As I understand it, the TCMS software on the 345s is derived from the Electrostar TCMS found on later 377s, 379s, and 387s. The TCMS on the 710s, 720s, and 701s ought to be almost completely rewritten.

That is also how I understand it, though my post was talking about physical equipment faults than any software related ones
 

Goldfish62

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
11,675
As I understand it, the TCMS software on the 345s is derived from the Electrostar TCMS found on later 377s, 379s, and 387s. The TCMS on the 710s, 720s, and 701s ought to be almost completely rewritten.
Yes, that's correct. Unfortunately the software on the 345s appears to be no more reliable despite being derived from that on Electrostars.
 

Nogoohwell

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2020
Messages
85
Location
London
Software development is a mine-field. If you took the exact same software from one Aventra and put it on a new build which had 1 or two different components and I guarantee it will not work. Its not as simple as changing a line of code as each piece of code is dependent on another, thats why so many companies dont change computer systems of components. Cash machines still use 20 year old Windows NT and components that are the size of old TV's because they know it works. Trains however, we want new things, new PIS, wifi, aircon, powersaving lighting, CCTV, USB and plug sockets, power management, anti slip, remote monitoring and lower costs. Thats a lot of things to be integrated into one system. Thats a lot more than is going on in your PC and Windows is about 3GB of code and supported by a team of thousands. I could go on for hours, but give the Derby guys a break, software development and testing is hard which is why it pays well!
If I'm right, the 701's are the sole DC only variant of the family, which if so, could easily be the source of the problem.
 

Top