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

[St. Paddy]

The ORR have today, authorised them for use in passenger service

 

[crablab]

https://twitter.com/railandroad/status/1316295589601083393

We have now authorised into service Bombardier’s new Class 701s which will be operated by South Western Railway.

 

[Goldfish62]

preusmably the emergency funding arrangements

I don't see what bearing that has on the 701s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2020 ==

The ORR have today, authorised them for use in passenger service

Excellent news. Everything running pretty much according to schedule then.

 

[DorkingMain]

Presumably a chance for the DfT to hype up the benefits of their new arrangement

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2020 ==

https://twitter.com/railandroad/status/1316295589601083393

note the part that says 701/5s are currently only authorised as single units!

 

[pompeyfan]

Now to persuade ASLEF to being traction and DOO training during the 2nd wave of a global pandemic.

 

[Goldfish62]

Now to persuade ASLEF to being traction and DOO training during the 2nd wave of a global pandemic.

Other TOCs seem to have managed it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2020 ==

note the part that says 701/5s are currently only authorised as single units!

No different from the 720s and, initially, the 710s.

 

[TEW]

Now to persuade ASLEF to being traction and DOO training during the 2nd wave of a global pandemic.

When they still have some pretty major concerns over the cabs. Have any of the units delivered yet even got the revised cab design? I know the first ones didn't and ASLEF wouldn't entertain any training in that cab design.

 

[pompeyfan]

When they still have some pretty major concerns over the cabs. Have any of the units delivered yet even got the revised cab design? I know the first ones didn't and ASLEF wouldn't entertain any training in that cab design.

I believe concerns were in regards to armrests that were in unnatural positions and too thin. The actual cab isn’t too bad. Obviously it’s not a 707 cab but compared to a 450 or 455 it’s a huge improvement.

 

[DorkingMain]

Indeed, but will present major issues where SWR runs an almost entirely 8-12 car railway. The 710s worked on the GOBLIN first where it was single units only anyway.

I believe concerns were in regards to armrests that were in unnatural positions and too thin. The actual cab isn’t too bad. Obviously it’s not a 707 cab but compared to a 450 or 455 it’s a huge improvement.

There was also a problem with the space in the cab not meeting emergency egress standards for new train builds

 

[Goldfish62]

Indeed, but will present major issues where SWR runs an almost entirely 8-12 car railway. The 710s worked on the GOBLIN first where it was single units only anyway.



There was also a problem with the space in the cab not meeting emergency egress standards for new train builds

I cannot believe that a manufacturer would build a train to the wrong specification.

Surely this would have been in the trade press were it true and ORR wouldn't have authorised the trains for service.

 

[Domh245]

Indeed, but will present major issues where SWR runs an almost entirely 8-12 car railway. The 710s worked on the GOBLIN first where it was single units only anyway.

Seeing as the Suburban network is a 10 car railway, and the first units all being delivered are, 10 car units, I don't see the worry.

 

[hwl]

Indeed, but will present major issues where SWR runs an almost entirely 8-12 car railway. The 710s worked on the GOBLIN first where it was single units only anyway.



There was also a problem with the space in the cab not meeting emergency egress standards for new train builds

The number of restrictions is much smaller than with 710s at the same stage. Non multi issues were sorted about 4 months later for the 710s. As most of the fleet is 10 car (including all the early deliveries) means that multiple working is only really need for rescue initially. Much more useful to get the 10 cars in service (and find any more issues) and sort the multi working issue later.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2020 ==

I cannot believe that a manufacturer would build a train to the wrong specification.

Surely this would have been in the trade press were it true and ORR wouldn't have authorised the trains for service.

Presumably different parties having different interpretation of how different rules interact...

 

[Peter Sarf]

Seeing as the Suburban network is a 10 car railway, and the first units all being delivered are, 10 car units, I don't see the worry.

To add to that I suppose the main multi working problems/risks have already been ironed out as software was corrected/amended to suit the similar 710s. So it follows there is less risk for the SWT 5-car 701s when they come to try that.

After all it must be fine on the 710s 720s (corrected by @Domh) as the original order for 10 car 710s 720s has been amended to be twice as many 5-car 710s 720s instead. Edit - So the risks of no solution cannot be that bad.

 

[Domh245]

To add to that I suppose the main multi working problems/risks have already been ironed out as software was corrected/amended to suit the similar 710s. So it follows there is less risk for the SWT 5-car 701s when they come to try that.

After all it must be fine on the 710s as the original order for 10 car 710s has been amended to be twice as many 5-car 710s instead.

That order modification is for the 720s (GA), not 710s (LO), but your point is generally correct. I think the 720s remain unauthorised to work in multiple but having got it working on the 710s, it should be relatively straightforward on the later Aventras

 

[Goldfish62]

That order modification is for the 720s (GA), not 710s (LO), but your point is generally correct. I think the 720s remain unauthorised to work in multiple but having got it working on the 710s, it should be relatively straightforward on the later Aventras

SWR have got it right. They decided to take the 10 car units first because they predicted that multiple unit working would take longer to sort out.

 

[DorkingMain]

I cannot believe that a manufacturer would build a train to the wrong specification.

Surely this would have been in the trade press were it true and ORR wouldn't have authorised the trains for service.

I wish I shared the same faith in the manufacturers and ORR as you do

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2020 ==

Seeing as the Suburban network is a 10 car railway, and the first units all being delivered are, 10 car units, I don't see the worry.

I think the worry comes if they don't get multiple working sorted in time for the deployment of 5 cars. Then you have a choice between parking up loads of 5 cars or running 5 vice 10 on everything.

SWR's 5 cars were chosen as a limited number of services on the Windsor side work in the morning and evening on the basis of splitting and joining at Waterloo. However for most of the day those services are needed as 10 cars

 

[Domh245]

SWR have got it right. They decided to take the 10 car units first because they predicted that multiple unit working would take longer to sort out.

There's a whole host of reasons to take the 10 cars first, chiefly being able to get rid of the older stock (or 458s) sooner. That they manage to bypass the 5 cars multi restriction is probably just a nice coincidence

I think the worry comes if they don't get multiple working sorted in time for the deployment of 5 cars. Then you have a choice between parking up loads of 5 cars or running 5 vice 10 on everything.

SWR's 5 cars were chosen as a limited number of services on the Windsor side work in the morning and evening on the basis of splitting and joining at Waterloo. However for most of the day those services are needed as 10 cars

It took ~3 months between initial authorisation and multiple authorisation for the 710s, which hopefully Bombardier are able to improve upon. Going by the original delivery/acceptance schedule it was ~2 months between acceptance of the first 10 car, and the acceptance of the first 2x 5 cars (with the third 5 car unit coming in 8 months on from the first 10 cars), so even if everything were running to plan it shouldn't have been a major issue. Seeing as things would appear to be massively behind schedule and build plans likely altered, I really doubt that it'll be an issue when the time comes

I still think it was a daft idea to go for the 5 cars on the basis of those handful of services, especially as they'll spend most of the time coupled anyway like you say!

 

[Goldfish62]

I wish I shared the same faith in the manufacturers and ORR as you do

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2020 ==

If the ORR didn't stipulate the minimum dimensions for emergency egress in the first place, then who did?!

Either the design complies or it doesn't. I would hope we're not in the realm of "alternative facts".

 

[Peter Sarf]

............

I still think it was a daft idea to go for the 5 cars on the basis of those handful of services, especially as they'll spend most of the time coupled anyway like you say!

Um perhaps we know where those extra cabs needed for the 720s might come from - 701s !.

 

[DorkingMain]

If the ORR didn't stipulate the minimum dimensions for emergency egress in the first place, then who did?!

Either the design complies or it doesn't. I would hope we're not in the realm of "alternative facts".

various factors could be at play:

- The ORR didn't check when they passed the train for service
- The ORR were happy to ignore it, or didn't think to check
- The ORR checked, but went off an older standard incorrectly
etc.

It seems like a situation that *should* be black and white but as with all things it isn't.

 

[Goldfish62]

various factors could be at play:

- The ORR didn't check when they passed the train for service
- The ORR were happy to ignore it, or didn't think to check
- The ORR checked, but went off an older standard incorrectly
etc.

It seems like a situation that *should* be black and white but as with all things it isn't.

I'm still puzzled why we haven't actually heard anything about the issue if it is actually more than just Chinese whispers.

It reminds me of when ASLEF objected to the dotted pattern around the bonding on the Class 458 windscreens. They claimed that it would distract drivers. Needless to say, after some initial bluster we heard nothing else.

 

[DorkingMain]

I'm still puzzled why we haven't actually heard anything about the issue if it is actually more than just Chinese whispers.

It reminds me of when ASLEF objected to the dotted pattern around the bonding on the Class 458 windscreens. They claimed that it would distract drivers. Needless to say, after some initial bluster we heard nothing else.

I'm not sure why the general public would be made aware of an internal rules issue that ASLEF are having. The concern been published in internal documentation by ASLEF which is the reasonable place you would expect to find it.

I agree that ASLEF will have a tendency to bluster about things, however - if it doesn't meet the standard it doesn't meet the standard. It's perfectly believable that organisations would turn a blind eye to regulations that it didn't suit them to take an interest in. Either way, I suspect with the modular designs of new trains it will just result in a minor fix to the interior, probably at the expense of a row of seats.

 

[pompeyfan]

I suspect with the modular designs of new trains it will just result in a minor fix to the interior, probably at the expense of a row of seats.

the irony is that the space which narrow cab bought is just dead space next to the vestibule. It never actually resulted in extra space

 

[Goldfish62]

the irony is that the space which narrow cab bought is just dead space next to the vestibule. It never actually resulted in extra space

According to something I saw from SWR last year it was never about getting an extra row of seats in (comparing plans of different Aventras confirm this), but ensuring that the doors would always stop in the same place on a platform whether 1 x 10 car or 2 x 5 car. This wouldn't have been possible with the standard cab which results in a longer carriage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2020 ==

I'm not sure why the general public would be made aware of an internal rules issue that ASLEF are having. The concern been published in internal documentation by ASLEF which is the reasonable place you would expect to find it.

On the contrary - the media loves to get hold of such stories so they can diss the railways.

 

[Domh245]

the irony is that the space which narrow cab bought is just dead space next to the vestibule

I'm not so sure that it is 'dead' - plenty of equipment in that space that would otherwise have to be moved elsewhere in the vehicle

According to something I saw from SWR last year it was never about getting an extra row of seats in (comparing plans of different Aventras confirm this), but ensuring that the doors would always stop in the same place on a platform whether 1 x 10 car or 2 x 5 car. This wouldn't have been possible with the standard cab which results in a longer carriage.

Gaining a row of seats works in reverse though. If you maintained the standard door spacing and chose to use the longer style cab, you'd lose a row of seats. It does feel like the 5 cars are causing more trouble than they're worth, for the sake of a handful of off-peak services

 

[221101 Voyager]

I'm not so sure that it is 'dead' - plenty of equipment in that space that would otherwise have to be moved elsewhere in the vehicle



Gaining a row of seats works in reverse though. If you maintained the standard door spacing and chose to use the longer style cab, you'd lose a row of seats. It does feel like the 5 cars are causing more trouble than they're worth, for the sake of a handful of off-peak services

Why didn't they order a gangway like the 730s?

Is it cost?

SWR 455's have a gangway but can passengers walk through it?

If not then we've lost nothing but if you could walk through a 455 and then you can't on a 701 it is a downgrade.

A 730 cab would've looked better than the ungainly 701 cab that's for sure.

 

[Domh245]

Why didn't they order a gangway like the 730s?

Is it cost?

SWR 455's have a gangway but can passengers walk through it?

If not then we've lost nothing but if you could walk through a 455 and then you can't on a 701 it is a downgrade.

A 730 cab would've looked better than the ungainly 701 cab that's for sure.

Because when the vast majority of the trains are 10 cars and therefore can't work in multiple, it'd be downright stupid (and quite frankly provocative) to then pigeonhole the driver into a third of the cab for zero gain. I expect that a gangway was an option at one point, and if they'd gone for an all 5 car fleet it'd have been the sensible thing to do. But with the fleet they ordered, you simply don't bother doing it with the 5 cars because then it's a standardised fleet and you don't lose anything over what you currently have; the only walk-through suburban units on SW at the moment are the 458s I think, and even then only since their rebuild.

Seeing as a 730 cab is just a 701 cab with a gangway grafted into the middle, I don't think it'd look any better (indeed, the currently built 730s aren't exactly good looking)

 

[TEW]

Why didn't they order a gangway like the 730s?

Is it cost?

SWR 455's have a gangway but can passengers walk through it?

If not then we've lost nothing but if you could walk through a 455 and then you can't on a 701 it is a downgrade.

A 730 cab would've looked better than the ungainly 701 cab that's for sure.

455 gangways are unavailable for passenger use but are available for staff use, so the guard is able to access the whole of an 8-car formation and it means the driver can change ends in the train which can be useful for some shunt moves.

 

[221101 Voyager]

455 gangways are unavailable for passenger use but are available for staff use, so the guard is able to access the whole of an 8-car formation and it means the driver can change ends in the train which can be useful for some shunt moves.

701s are going to be DOO operated, right? I'd be suprised if not?

Because when the vast majority of the trains are 10 cars and therefore can't work in multiple, it'd be downright stupid (and quite frankly provocative) to then pigeonhole the driver into a third of the cab for zero gain. I expect that a gangway was an option at one point, and if they'd gone for an all 5 car fleet it'd have been the sensible thing to do. But with the fleet they ordered, you simply don't bother doing it with the 5 cars because then it's a standardised fleet and you don't lose anything over what you currently have; the only walk-through suburban units on SW at the moment are the 458s I think, and even then only since their rebuild.

Seeing as a 730 cab is just a 701 cab with a gangway grafted into the middle, I don't think it'd look any better (indeed, the currently built 730s aren't exactly good looking)

I think what makes the 701s hideous is the massive wiper and how it been just stuck on the front like an after thought. Also the horrid livery and squnity little headlights are awful too.

With a better livery and nice lights the 701 would be quite nice looking. The overall shape is quite good it's what is attached to it that's ugly imo.

 

[Goldfish62]

I think what makes the 701s hideous is the massive wiper and how it been just stuck on the front like an after thought. Also the horrid livery and squnity little headlights are awful too.

With a better livery and nice lights the 701 would be quite nice looking. The overall shape is quite good it's what is attached to it that's ugly imo.

Just shows that looks are personal opinions.

I think the 701s look great, certainly the best looking of the Aventras, and the livery looks really good on them.