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

[theironroad]

Seems the BBC's South Today Transport Correspondent, Paul Clifton was tweeting yesterday that despite claims in last few months by SWR that first 701 would still be in passenger service on the Reading line this year, this will not now happen.

Hardly surprising really as simulators only recently delivered to Clapham Yard and not sure even one SWR driver has got behind the controls yet. Believe mainline testing has all been done by GBRF drivers for Bombardier until official delivery to SWR.

 

[AverageTD]

Another ABDO related question. Will this apply to the Twickenham side between Clapham Junction and Waterloo as well or just the SMWL?

 

[theironroad]

Another ABDO related question. Will this apply to the Twickenham side between Clapham Junction and Waterloo as well or just the SMWL?

If it ever comes in, it was mooted as from Surbiton to Waterloo on mainline and Richmond to Waterloo on Reading line.

 

[dmncf]

Hardly surprising really as simulators only recently delivered to Clapham Yard and not sure even one SWR driver has got behind the controls yet. Believe mainline testing has all been done by GBRF drivers for Bombardier until official delivery to SWR.

I sometimes think it's a missed opportunity that TOCs don't use their own drivers for testing and get a head start on familiarising their drivers with their new fleet and its common faults. I wonder whether conflict of interest might be an issue; perhaps Bombardier trust GBRF drivers to be on their side, aiming to get the new fleet handed over ASAP, whereas SWR employees might have a different agenda.

 

[43096]

I sometimes think it's a missed opportunity that TOCs don't use their own drivers for testing and get a head start on familiarising their drivers with their new fleet and its common faults. I wonder whether conflict of interest might be an issue; perhaps Bombardier trust GBRF drivers to be on their side, aiming to get the new fleet handed over ASAP, whereas SWR employees might have a different agenda.

It’s not up to the TOCs whether to use their own drivers, as the units haven’t been handed over to the TOC.

 

[spark001uk]

I think the question implied by that statement might have been - why didn't they just do some initial testing and then hand them over for the TOC to do the extensive route proving etc?
I don't remember the 707s being driven over every route before they were given to swt? I accept that was Siemens though, not Bombardier.

 

[adc82140]

What surprises me more is that the TOCs and manufacturers don't seem to solicit the input of union reps at the design stage. If what I read up thread about seat positioning is true (and I have no reason to think it isn't) surely it would have been better to find this out in a plywood mockup rather than waiting for the first units to arrive.

However as an industry outsider, I'm aware there's probably going to be more to it than I'm aware of.

 

[Bald Rick]

What surprises me more is that the TOCs and manufacturers don't seem to solicit the input of union reps at the design stage.

They absolutely do, including taking union reps to the design office / manufacturing facilities to do so (Switzerland, Germany, Japan, etc).

Of course, what you agree with one rep three years ago may not be to the liking of a different rep now. I don’t know if this has happened here, but it certainly has happened on other builds of units.

 

[Goldfish62]

They absolutely do, including taking union reps to the design office / manufacturing facilities to do so (Switzerland, Germany, Japan, etc).

Of course, what you agree with one rep three years ago may not be to the liking of a different rep now. I don’t know if this has happened here, but it certainly has happened on other builds of units.

And it's not SWR's problem. Assuming they did consult appropriate reps at the design stage then it's job done. Not their problem that a new rep may have a different opinion.

 

[dmncf]

I think the question implied by that statement might have been - why didn't they just do some initial testing and then hand them over for the TOC to do the extensive route proving etc?

I wasn't necessarily thinking of the new fleet being handed over earlier. Another way of putting my question would be:
- Train manufacturer has a new fleet to test and needs drivers.
- TOC has driver trainers & drivers that need familiarisation with the new fleet and its foibles.
- Why don't train manufacturers use the TOC's drivers for new fleet testing?

 

[hwl]

I wasn't necessarily thinking of the new fleet being handed over earlier. Another way of putting my question would be:
- Train manufacturer has a new fleet to test and needs drivers.
- TOC has driver trainers & drivers that need familiarisation with the new fleet and its foibles.
- Why don't train manufacturers use the TOC's drivers for new fleet testing?

On the last point the TOCs don't have enough spare drivers and often some of the testing is outside the units future operating area so the TOC drivers lack route knowledge.

 

[TEW]

458/5 and 707 fault free running was largely undertaken by SWT using their own crews I believe.

 

[spark001uk]

458/5 and 707 fault free running was largely undertaken by SWT using their own crews I believe.

I think a lot of the 707 route proving was as well?

 

[hwl]

458/5 and 707 fault free running was largely undertaken by SWT using their own crews I believe.

701 introduction is a ~5x bigger task though!

 

[spark001uk]

701 introduction is a ~5x bigger task though!

5x bigger in what respect?

 

[TEW]

701 introduction is a ~5x bigger task though!

Yes, I wasn't suggesting SWR should be doing it now.

 

[hwl]

5x bigger in what respect?

Number of vehicles compared to 707 / 458

 

[spark001uk]

Number of vehicles compared to 707 / 458

The number of units doing ff miles is the same though isn't it? Or is it? Not au fait with the procedure so happy to be corrected.

 

[supervc-10]

Every unit will have to do fault free running though right?

There's surely little difference with the amount of effort in certifying the 701s for each line compared to 707s? Both for certifying for use, and for clearing for individual lines? The difference is that once cleared, there are 60 additional 10-car units over the 707s. The type certification and the route clearance only needs being done once for a type of stock, whether there's 5 units or 50.

 

[spark001uk]

Interesting, just watched 5Q51 make a stop. The "guard" opened a local set of (passenger) doors and stepped out, then released the doors, then it looked like he pressed another button which opened all doors. Didn't know they could do that.

 

[theironroad]

Interesting, just watched 5Q51 make a stop. The "guard" opened a local set of (passenger) doors and stepped out, then released the doors, then it looked like he pressed another button which opened all doors. Didn't know they could do that.

Interesting. I wonder if there is a full guards panel at every door. I'm not sure how popular opening every door would be in middle of winter when no one needs to use it allowing blasts of cold air in.

 

[hwl]

Every unit will have to do fault free running though right?

There's surely little difference with the amount of effort in certifying the 701s for each line compared to 707s? Both for certifying for use, and for clearing for individual lines? The difference is that once cleared, there are 60 additional 10-car units over the 707s. The type certification and the route clearance only needs being done once for a type of stock, whether there's 5 units or 50.

Lots of unit testing mileage to rack up is the main driver, unlike the Crossrail, LO and Anglia units they can't be run up and down the WCML pre delivery from Bletchley to Crewe and back accumulating mileage and driven by FOC drivers (Siemens did the equivalent at the (ex-RAF) Wildenwrath test track pre delivery), hence for the 701s it is done in 3rd rail land by FOC drivers and when you already have them there doing that it is then fairly efficient to get them to do the rest too. They are also getting them clear on all their electrified network. The 700 role out at Thameslink showed (1/3rd larger number of vehicles) showed that that trying to do too much in house can be a problem.

 

[pompeyfan]

The only door release buttons are in the drivers cab. There is one door close/signal bell panel on each side per coach with a PA and C2C. There’s a TMS feature that will allow the guard to secure each coach from the inside using the door open button

 

[spark001uk]

Interesting. I wonder if there is a full guards panel at every door. I'm not sure how popular opening every door would be in middle of winter when no one needs to use it allowing blasts of cold air in.

No, I believe there's only guard's panels in the middle of the unit.
Not sure on the purpose of opening all doors. Only place I know that to be used is in the Thameslink core.

 

[samuelmorris]

Is ABDO intended for just door release, rather than automatic opening? That does seem the more sensible way of doing it.

 

[spark001uk]

The only door release buttons are in the drivers cab. There is one door close/signal bell panel on each side per coach with a PA and C2C.

You're also limited for choice when it comes to other positions to work from as they only have one guards panel per unit (middle coach). As a result very few guards will open it up as it isn't worth it.

Seems a bit of confusion here, are there panels in every coach, or just the middle?
Edit: Ignore, read second post wrong.

 

[pompeyfan]

Seems a bit of confusion here, are there panels in every coach, or just the middle?

2 in each coach, 1 on each side.

 

[TEW]

Seems a bit of confusion here, are there panels in every coach, or just the middle?

The second post you quoted there is talking about 458/5s.

 

[spark001uk]

The second post you quoted there is talking about 458/5s.

Yep you're right, noted.

Anyway back to the all-door opening, I wonder if this was specifically requested in the build, or whether the class just happens to have that functionality anyway and they were just testing it?

 

[Snow1964]

I wasn't necessarily thinking of the new fleet being handed over earlier. Another way of putting my question would be:
- Train manufacturer has a new fleet to test and needs drivers.
- TOC has driver trainers & drivers that need familiarisation with the new fleet and its foibles.
- Why don't train manufacturers use the TOC's drivers for new fleet testing?

I think I see the logic of your question
Some testing will be off SWR area, so anyone with route knowledge (eg GBRF drivers) could be trained
Some testing will be on SW area tracks, so why not train some drivers to do this (the training time is irrelevant, as will be trained at some stage anyway, so not finding extra time)

The railway logic is that GBRF has surplus drivers so they can find some spare for the testing, but SWR doesn’t, therefore it is worth training extra drivers (belonging to another operator) just for testing regime, even though it increases overall number being trained (which uses more resource). That’s fragmented railway logic in action.

In other words someone has worked out that there is sufficient training resource to train extra people from another TOC, and this is easier on time constraints than using SWR drivers who will be trained anyway (at some time). It also implies a more compressed (more at same time) training of SWR will happen if they start training later, and will have all the SWR drivers ready and trained by a fixed service start date.

(as an outsider I also don’t get why if SWR has limited spare drivers, they can pull more simultaneously for training)