Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[swt_passenger]

Ethano92 said: "Unfortunately we are getting ironing board seats...
(I tried to put this with the quote feature but it wouldn't let me post when I did that, the error I got said "Your post must be longer than 5 characters". Anyone know what to do?)...

You probably either accidentally wrote your original reply within the quote tags, or accidentally deleted the closing quote tag or part of the last square brackets when editing.

 

[Warrior2852]

You probably either accidentally wrote your original reply within the quote tags, or accidentally deleted the closing quote tag or part of the last square brackets when editing.

Thanks. I think this works now.

 

[Nicks]

Does anyone know if these sets are in production yet? The original press release said they would be introduced from mid-2019, so with testing (hardware and software) and driver training required surely the first examples should be coming off the production line now?

 

[Domh245]

Seeing as the first GA Aventra was supposed to enter service from February 2019, but only began being built in Feb 2018 with the first unit rolling off the production line in mid september, I suspect they'd be beginning to build the first one around now. However, at the same time, I'd be amazed if they enter service on time given the issues that the Aventras have been facing.

 

[Goldfish62]

Seeing as the first GA Aventra was supposed to enter service from February 2019, but only began being built in Feb 2018 with the first unit rolling off the production line in mid september, I suspect they'd be beginning to build the first one around now. However, at the same time, I'd be amazed if they enter service on time given the issues that the Aventras have been facing.

I saw quoted somewhere that Bombardier started taking delivery of the materials during the summer, with build starting later this year. A new production line is being opened in order to cater for the tight timescales. First unit due for delivery next Summer I wonder if the 710s will be in service by then...

 

[Ethano92]

I'm surprised there's still no news on these trains. If you Google about the trains, there's no recent articles. If the materials were being delivered over summer, surely construction must've started by now, Or it must at least start by the end of the month. Hopefully the software will be ready and won't be too faulty to speed up getting them into passenger use, similar to how the 707s were less problematic than the 700s

 

[TRAX]

I’d think they’re concentrated on the 710 (issues) at the moment...

 

[Bigfoot]

Given the issues with the smaller cab specification for swr they are having to redesign things which may be delaying production. (the order shrunk the cab to squeeze in an extra row of seats making the cab very cramped, leading to the union stating they won't allow their members to drive them)

 

[Goldfish62]

Given the issues with the smaller cab specification for swr they are having to redesign things which may be delaying production. (the order shrunk the cab to squeeze in an extra row of seats making the cab very cramped, leading to the union stating they won't allow their members to drive them)

The cab design looks to be based on the gangwayed version that WMT have ordered.

Surely best solution for SWR is to go with the standard cab and forsake 4-8 seats per unit. Having said that it's Bombardier's fault for coming up with a poor design.

 

[Domh245]

Of course, the WMT Gangwayed version was revealed and ordered after the SWR fleet, so I dare say it's the other way around (or at least, the intention at some point was for these units to be gangwayed, but that was dropped for whatever reason leaving the rest of the cab looking like it did. WMR then came in and were able to order a gangwayed version, with presumably minimal development required)

The way I read Bigfoot's post however is that the 'depth' of the cab has been reduced, which has required a redesign to move the equipment that usually goes in the back wall. Something that is very noticeable on Aventras ordered so far has been the gap between the back of the cab and the start of the passenger saloon, you can see it in the drawings available of the 345s, and just by looking at the gap between the first passenger window and the cab door on other Aventras, even on the 701s (the space which has the SWR logo on it)

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely the 345s having 3 sets of doors per side, hence nearer the cab, makes direct comparison rather risky?

 

[Domh245]

Direct comparisons, yes, but the point still stands - Aventras have a sizeable gap between the rear cab wall and the passenger saloon compared to some previous trains. If you look at electrostars, the cab wall is practically non existent!

However, just in the interest of a more direct comparison in lieu of a technical drawing, here's an interior and exterior shot of 710261. By my reckoning, the passenger saloon ends roughly in line with the right hand edge of that silver plate, meaning everywhere between there and the black line next to the cab door is effectively 'dead' space - although it will actually be filled with electrical gubbins of course.

 

[swt_passenger]

Direct comparisons, yes, but the point still stands - Aventras have a sizeable gap between the rear cab wall and the passenger saloon compared to some previous trains. If you look at electrostars, the cab wall is practically non existent!

However, just in the interest of a more direct comparison in lieu of a technical drawing, here's an interior and exterior shot of 710261. By my reckoning, the passenger saloon ends roughly in line with the right hand edge of that silver plate, meaning everywhere between there and the black line next to the cab door is effectively 'dead' space - although it will actually be filled with electrical gubbins of course.

Presumably the modern tendency towards wide intermediate gangways (and in the case of the 345s - longitudinal seating) starts to erode the possibilities for the usual electrical cabinets seen in the “corner cupboards” of traditional EMU coaches. Behind the cab or under the seats is about all that’s left...

 

[Ethano92]

Presumably the modern tendency towards wide intermediate gangways (and in the case of the 345s - longitudinal seating) starts to erode the possibilities for the usual electrical cabinets seen in the “corner cupboards” of traditional EMU coaches. Behind the cab or under the seats is about all that’s left...

Could be, but I know 700s do have at least one electrical cabinet in the place of a pair of seats at one or more carriage ends. Saying that, the 345s don't as far as I remember but the gangway sections without seats and the lower roof (where USB ports are on the 710s) on Aventura's are much longer than on desiro citys so perhaps there are electrical cabinets there as well as behind the cab. 700s certainly don't have this big space behind the cab, and gangways maintain train width, interesting.

I never knew about the shortening of cab, surely it doesn't also help that the cab is sloping rather than straight so seating position has to be further back, yet they still shorten it from the passenger side? As much of a design flaw as not having any 'emergency' hopper windows in my opinion

 

[swt_passenger]

Could be, but I know 700s do have at least one electrical cabinet in the place of a pair of seats at one or more carriage ends. Saying that, the 345s don't as far as I remember but the gangway sections without seats and the lower roof (where USB ports are on the 710s) on Aventura's are much longer than on desiro citys so perhaps there are electrical cabinets there as well as behind the cab. 700s certainly don't have this big space behind the cab, and gangways maintain train width, interesting.

I never knew about the shortening of cab, surely it doesn't also help that the cab is sloping rather than straight so seating position has to be further back, yet they still shorten it from the passenger side? As much of a design flaw as not having any 'emergency' hopper windows in my opinion

I expect the seating position further back is required by the crash protection anyway, if the front was more vertical there’d potentially just be more space ahead of the driver.

 

[vanillasplash]

the front looks freally ugly im hope they change it

 

[Bigfoot]

the front looks freally ugly im hope they change it

Best someone closes their eyes for the next 25 years judging by the number of units ordered across various tocs...

 

[whhistle]

May have already been answered but why didn't SWR just order more 707s to replace the 455/456/458s?

 

[Goldfish62]

May have already been answered but why didn't SWR just order more 707s to replace the 455/456/458s?

I assume, given the value of the work, First MTR tendered it and Bombardier came back with the best deal. Remember also that the trains come with toilets.

 

[hwl]

May have already been answered but why didn't SWR just order more 707s to replace the 455/456/458s?

Several issues with 707s:
Less powerful than 700/717s on DC
Lack of grab rails due to cable runs behind the ceiling panels limiting real standing passenger capacity
Heating duct design meaning seated legs/feet tend to end up in the aisle slightly limiting standing capacity

These lessons learned were opaquely noted in the SW tender and openly in the SE tender.

707 leases also aren't cheap.

 

[Goldfish62]

Several issues with 707s:
Less powerful than 700/717s on DC
Lack of grab rails due to cable runs behind the ceiling panels limiting real standing passenger capacity
Heating duct design meaning seated legs/feet tend to end up in the aisle slightly limiting standing capacity

These lessons learned were opaquely noted in the SW tender and openly in the SE tender.

707 leases also aren't cheap.

Looking at the renders for the 701s, they also rely on seat-back grab handles rather than poles and have heater ducting. In fact, apart from toilet provision the interior looks identical.

 

[swt_passenger]

May have already been answered but why didn't SWR just order more 707s to replace the 455/456/458s?

Dft moved the goalposts and re-defined their capacity requirements for SW inner suburban and metro vehicles, and strongly hinted that the 707s did not meet new requirements. It’s all in the ITT if read with hindsight.

Add in the benefits of traincrew knowledge and maintenance standardisation, standardised unit performance, potentially cheaper leasing costs (because ultimately everyone’s guessing about that), public preference for toilets.

 

[hwl]

Looking at the renders for the 701s, they also rely on seat-back grab handles rather than poles and have heater ducting. In fact, apart from toilet provision the interior looks identical.

Grab objects - Look at the vestibules for the massive difference.

The Aventra also have the underfloor heating option (see Crossrail stock) that reduces the size of the Duct (which actually has lots of wiring loom inside) on the aventras.

"looks identical" but isn't

 

[hwl]

Dft moved the goalposts and re-defined their capacity requirements for SW inner suburban and metro vehicles, and strongly hinted that the 707s did not meet new requirements. It’s all in the ITT if read with hindsight.

Add in the benefits of traincrew knowledge and maintenance standardisation, standardised unit performance, potentially cheaper leasing costs (because ultimately everyone’s guessing about that), public preference for toilets.

Yep they got the standing density for calculations reduced from 0.25m^2 /person to 0.35m^2/person.
The 707s were mid franchise variations and are reassuringly expensive because DfT effectively had to agree.

 

[Mikey C]

Dft moved the goalposts and re-defined their capacity requirements for SW inner suburban and metro vehicles, and strongly hinted that the 707s did not meet new requirements. It’s all in the ITT if read with hindsight.

Add in the benefits of traincrew knowledge and maintenance standardisation, standardised unit performance, potentially cheaper leasing costs (because ultimately everyone’s guessing about that), public preference for toilets.

I assume this happened after GN ordered their replacements for the 313s, as they've gone with Desiro Cities (717s) which seem to be much the same inside as the 700s and 707s!

 

[swt_passenger]

I assume this happened after GN ordered their replacements for the 313s, as they've gone with Desiro Cities (717s) which seem to be much the same inside as the 700s and 707s!

The combined TSGN ITT was probably a couple of years earlier compared to the SW ITT.

 

[Warrior2852]

Looking at the renders for the 701s, they also rely on seat-back grab handles rather than poles and have heater ducting. In fact, apart from toilet provision the interior looks identical.

Are these renders publicly available? The only ones I have seen are the one of the train in SWR lively, and the on at Waterloo with the standard lively.

 

[class387]

Are these renders publicly available? The only ones I have seen are the one of the train in lively, and the on at Waterloo with the standard colour scheme.

They're in the Britain's New Trains magazine.

 

[Goldfish62]

They're in the Britain's New Trains magazine.

Yes, which I bought in Tesco a couple of months ago.

 

[ScotGG]

Dft moved the goalposts and re-defined their capacity requirements for SW inner suburban and metro vehicles, and strongly hinted that the 707s did not meet new requirements. It’s all in the ITT if read with hindsight.

Does the South eastern ITT have the same capacity requirement for inner suburban metro routes which would also exclude 707s going there?