Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[Domh245]

Fair enough. I assume they only need to reach that speed, not run continuously at it...

It would depend on what exactly is being tested, but whatever sufficed for the 720s should surely suffice for the 701s (as they're both 100mph units) which leads us back to the original question of why one has gone to Velim?

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes but are trains required to have that?

Yes...

 

[RealTrains07]

Yes...

Thank you finally got an answer to my actual question

hopefully it will look more obvious once the 701s are in service

 

[pompeyfan]

Didn't know they had a pantagraph they won't be using AC Overhead here.

All 3rd rail EMU stock built since the original electrostar/desiros builds (except 376s) have been built to be easily converted to AC to extend their life. Interestingly though, nothing that has been built for AC has got DC capability as far as I know (331s, 755s, 8xxs, 397s to name just a few)

 

[TRAX]

All 3rd rail EMU stock built since the original electrostar/desiros builds (except 376s) have been built to be easily converted to AC to extend their life. Interestingly though, nothing that has been built for AC has got DC capability as far as I know (331s, 755s, 8xxs, 397s to name just a few)

I believe the 376s too are able to be converted for AC.

 

[swt_passenger]

All 3rd rail EMU stock built since the original electrostar/desiros builds (except 376s) have been built to be easily converted to AC to extend their life. Interestingly though, nothing that has been built for AC has got DC capability as far as I know (331s, 755s, 8xxs, 397s to name just a few)

I think it all goes back to the point that you don’t need to add any complex electronics to an AC EMU to allow for DC pickup. Just some wiring, big fuses and shoe gear. So any issues with interference and electrical noise produced within the unit aren't likely to get any worse if you run in DC mode.
So I’m thinking it would be far more important for the 701 to be “type tested” to allow for future AC use now at this early stage, because it requires a transformer and rectifier to be proven in the operating condition, and they presumably won’t be fitted on every train off the series production.

Am I right in assuming that the AC test 707s were reverted to DC only after their tests were complete?

 

[RealTrains07]

I think it all goes back to the point that you don’t need to add any complex electronics to an AC EMU to allow for DC pickup. Just some wiring, big fuses and shoe gear. So any issues with interference and electrical noise produced within the unit aren't likely to get any worse if you run in DC mode.
So I’m thinking it would be far more important for the 701 to be “type tested” to allow for future AC use now at this early stage, because it requires a transformer and rectifier to be proven in the operating condition, and they presumably won’t be fitted on every train off the series production.

Am I right in assuming that the AC test 707s were reverted to DC only after their tests were complete?

Yes the first 2 707s units were tested with AC capability before delivery and reverted to DC

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes the first 2 707s units were tested with AC capability before delivery and reverted to DC

Yes I was really asking if all the AC specific hardware had been removed. You could for instance have the pan and VCB taken off the roof, but the transformer and rectifiers still fitted underneath; I’ve not seen anything about that sort of detail...

 

[RealTrains07]

Yes I was really asking if all the AC specific hardware had been removed. You could for instance have the pan and VCB taken off the roof, but the transformer and rectifiers still fitted underneath; I’ve not seen anything about that sort of detail...

Far as i was aware when reverted back, the AC equipment on the roof was all removed but could obvs be put back on

 

[Domh245]

Yes I was really asking if all the AC specific hardware had been removed. You could for instance have the pan and VCB taken off the roof, but the transformer and rectifiers still fitted underneath; I’ve not seen anything about that sort of detail...

I think it was all removed. Comparing images of 707001 with and without pantograph, you can see the pantograph vehicle's underframe is a lot clearer in the later image. You can also see that the long tube under one of the doors is also no longer present - if memory serves correctly that was related to oil for the transformer.

With Pantograph: https://flickr.com/photos/102958814@N02/32816904022/
Without Pantograph: https://flickr.com/photos/ryanstrainphotos/46018228401/

 

[swt_passenger]

I think it was all removed. Comparing images of 707001 with and without pantograph, you can see the pantograph vehicle's underframe is a lot clearer in the later image. You can also see that the long tube under one of the doors is also no longer present - if memory serves correctly that was related to oil for the transformer.

With Pantograph: https://flickr.com/photos/102958814@N02/32816904022/
Without Pantograph: https://flickr.com/photos/ryanstrainphotos/46018228401/

Thanks for going to the trouble to find the detailed answer...

 

[Goldfish62]

There's an article in the latest issue of Today's Railways about the 701s, including full seating plans.

It confirms that the seat cushions are to a new design and the seats are wider than in the 700s and 707s in response to criticism of the "ironing boards". Also of interest is that the shorter, more upright cabs, as well as providing slightly more interior space, are to ensure that the doors are always in the same location on a 10 car unit and 2 x 5 car units. This is line with accepted metro practice. Indeed there are still only two rows of seats between the cab and first doors, albeit in bay rather than airline configuration.

The article also confirms that Reading line will be the first to receive the 701s, but interestingly some 450s are expected to remain on the line.

 

[Josh1351]

On the Original graphic designs of the class 701(https://images.app.goo.gl/SdTrVTNR16edhgEZ8,) the front section was clearly a variant of the blue colour. However, they have decided to go with yellow which has also occurred with Greater Anglia's Aventras. What is their explanation for this?

 

[ashkeba]

All 3rd rail EMU stock built since the original electrostar/desiros builds (except 376s) have been built to be easily converted to AC to extend their life. Interestingly though, nothing that has been built for AC has got DC capability as far as I know (331s, 755s, 8xxs, 397s to name just a few)

755s are Flirts which are modular and run on DC in the Netherlands so it is probably not too difficult to convert if ever wanted. I am not aware of any on 3rd rail though.

 

[Mikey C]

There's an article in the latest issue of Today's Railways about the 701s, including full seating plans.

It confirms that the seat cushions are to a new design and the seats are wider than in the 700s and 707s in response to criticism of the "ironing boards". Also of interest is that the shorter, more upright cabs, as well as providing slightly more interior space, are to ensure that the doors are always in the same location on a 10 car unit and 2 x 5 car units. This is line with accepted metro practice. Indeed there are still only two rows of seats between the cab and first doors, albeit in bay rather than airline configuration.

The article also confirms that Reading line will be the first to receive the 701s, but interestingly some 450s are expected to remain on the line.

The narrow 700 and 707 seating crammed against the wall is a massive failing, as all that happens is that the person on the outside sprawls into the aisle anyway, thus reducing the realistic standing space back down to what it would have been with more sensible seating...

 

[hwl]

On the Original graphic designs of the class 701(https://images.app.goo.gl/SdTrVTNR16edhgEZ8,) the front section was clearly a variant of the blue colour. However, they have decided to go with yellow which has also occurred with Greater Anglia's Aventras. What is their explanation for this?

Anglia was about crossing risk which is an issue SWR also have. First seem less worried about moving away from yellow fronts than other owning groups.

 

[hwl]

755s are Flirts which are modular and run on DC in the Netherlands so it is probably not too difficult to convert if ever wanted. I am not aware of any on 3rd rail though.

The 3rd rail can easily be connected to the DC Link, the question is what Stadler have set the DC link voltage at, the max traction motor voltage at 500 is surprisingly low for previous generation stock but similar to Aventra which suggest it should work fine with 3rd rail DC.

 

[Goldfish62]

The narrow 700 and 707 seating crammed against the wall is a massive failing, as all that happens is that the person on the outside sprawls into the aisle anyway, thus reducing the realistic standing space back down to what it would have been with more sensible seating...

Agreed. Ian Walmsley produced a diagram in Modern Railways to show the impact both with and without spacers.

 

[Ethano92]

There's an article in the latest issue of Today's Railways about the 701s, including full seating plans.

It confirms that the seat cushions are to a new design and the seats are wider than in the 700s and 707s in response to criticism of the "ironing boards". Also of interest is that the shorter, more upright cabs, as well as providing slightly more interior space, are to ensure that the doors are always in the same location on a 10 car unit and 2 x 5 car units. This is line with accepted metro practice. Indeed there are still only two rows of seats between the cab and first doors, albeit in bay rather than airline configuration.

The article also confirms that Reading line will be the first to receive the 701s, but interestingly some 450s are expected to remain on the line.

I do wonder just how much wider the seats are. Going from post #952, they do look wider though I'm not sure if I'm just telling myself that. One thing to note is the spacer between a pair of seat backs found on desiro city units can't be seen from the photos we've seen of these units, that does lead me to believe they are noticeably wider (as opposed to when LNER claimed softer seats on their Azumas compared to GWRs by using moquette instead of cloth which could be considered a bit of a marketing spin).

Either way still looking forward to these though still hoping for more grab holds and interested in the apparent lack of wind shields by vestibules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do wonder just how much wider the seats are. Going from post #952, they do look wider though I'm not sure if I'm just telling myself that. One thing to note is the spacer between a pair of seat backs found on desiro city units can't be seen from the photos we've seen of these units, that does lead me to believe they are noticeably wider (as opposed to when LNER claimed softer seats on their Azumas compared to GWRs by using moquette instead of cloth which could be considered a bit of a marketing spin).

Either way still looking forward to these though still hoping for more grab holds and interested in the apparent lack of wind shields by vestibules.

They look like standard ironing boards with the contoured cushion to me, to be honest - and worse than that they are right up against the wall rather than spaced away from it and apart slightly like the 70x.

Having ridden on some very heavily loaded Northern 195s and compared those to heavily loaded 700s, it strikes me that it is in fact the door standbacks that make the big difference to the speed of boarding and alighting, and they might as well space the seats the same as armrest-fitted 2+2 even if they don't fit any actual armrests a la Merseyrail.

 

[Ethano92]

They look like standard ironing boards with the contoured cushion to me, to be honest - and worse than that they are right up against the wall rather than spaced away from it and apart slightly like

The only thing that will make this slightly better is that Aventuras have nice wide, low window ledges so you will still have somewhere to put your arm if you are in a window seat, I do find it a shame they couldn't spare just one spacer between the two seats though.

I think the lack of space is more to increase standing capacity over dwell times but in all honesty, it's already been found it doesn't do much and can have the opposite effect. Whatever it's for, it doesn't help, 455s already do have wide spacers without armrests as well.

 

[Goldfish62]

I do wonder just how much wider the seats are. Going from post #952, they do look wider though I'm not sure if I'm just telling myself that. One thing to note is the spacer between a pair of seat backs found on desiro city units can't be seen from the photos we've seen of these units, that does lead me to believe they are noticeably wider (as opposed to when LNER claimed softer seats on their Azumas compared to GWRs by using moquette instead of cloth which could be considered a bit of a marketing spin).

Either way still looking forward to these though still hoping for more grab holds and interested in the apparent lack of wind shields by vestibules.

The article quoted the difference in width, but I'd have to go back to WH Smith to get the exact dimensions. Maybe someone else could do that and report back?!

 

[Pacerman99]

The article quoted the difference in width, but I'd have to go back to WH Smith to get the exact dimensions. Maybe someone else could do that and report back?!

The article states the 701 seats are 450mm wide as opposed to 435mm. I'm not sure that extra 15mm will make much difference personally. The 701 seat is also better contoured and upholstered according to the article, and we're offered at around the same price as the 700 seat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The article states the 701 seats are 450mm wide as opposed to 435mm. I'm not sure that extra 15mm will make much difference personally. The 701 seat is also better contoured and upholstered according to the article, and we're offered at around the same price as the 700 seat.

If the contoured ironing board costs nearly the same as the flat one (as it probably should, it's just a slightly different shape of base foam and cover), I can't see why anyone would now choose the flat one.

 

[Goldfish62]

The article states the 701 seats are 450mm wide as opposed to 435mm. I'm not sure that extra 15mm will make much difference personally. The 701 seat is also better contoured and upholstered according to the article, and we're offered at around the same price as the 700 seat.

Basically they've achieved the extra width while maintaining the DfT specified minimum gangway width by missing out the small seat spacer. Obviously something had to give.

I wonder how the seats compare for width with the Grammer seats in the 450s,which also have no spacers and are rammed up against the wall (plus intrusive heater ducting).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Basically they've achieved the extra width while maintaining the DfT specified minimum gangway width by missing out the small seat spacer. Obviously something had to give.

So what they've done is a bit of politics, basically - you've got a wider seat but not what the passenger wants - not to be shoved against the wall/other passenger. Clever.

 

[43096]

So what they've done is a bit of politics, basically - you've got a wider seat but not what the passenger wants - not to be shoved against the wall/other passenger. Clever.

Never believe what WorstGroup tell you. There is always going to be some “clever” trick to make it worse. Perhaps the extra standing space is so they can cram more people on when the guards are on strike?

This sounds like a substantial downgrade on the 458s.

 

[Goldfish62]

So what they've done is a bit of politics, basically - you've got a wider seat but not what the passenger wants - not to be shoved against the wall/other passenger. Clever.

As I said, something had give due to DfT's insistence on a minimum gangway width.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said, something had give due to DfT's insistence on a minimum gangway width.

In which case there was no point bothering!

The actual seats on 3+2 aren't too narrow (they are mostly the same width as 2+2 - certainly on 350s where there are some /1s running round with base cushions from /2s) - the issue is the lack of space between them which can't be resolved unless you narrow the aisle.

 

[Snow1964]

Never believe what WorstGroup tell you. There is always going to be some “clever” trick to make it worse. Perhaps the extra standing space is so they can cram more people on when the guards are on strike?

This sounds like a substantial downgrade on the 458s.

Isn't there a notional formula for standing, something like 4 per square metre, (or about 7 in squash them in, sardine mode when service is disrupted).

Of course the 458s were built as outer suburban (where the old 20 minute max standing rule was relevant), the 701s are mainly expected to operate inner surburban where standing is seen as desirable by officialdom. I'm aware that serving Windsor, Reading, Weybridge, Woking etc is well over 20 minutes from many stations.

Wasn't that long ago that most of the proposed 701 routes never saw anything longer than 8 car, so the 2 extra cars are like adding 2 baggage cars for standees, as overall seat count is similar (bit lower, especially if comparing to 455s as built), not quite as sparse on seats as a 345 to Reading, but not very kind on weary legs.