Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[Juniper Driver]

With the exception of the obstacle detection, none of the apparent issues listed would appear to be affected by the presence (or lack) of passengers!? Sticky cab doors and issues with wipers would be as much a problem for an ECS service as a passenger one

Not really.It's easier coping with problems on trains if there are no passengers around.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

With the exception of the obstacle detection, none of the apparent issues listed would appear to be affected by the presence (or lack) of passengers!? Sticky cab doors and issues with wipers would be as much a problem for an ECS service as a passenger one

Funny how ASLEF have no issues with the GA/LO/MTR Aventra. Something doesn't add up

 

[AlexNL]

Funny how ASLEF have no issues with the GA/LO/MTR Aventra. Something doesn't add up

Those are not the same trains. The 701s have a different cab design (to make 2×5 just as long as 1×10) and different components (different suppliers) may have been used.

A train is never an 'off the shelf' product as is the case with a car. Nowadays trains are based off of standardised platforms but there will almost always be customer specific variations.

 

[Goldfish62]

Those are not the same trains. The 701s have a different cab design (to make 2×5 just as long as 1×10) and different components (different suppliers) may have been used.

The drivers "desk" on the 701s as originally delivered was identical to that on the 345/710/720 but for some reason was deemed unacceptable for SWR drivers and had to be redesigned at ASLEF's insistence.

 

[Mordac]

Isn't this just a case of ASLEF don't want to operate these trains because they don't want anything to do the doors, but are resorting to every delaying tactic in the book rather than fight that fight openly?

 

[Goldfish62]

Isn't this just a case of ASLEF don't want to operate these trains because they don't want anything to do the doors, but are resorting to every delaying tactic in the book rather than fight that fight openly?

They can hardly fight it openly given that they accepted it in return for a decent pay rise!

Whatever is going on I'm sure there are still issues with the trains that SWR are themselves unhappy with otherwise they'd surely try to force the issue. Then there's the involvement of the DfT and Treasury - they're no doubt content with the fact that a slowly reducing elderly fleet has lower leasing costs than a brand new fleet so probably aren't pushing SWR to push the issue.

The only winner in this whole sorry saga is the leasing company, which has been making enormous profits without owning a single train.

 

[Invincible]

The GBRf drivers won't have to live with them day in, day out, for 40 years...

GB Railfreight open new Peterborough office to kickstart next chapter | RailBusinessDaily

GB Railfreight officially opened their new office, in a move marking the next phase for the ever-growing transport company. The official opening marks a GB Railfreight officially opened their new office, in a move marking the next phase for the ever-growing transport company.

news.railbusinessdaily.com

Does look like GBRF are increasing their driver training facility, including train simulators, so hoping to get a training contract and may already have one?

The only winner in this whole sorry saga is the leasing company, which has been making enormous profits without owning a single train.

But don't leasing companies have to raise cash to pay, fully or partly, the manufacturer, so might be having to pay out interest with no income?

 

[spark001uk]

47739 has just made it to Eastleigh on 0O15, for tomorrow's 5Q15 drag to Worksop, presumably to have mods carried out.

 

[jopsuk]

Funny how ASLEF have no issues with the GA/LO/MTR Aventra. Something doesn't add up

Some part of the explanation has been given; but there's also the issue that I would have thought this has come from the local ASLEF representatives rather than head office. THus, it is entirely possible for ASLEF at GA to be OK with something that ASLEF at SWR are not OK with

 

[the sniper]

Does look like GBRF are increasing their driver training facility, including train simulators, so hoping to get a training contract and may already have one?

I don't think that has anything to do with the situation on SWR.

 

[Goldfish62]

Some part of the explanation has been given; but there's also the issue that I would have thought this has come from the local ASLEF representatives rather than head office. THus, it is entirely possible for ASLEF at GA to be OK with something that ASLEF at SWR are not OK with

Exactly.

 

[theking]

Isn't this just a case of ASLEF don't want to operate these trains because they don't want anything to do the doors, but are resorting to every delaying tactic in the book rather than fight that fight openly?

Pretty much this looking at the excuses they have with the drivers cab.

 

[Agent_Squash]

If SWR took ASLEF to court over this, would they have a chance of winning?

 

[Snow1964]

Some part of the explanation has been given; but there's also the issue that I would have thought this has come from the local ASLEF representatives rather than head office. THus, it is entirely possible for ASLEF at GA to be OK with something that ASLEF at SWR are not OK with

So they should have taken one to East Anglia, got an ASLEF rep to sign it off and see if ASLEF drivers would defy a sign off

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So they should have taken one to East Anglia, got an ASLEF rep to sign it off and see if ASLEF drivers would defy a sign off

The Group standards that cover cab design and ergonomics should have involved ASLEF in drafting and approving through the relevant standards committee which they also should have had membership of - does anyone know if they were involved?

 

[AlexNL]

If SWR took ASLEF to court over this, would they have a chance of winning?

At the risk of souring a good working relationship? Maybe, but is it worth it?

So they should have taken one to East Anglia, got an ASLEF rep to sign it off and see if ASLEF drivers would defy a sign off

Neither GA nor GBRf drivers will be working with these things on a daily basis so a sign-off from either of them isn't going to be worth much.

Comparisons with 720s on GA are moot as these trains are not 720s. That a significant change was made to the cab design following ASLEF feedback does not mean that they must accept everything without being allowed any sort of feedback. Things like overly bright indicator lights or HVAC exhausts blowing directly onto your neck may sound insignificant, but if you're working with that for hours on end can become a pretty big deal.

This issue vaguely reminds me of the Class 385 saga on ScotRail a few years ago. All the initial testing was complete, but when ASLEF reps got into the cabs they noticed the fishbowl effect on the windscreens and refused the trains because of that. I recall similar "ah they just don't want those trains" comments being posted here and elsewhere on the internet, but in the end the problem was recognised and rectified. And the trains got signed off by ASLEF.

As far as I can judge the situation, ASLEF have given a list of issues with the 701s which they want to see rectified before they'll sign off on those trains. As long as that list only gets shorter as time progresses, I do not see an issue with that.

 

[jopsuk]

So they should have taken one to East Anglia, got an ASLEF rep to sign it off and see if ASLEF drivers would defy a sign off

yeah good luck with that, why would ASLEF anglia undermine their comrades at SWR like that?

 

[444045]

47739 has just made it to Eastleigh on 0O15, for tomorrow's 5Q15 drag to Worksop, presumably to have mods carried out.

Any idea please which unit is being hauled back to Worksop ?

Thanks in advance.

 

[800001]

Any idea please which unit is being hauled back to Worksop ?

Thanks in advance.

701007

 

[444045]

701007

Thank you @800001 for your help.

 

[spark001uk]

5Q51/52 today is being worked by 701014.

 

[444045]

5Q51/52 today is being worked by 701014.

Im told thats the only unit they are allowed to use for testing.

 

[spark001uk]

Im told thats the only unit they are allowed to use for testing.

Not sure what the deal is, but what I can say with certainty is that 038 was out as well on Friday (3rd June).

Edit: Just spotted 5Q42 on the diagram this evening, no info on which unit but it shows there's two diagrams out today.

 

[444045]

Not sure what the deal is, but what I can say with certainty is that 038 was out as well on Friday (3rd June).

Edit: Just spotted 5Q42 on the diagram this evening, no info on which unit but it shows there's two diagrams out today.

U.701038 has been cleared for running as the unit was checked ok for any faults before it left Worksop on 25/05/22.
So the only two units out on test currently will be U.701014 & U.701038.

 

[800001]

701047 Derby to Eastleigh today.

 

[Flange Squeal]

The drivers "desk" on the 701s as originally delivered was identical to that on the 345/710/720 but for some reason was deemed unacceptable for SWR drivers and had to be redesigned at ASLEF's insistence.

The seating position in relation to the desk was not the same though, the bulkhead and driver's seat reportedly being pushed further forward to increase passenger saloon space (note that they've had to have sliding cab doors fitted as the usual Aventura swing door is too big for the reduced size cabs). This moving of the driver closer to the desk would naturally result in the way in which a driver's body interacts with the desk being somewhat different to existing Aventura family units. Given the amount of time train drivers spend in cabs and the level of focus needed when doing both driving and station duties in one role, ergonomics are probably quite right to be taken seriously. I'd also say pre-introduction is the best time to deal with it, rather than get them in service (had there not been all the other fault issues too) and then kick up a fuss?

 

[Goldfish62]

The seating position in relation to the desk was not the same though, the bulkhead and driver's seat reportedly being pushed further forward to increase passenger saloon space (note that they've had to have sliding cab doors fitted as the usual Aventura swing door is too big for the reduced size cabs). This moving of the driver closer to the desk would naturally result in the way in which a driver's body interacts with the desk being somewhat different to existing Aventura family units. Given the amount of time train drivers spend in cabs and the level of focus needed when doing both driving and station duties in one role, ergonomics are probably quite right to be taken seriously. I'd also say pre-introduction is the best time to deal with it, rather than get them in service (had there not been all the other fault issues too) and then kick up a fuss?

For the umpteenth time... there is not more passenger space. There's only room behind the cab for one bay of four seats.

Also for the umpteenth time... the cab is shortened to make the driving coach the same length as the rest of the coaches so that 2x5 cars is the same length as 1x10 cars.

 

[Flange Squeal]

For the umpteenth time... there is not more passenger space. There's only room behind the cab for one bay of four seats.

Also for the umpteenth time... the cab is shortened to make the driving coach the same length as the rest of the coaches so that 2x5 cars is the same length as 1x10 cars.

Ok… but regardless of the reason for the bulkhead being moved forward, the point overall remains the same. Moving the back wall and subsequently the driver’s seating position closer to the desk means the ergonomics that the desk were designed around are inevitably affected. So it’s not so much “for some reason” that 701 cabs have been treated differently to existing Aventura cabs, but surely blindingly obvious? The cab is smaller and driver squashed up closer to a desk that was designed around a seat that set further back from it than is the case in these units.

 

[Goldfish62]

Ok… but regardless of the reason for the bulkhead being moved forward, the point overall remains the same. Moving the back wall and subsequently the driver’s seating position closer to the desk means the ergonomics that the desk were designed around are inevitably affected. So it’s not so much “for some reason” that 701 cabs have been treated differently to existing Aventura cabs, but surely blindingly obvious? The cab is smaller and driver squashed up closer to a desk that was designed around a seat that set further back from it than is the case in these units.

Do you actually know that the seat is closer to the desk? It doesn't look like it from photos. There's a fair bit of room between the back of the drivers seat and the equipment cabinets in the standard Aventra cab. So the overall space being reduced in the cab doesn't mean that the seat is necessarily closer to the desk.

 

[357]

Has anyone got some photos of the new desk / cab design?