Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[spark001uk]

47739 with 701043 on today's Litchurch Eastleigh drag

 

[WarrenTManager]

47739 with 701043 on today's Litchurch Eastleigh drag

Currently having loco issues between Basingstoke and Hook? 6L Hook 1513 but not got to BAS yet 1603

 

[spark001uk]

Currently having loco issues between Basingstoke and Hook? 6L Hook 1513 but not got to BAS yet 1603

Yes at a stand on the down fast, everything currently dropping onto the slow at Winchfield to go round it.

Edit:
Just to follow up, 47739 was declared failed, and 66716 was sent 1Z99 from Westbury to assist. Finally got moving again about 3hrs late.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Although any new debentures or charges would normally be registered.

The most recently added ones (in June) were units : 701 004, 701 016, 701 019, 701 023, 701 025, 701 029, 701 032, 701 035,

and a long list of spare parts on charge 10 (this one doesn’t have a set of vehicles forming a unit, so looks to me like 14 charges, but only 13 units).

ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC charges - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Another 5 have been added as of 7/9/22 according to companies house

034, 037, 042, 044, 047

 

[Goldfish62]

Another 5 have been added as of 7/9/22 according to companies house

034, 037, 042, 044, 047

So that's now 19 units of the 60 10 car trains.

 

[Snow1964]

So that's now 19 units of the 60 10 car trains.

11 + 5 = 16

Charge 1 is more general, doesn’t cover a train.
Charge 5 is driver simulators, (no train)
Charge 10 doesn’t cover a train, just a lot list of spare parts (link is charge 10, with what is covered towards the end of the pdf)

Charge - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Charges 2-4, 6-9, 11-19 cover following 16 units :
004, 006, 011, 012, 016, 019, 023, 025, 029, 032, 034, 035, 037, 042, 044, 047

With trains numbered in 30s and 40s now being accepted, I don’t know if that means these have been built with, or include the modifications. But with the driver simulators, would have thought there is sufficient to get staff trained quickly now.

 

[Goldfish62]

11 + 5 = 16

Charge 1 is more general, doesn’t cover a train.
Charge 5 is driver simulators, (no train)
Charge 10 doesn’t cover a train, just a lot list of spare parts (link is charge 10, with what is covered towards the end of the pdf)

Charge - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Charges 2-4, 5-9, 11-19 cover following 16 units :
004, 006, 011, 012, 016, 019, 023, 025, 029, 032, 034, 035, 037, 042, 044, 047

With trains numbered in 30s and 40s now being accepted, I don’t know if that means these have been built with, or include the modifications. But with the driver simulators, would have thought there is sufficient to get staff trained quickly now.

Thanks for the detail.

 

[Peter Sarf]

11 + 5 = 16

Charge 1 is more general, doesn’t cover a train.
Charge 5 is driver simulators, (no train)
Charge 10 doesn’t cover a train, just a lot list of spare parts (link is charge 10, with what is covered towards the end of the pdf)

Charge - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Charges 2-4, 5-9 6-9, 11-19 cover following 16 units :
004, 006, 011, 012, 016, 019, 023, 025, 029, 032, 034, 035, 037, 042, 044, 047

With trains numbered in 30s and 40s now being accepted, I don’t know if that means these have been built with, or include the modifications. But with the driver simulators, would have thought there is sufficient to get staff trained quickly now.

One wee error. In your list of relevent charges I have highlighted 5-9 as I think it is meant to be 6-9 ?.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

11 + 5 = 16

Charge 1 is more general, doesn’t cover a train.
Charge 5 is driver simulators, (no train)
Charge 10 doesn’t cover a train, just a lot list of spare parts (link is charge 10, with what is covered towards the end of the pdf)

Charge - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

ROCK RAIL SOUTH WESTERN PLC - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Charges 2-4, 6-9, 11-19 cover following 16 units :
004, 006, 011, 012, 016, 019, 023, 025, 029, 032, 034, 035, 037, 042, 044, 047

With trains numbered in 30s and 40s now being accepted, I don’t know if that means these have been built with, or include the modifications. But with the driver simulators, would have thought there is sufficient to get staff trained quickly now.

017 now added to the charge list.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10754652/filing-history

 

[deepeetw]

Expect the pressure to do something with them to pick up soon then….

 

[Goldfish62]

Expect the pressure to do something with them to pick up soon then….

Well yes, Rock Rail will be wanting rental income from them.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Well yes, Rock Rail will be wanting rental income from them.

If they comply with specification then SWR will have to pay the leasing charges its not Rock Rails problem that there are disputes with SWRs operating staff. If SWR were a franchise still liable for the costs there would be some impetus to get this sorted however under the daft arrangements we have now SWR just add the costs to the monthly bill to DfT.

 

[Goldfish62]

If they comply with specification then SWR will have to pay the leasing charges its not Rock Rails problem that there are disputes with SWRs operating staff. If SWR were a franchise still liable for the costs there would be some impetus to get this sorted however under the daft arrangements we have now SWR just add the costs to the monthly bill to DfT.

I can't see the DfT being prepared to foot the bill if it's just SWR's internal issues holding up training. Just as it's not Rock Rail's problem I'm sure the DfT will also see it as not their problem.

 

[Snow1964]

I can't see the DfT being prepared to foot the bill if it's just SWR's internal issues holding up training. Just as it's not Rock Rail's problem I'm sure the DfT will also see it as not their problem.

I wonder if the DfT pays for a required number of trains (+ spares) for the management contract service they have specified.

Therefore is a possibility that for every extra 701 they pay for, SWR is reimbursed 1 less 455 rental.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I can't see the DfT being prepared to foot the bill if it's just SWR's internal issues holding up training. Just as it's not Rock Rail's problem I'm sure the DfT will also see it as not their problem.

Lets hope so but with NRCs DfT pick up the bill for costs incurred to run the service and the operator just hands over the cash from selling tickets. SWR are also specifically tasked by DfT to introduce the class 701's as part of their contract so it depends on whether costs arising from industrial relation issues over bringing the trains into use can be deducted.

In my view DfT taking over the franchises will prove to be a financial burden on the industry for years to come with in this case SWR having minimal incentives to sort the 701 issues compounded by DfT interfering without the knowledge and experience to understand the way the industry works.

 

[AM9]

Lets hope so but with NRCs DfT pick up the bill for costs incurred to run the service and the operator just hands over the cash from selling tickets. SWR are also specifically tasked by DfT to introduce the class 701's as part of their contract so it depends on whether costs arising from industrial relation issues over bringing the trains into use can be deducted.

In my view DfT taking over the franchises will prove to be a financial burden on the industry for years to come with in this case SWR having minimal incentives to sort the 701 issues compounded by DfT interfering without the knowledge and experience to understand the way the industry works.

Any issues with the train's technical fitness for purpose would fall on the specifier/purchaser or the supplier, unless as has been suggested here the staff that will use them have raised issues that were not in the specification, (were they involved in it's preparation).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Any issues with the train's technical fitness for purpose would fall on the specifier/purchaser or the supplier,

agree

unless as has been suggested here the staff that will use them have raised issues that were not in the specification, (were they involved in it's preparation).

It is quite possible that the cab changes are outwith the original specification so Rock Rails taking ownership through a "charge" isn't necessarily an indication that SWR have accepted the train and thus are liable for leasing charges. However, having followed this sorry saga it would appear that Bombardier elected to keep the same desk layout (sensible as agreed on 345/710) and squeeze the driver in closer which is part of the problem and necessitated a wholesale redesign of the cab interior at this point Rock Rail stopped reporting "charges" for the units around Jan 21 and have only recently recommenced reporting "charges". So despite the taxpayer being on the hook for £1B here there is radio silence from the DfT and i have to say pretty disappointing reporting from the railway press In times gone by Roger Ford would have been all over this but not anymore.

 

[Captain Deltic]

agree

It is quite possible that the cab changes are outwith the original specification so Rock Rails taking ownership through a "charge" isn't necessarily an indication that SWR have accepted the train and thus are liable for leasing charges. However, having followed this sorry saga it would appear that Bombardier elected to keep the same desk layout (sensible as agreed on 345/710) and squeeze the driver in closer which is part of the problem and necessitated a wholesale redesign of the cab interior at this point Rock Rail stopped reporting "charges" for the units around Jan 21 and have only recently recommenced reporting "charges". So despite the taxpayer being on the hook for £1B here there is radio silence from the DfT and i have to say pretty disappointing reporting from the railway press In times gone by Roger Ford would have been all over this but not anymore.

I can only apologise for the recent reduction in my coverage of traction and rolling stock issues. In mitigation, there are several major issues concerning the future of the railway - Great British Railways, decarbonisation, returning ridership prospects etc - that something has to give and that has included the Class 701 saga. With next month's column already full before the latest issue of Modern Railways has been published, I can't promise an early return to the 701 problems saga. But our Traction & Rolling stock issue and the Golden Spanners awards will see me back in full-on traction and rolling stock mode.

 

[100andthirty]

A very welcome maiden post after > 11 years lurking!

 

[Peter Sarf]

I can only apologise for the recent reduction in my coverage of traction and rolling stock issues. In mitigation, there are several major issues concerning the future of the railway - Great British Railways, decarbonisation, returning ridership prospects etc - that something has to give and that has included the Class 701 saga. With next month's column already full before the latest issue of Modern Railways has been published, I can't promise an early return to the 701 problems saga. But our Traction & Rolling stock issue and the Golden Spanners awards will see me back in full-on traction and rolling stock mode.

Welcome to the Forum. From a reader.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Not sure, with 4,430 replies already in the thread, if this has been reported yet:

I noticed today that many stations have now received wheelchair ramps marked for class 701.

 

[Elorith]

Not sure, with 4,430 replies already in the thread, if this has been reported yet:

I noticed today that many stations have now received wheelchair ramps marked for class 701.

They've been there for at least a year now I believe

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They've been there for at least a year now I believe

Thank you.

Specsavers, here I come...

 

[DennisM]

I can't see the DfT being prepared to foot the bill if it's just SWR's internal issues holding up training. Just as it's not Rock Rail's problem I'm sure the DfT will also see it as not their problem.

The nationwide breakdown in industrial relations ‘not the DfT’s problem’. Grant Shapps would‘ve peddled that to the general public but I’m sure First Group would laugh them out of the room.

 

[spark001uk]

5Q79 1030 Feltham Depot to Wimbledon Park C.S.D.

U.701035

04/10/22:
5Q61 U.701019 moved from Feltham to Wimbledon pk.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Why do the class 701s have a yellow front even though that rule stopped applying in 2016?

 

[Domh245]

Because it isn't a requirement to get rid of them, and for some operators maintaining brand consistency by having all liveries look as similar as possible is preferable to having some trains with the 'as envisaged' livery vs the 'legally allowable' livery - SWR & GWR would fall into the consistency category, TPE falls into the idealistic category.

Also worth noting (though I don't think it applies in this case) that maintaining the yellow front end still counts to make the train more visible which helps with Risk Assessments of level crossings - this is why GA's fleets retained yellow fronts despite originally being planned not to

 

[the sniper]

Why do the class 701s have a yellow front even though that rule stopped applying in 2016?

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to or should.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Because it isn't a requirement to get rid of them, and for some operators maintaining brand consistency by having all liveries look as similar as possible is preferable to having some trains with the 'as envisaged' livery vs the 'legally allowable' livery - SWR & GWR would fall into the consistency category, TPE falls into the idealistic category.

Also worth noting (though I don't think it applies in this case) that maintaining the yellow front end still counts to make the train more visible which helps with Risk Assessments of level crossings - this is why GA's fleets retained yellow fronts despite originally being planned not to

Ah right. That's sad. The Overground trains and the Elizabeth line trains look beautiful without that yellow front. Same with the TransPennine Express trains

 

[antharro]

^^ That's a matter of opinion. I like yellow fronts on trains.