Class 701 SWR introduction delays: what should happen now?

[Nimbus020]

Thanks for the all the info posted so far: so just to quickly summarise - driver training's stopped because 1) the infrastructure isn't in a suitable state for the necessary DCO ops, 2) to get 'round this, SWR (plus anyone else?) tried to shorten the training course by taking out the DCO element - maybe temporarily 'til the infrastructure's ready? and 3) the regional (South West?) branch of ASLEF won't accept this as they want DCO removed entirely from the training course? (even though the 2019-2022 pay deal was based on drivers learning DCO ops) - apologies if I've got something wrong / missed something obvious!

 

[43066]

I can only draw the conclusion that some or all of SWR, ASLEF and DfT have no sense of urgency on this.

Why would ASLEF have a sense of urgency?

So basically ASLEF won't agree to the shorter course unless DCO is taken off the table. Not surprising that the DFT won't accept that.

It isn’t clear what’s going on exactly. ASLEF may be concerned about training where it isn’t possible to safely undertake it. Mention was made of this earlier:

The fact it did run previously was due to the fact drivers were doing things in the training that weren't safe.

Ultimately ASLEF and the RMT have already agreed to DCO long since - it’s not their fault the powers that be have cocked up the implementation. They certainly wouldn’t be doing the right thing by their members if they allowed unsafe “fudges” just to make the introduction of new stock easier.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why would ASLEF have a sense of urgency?

A good question really. Would that indicate that ASLEF are the sticking point ?.

It isn’t clear what’s going on exactly. ASLEF may be concerned about training where it isn’t possible to safely undertake it. Mention was made of this earlier:

To be fair there are no definite facts afaikt pointing to what the sticking point is.

Standing back a little it is obvious there is going to be a lot of conjecture because of the lack of facts and progress.
As it is so important to so many there is a lot of interest.
It is stunning that it appears a whole fleet, a training course and a pay deal where dependent on DCO operation which has turned out to be impossible.
How impossible is debatable and may be due to improving standards of visibility at stations.

How soon can the nettle be grasped and stations improved to allow DCO ?.
That won't be down to ASLEF.

 

[43066]

A good question really. Would that indicate that ASLEF are the sticking point ?.

The point I mean to make is that it isn’t ASLEF’s job to rubber stamp new trains being introduced - from their perspective it’s better to delay until things are totally safe, and as per agreement. That might make them look as though they’re being awkward - but that’s literally their job in this situation - so it’s disappointing that some posters (not yourself) are so quick to assume bad faith on behalf of the union - who have already agreed to DCO.

Standing back a little it is obvious there is going to be a lot of conjecture because of the lack of facts and progress.
As it is so important to so many there is a lot of interest.
It is stunning that it appears a whole fleet, a training course and a pay deal where dependent on DCO operation which has turned out to be impossible.
How impossible is debatable and may be due to improving standards of visibility at stations.

How soon can the nettle be grasped and stations improved to allow DCO ?.
That won't be down to ASLEF.

It very much appears to be an ideological push to introduce DCO, irrespective of practical realities, that has spectacularly backfired. I know the mods want this to be an update thread rather then moans about the wider intro, so I won’t go further than that!

 

[Nogoohwell]

There are plenty of DCO and DOO stations to train on.
Epsom to Guildford and Epsom to Dorking.
Both routes have/had Southern DOO services run through them and there is plenty of track capacity and turn back facilities at both ends.
This situation smells of…

 

[WarrenTManager]

I thought Leatherhead to Guildford on Southern when it ran with 455s had an OBS. I think only the class 5 runs they did for a while to retain route knowledge was DOO.

 

[infobleep]

Ultimately ASLEF and the RMT have already agreed to DCO long since - it’s not their fault the powers that be have cocked up the implementation. They certainly wouldn’t be doing the right thing by their members if they allowed unsafe “fudges” just to make the introduction of new stock easier.

I agree and it pr9bavly took time for these issues to lead to the training being halted. In the mean time they were being trained at stations where it wasn't safe

I thought Leatherhead to Guildford on Southern when it ran with 455s had an OBS. I think only the class 5 runs they did for a while to retain route knowledge was DOO.

I recall it being guard operated.

 

[kw12]

I agree and it pr9bavly took time for these issues to lead to the training being halted. In the mean time they were being trained at stations where it wasn't safe

What specifically was unsafe at these stations?

 

[Carlisle]

I recall it being guard operated.

Yes, it was discussed here during the Southern dispute that they’d sent test trains over the Leatherhead -Guildford route but for whatever reason it didn’t get cleared for DCO.

 

[Peter Sarf]

What specifically was unsafe at these stations?

From what I recall it was poor lighting making it hard to discern what was on the monitors.

 

[Geogregor]

From what I recall it was poor lighting making it hard to discern what was on the monitors.

How difficult it is to install some better lighting?

Honestly at times rail industry is showing itself a butt of all jokes. And I'm writing it is someone working on the railway...

 

[Peter Sarf]

How difficult it is to install some better lighting?

Honestly at times rail industry is showing itself a butt of all jokes. And I'm writing it is someone working on the railway...

I know, its like another world.

I think it was low light levels but then glare picked up from the cameras with brighter lights too low. It is up thread iirc.


Found the below - more recent than I thought.

I understand the issues at station isn’t just a lack of lamp posts, it’s stuff that can’t easily be solved like glare from the signal lenses bouncing off the side of the train making it difficult to establish if the PTI is clear and close the doors. Trying to get signals re-sited is an absolute minefield and would result in blockades to put the foundations in to move signal gantries etc.

That said however, CCTV DOO isn’t a new concept (I believe 377s were the first units delivered with body side cameras 20 odd years ago) and there must be a solution to allow the numerous body side camera fleets to operate. Is the solution to reduce the safety standard? modify the cameras? Move the signals? I don’t know I’m afraid. I’ve said it before but GA managed it 4/5 years ago so it can’t be impossible (that said, they already had stretches of pure DOO, so might have been easier to push through the unions as it was seen as an increase in safety, rather than a decrease)

+

From what’s been said over the past four hundred odd pages, some of all of the above.

The cameras and monitors do seem to have been particularly problematic for whatever reason, compared to say the 700s. Also the fact that the SWR network hither to has had no DOO (the original plan was for full DOO driver dispatch, albeit with a second person aboard) whereas the Thameslink/Southern/SE networks have been for decades.

It’s installing more/brighter lights, but also lights which don’t cause glare from certain angles, or otherwise interfere with the monitors. So quite a lot more complex than it first appears.

More brighter lights I would suggest needs to be bright lights higher on posts so they do not shine directly into the camera. By doing that the contrast changes becasue the gain will be reduced and so glare from, say, a signal might be reduced as a side effect.

 

[Lockwood]

The old course was 2 weeks long, 1 week spent on learning traction, 1 on DCO operation. With DCO paused they can get drivers trained in half the time and so back being productive quicker.

Previously, unless they had completed the week of DCO training they couldn’t be deemed competent on 701s.

Which makes sense on paper.

But instead we have zero weeks on training.

I'm guessing it is not acceptable to deliver the course, without the DCO practice and then sign the candidates off as competent on the traction but not yet competent on the DCO bits, with a plan to get those signed off if/when acceptable?


I am not calling for unsafe practices to be introduced - just wondering if there is a pragmatic approach? I'm guessing it's no fun for the drivers either? "You're going to be on a training course next month. No you aren't. Yes you'll will in six weeks. No. Training is back on next month. Two months. Keep going as you are"

 

[74A]

Southern drivers went from cctv images on a platform to an image in the cab. Clearly this is an improvement for them. South Western drivers are going from no despatch to DOO despatch with a camera. Obviously they are going to make it as difficult as possible. As some stage someone will have to say it is good enough.

We are not there when the checks are being carried out so we really can't know what the particular problems are.

 

[DMckduck]

Southern drivers went from cctv images on a platform to an image in the cab. Clearly this is an improvement for them. South Western drivers are going from no despatch to DOO despatch with a camera. Obviously they are going to make it as difficult as possible. As some stage someone will have to say it is good enough.

We are not there when the checks are being carried out so we really can't know what the particular problems are.

Anything signal related is going to cause quite the issue, not sure how much moving signals and/or signal gantries could be, but best guesses is quite expensive and intrusive on regular service.

Would spending a bit more on the original tender with a more expensive bidder have provided better hardware on the trains themselves? Probably, but nothing can be done about that now either.

 

[Fincra5]

A week for DCO (Bascislly DOO) training? That's surprising! Unless the DCO part includes train handling and the 1st week doesn't?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I can only draw the conclusion that some or all of SWR, ASLEF and DfT have no sense of urgency on this.

DfT are on the rack with Treasury to get opex costs down so you would have thought not paying for two fleets would be low hanging fruit!

Meanwhile units continue to be rotated about the country to/from warm storage. This is an additional cost which indicates progress is expected to be made (god forbid they were allowed to deteriorate). How many of the class 701 units are "officially" accepted by SWR now ?.

Leaving them at Marchwood i would suggest isn't the best location.

The nearest to a technical issue I can think of is, indirectly, the lack of DCO capable stations.

That in itself is disgraceful they've had years to get the lighting sorted. We banged through dozens of stations in the mid to late eighties in NSE to improve lighting to allow DOO to be introduced.

 

[Peter Sarf]

DfT are on the rack with Treasury to get opex costs down so you would have thought not paying for two fleets would be low hanging fruit!

Of course that saving must be an incentive to move forward.

Leaving them at Marchwood i would suggest isn't the best location.

Oh yes Marchwood (on-sea !). So thats another incentive to get things done (to stop the 701s deteriorating).

That in itself is disgraceful they've had years to get the lighting sorted. We banged through dozens of stations in the mid to late eighties in NSE to improve lighting to allow DOO to be introduced.

True - I have no recollections of there being severe problems with roll outs of DOO in other parts of the country. We did not notice a lack of trains due to slow progress. I can only think SWR et al is a unique (basket) case

 

[317 forever]

I can only draw the conclusion that some or all of SWR, ASLEF and DfT have no sense of urgency on this.

Meanwhile units continue to be rotated about the country to/from warm storage. This is an additional cost which indicates progress is expected to be made (god forbid they were allowed to deteriorate). How many of the class 701 units are "officially" accepted by SWR now ?.

Are there still any technical issues with the units themselves ?.

The nearest to a technical issue I can think of is, indirectly, the lack of DCO capable stations.
Are there any signs that stations are being improved to allow DCO ?.

Most of them may never enter service with SWR, as it will no longer be a franchise/privatised TOC after May.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Most of them may never enter service with SWR, as it will no longer be a franchise/privatised TOC after May.

But there will still be trains needed for passengers running in and out of Waterloo etc.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

I just wonder if this whole 701 saga could end up with Southwestern Railway or, when it goes into public ownership, if it is not about to roll out for the whole 701s and the 30 5 coaches, will end up with another operator?

 

[Socanxdis]

is training to resume at some point or they wait till may

 

[43066]

is training to resume at some point or they wait till may

What’s happening in May?

 

[OneTrackMinded]

What’s happening in May?

Nationalisation

 

[43066]

Ah okay thanks - hadn't appreciated it was that soon for SWR - although I don’t see how that will meaningfully change anything. SWR is already directly controlled by the DfT to all intents and purposes.

EDIT: I guess there will be more of an incentive for the DFT/operator to find agreement with ASLEF, so that nationalisation can be billed as a “good news” story.

 

[Lockwood]

Conspiracy theory time. Tin foils hats at the ready...

DfT are doing things behind the scenes to frustrate SWR introducing the 701s. The day after nationalisation, these barriers will disappear. Massive success story. Tea and medals for the transport secretary.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Conspiracy theory time. Tin foils hats at the ready...

DfT are doing things behind the scenes to frustrate SWR introducing the 701s. The day after nationalisation, these barriers will disappear. Massive success story. Tea and medals for the transport secretary.

I’ve thought the same too. Could be a big conspiracy to make nationalisation look like it’s “cleaning up the railway” on day one. Although this would likely be better suited to the sister thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-701-swr-introduction-delays-what-should-happen-now.281987

 

[waterboo]

I’ve thought the same too. Could be a big conspiracy to make nationalisation look like it’s “cleaning up the railway” on day one. Although this would likely be better suited to the sister thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-701-swr-introduction-delays-what-should-happen-now.281987

The thing is... Even if training miraculously restarted post transition. We are now at a point where service reductions or expensive life extension works on the Class 455 are a near certainty. I don't think there's a conspiracy behind this.

 

[Bigfoot]

The thing is... Even if training miraculously restarted post transition. We are now at a point where service reductions or expensive life extension works on the Class 455 are a near certainty. I don't think there's a conspiracy behind this.

The reduced training course would pretty much double the speed of training. With the correct agreement and a positive union/management position there's no reason why they couldn't be introduced in time to prevent service reduction due to the aging 455s.

 

[43096]

The reduced training course would pretty much double the speed of training. With the correct agreement and a positive union/management position there's no reason why they couldn't be introduced in time to prevent service reduction due to the aging 455s.

The crew training is only part of the equation. There have been no further units passed for service for some time either. There would need to be a rapid escalation of acceptance of units required too.