The leasing costs of the 707s were naturally going to be high as they were 'risky' - there was a good chance of them being replaced on SW Suburban duties by a new combined fleet (as proved to be the case) so the ROSCO charges more to try and recuperate as much of their investment as possible. Had we seen a larger 707 order to replace the rest of the 45x, also financed via Angel, I'm sure the price would have become more reasonable - though perhaps not quite as cheap as the 701s by merit of being a Siemens product. As mentioned, 707s (and desiro cities more widely) weren't compatible with the bid requirements, making any arguments about leasing costs academic!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should SWR’s class 701 Aventra order be cancelled?'
- Thread starter Dan15812
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I wonder why that might be?!
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,897
I think it’s called “you get what you pay for”. Or in SWR’s case “you don’t get what you pay for”!I wonder why that might be?!
py_megapixel
Established Member
What exactly would prevent the fitment of more poles/handrails to a 707? What is involved beyond simply attaching them into the ceiling, something that could surely be done by depot staff with a screwdriver (assuming the spec had been decided on in advance)?
I appreciate that modifying train designs willy-nilly can't generally be done because of safety concerns, but adding an extra pole along the inside of the interior seems pretty trivial.
I appreciate that modifying train designs willy-nilly can't generally be done because of safety concerns, but adding an extra pole along the inside of the interior seems pretty trivial.
WarrenTManager
Member
They won’t pay in full for a unit, until a unit is accepted and furthermore meets an agreed reliability metric.
Previous threads on these trains have stated that the ceilings in the door areas are more like hatches providing access to equipment in the ceiling. So there isn’t anywhere ‘solid’ to attach a pole to.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,318
No, it wasn’t simply about leasing costs, although there’s always economies of scale.
The 707s were deemed by DfT to have inadequate total capacity and too long a dwell time for the intended routes. The SW 2017 franchise ITT was written in such a way to rule them out.
I thought it was do with the grab poles and standing room configuration aswell, I guess that stuff is confidential?
The worrying part is if they don't work now what will passenger use bring up.
The only winner here hopefully is swr and the Rosco that's all that makes sense with what should happen is they knock a few quid of the price or throw in some extras, hopefully swr and the arterio brand gets dumped to give everything a fresh start with gbr, arterio lool
The worrying part is if they don't work now what will passenger use bring up.
The only winner here hopefully is swr and the Rosco that's all that makes sense with what should happen is they knock a few quid of the price or throw in some extras, hopefully swr and the arterio brand gets dumped to give everything a fresh start with gbr, arterio lool
Last edited:
DanNCL
Established Member
I think there’s a bit of confusion as to what exactly was ruled out and on what grounds. The Desiro City family wasn’t ruled out in the franchise ITT, however the internal spec that the existing 707s have was ruled out for two reasons - too few seats (they have in some areas 2+1 seating) and the lack of toilets, but there was nothing to say extra 707s couldn’t have been ordered with those two issues addressed. Dwell times certainly aren’t against the Desiro City, in fact the Desiro City has wider doorways than the Aventra family so quite how dwell times can be deemed to be worse on a Desiro City I don’t know.
Even if the Desiro City were completely unable to comply with the ITT document, CAF will likely have offered something too, and as bad as CAF products may be at least their EMUs in the North have settled down in to service without too many in service faults, which certainly can’t be said about the Aventras. Ordering Aventras wasn’t the only option First had available to them, it was an option they chose and are no doubt now regretting.
Even if the Desiro City were completely unable to comply with the ITT document, CAF will likely have offered something too, and as bad as CAF products may be at least their EMUs in the North have settled down in to service without too many in service faults, which certainly can’t be said about the Aventras. Ordering Aventras wasn’t the only option First had available to them, it was an option they chose and are no doubt now regretting.
And super-speedy doors!
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,288
In honour of all the slam door commuters jumping off the trains at Waterloo before they had stopped
py_megapixel
Established Member
I heard they're supposed to have some electronic system where the driver pushes a button on approach to the station and the train brakes to a stop perfectly and automatically releases the doors.
Considering the issues they're having even getting these units to operate to a standard where they can run in service, I can't imagine it's all that likely that this system will be in use from the start. And if it's not in use from the start it isn't particularly hard to envisage a scenario where it becomes so problematic that the date gets pushed back and back until it's ultimately mothballed, a bit like 140mph on the WCML, the 442 reintroduction, or forbidden-three-letter-staffing-related-acronym on Northern.
This presumably would remove one of the greatest benefits of ordering the Aventra stock to replace the 455s, from a dwell-time perspective.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
WarrenTManager
Member
ABDO supposedly works from track balises rather than a driver button.
there will also be a dwell time gain by the driver opening and shutting the doors rather than the guard. I hope it isn’t like the District Line model where they seem to just hang on long enough to close it right in your face and tootle off.
That of course depends hugely on how it's done; driver release on certain recent fleets can take significantly longer than a Guard doing it if it involves lots of faffing with the TMS!
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,205
Another new A**O acronym?
py_megapixel
Established Member
How many did we have already? I can only immediately thing of ASDO (automated selective door opening)
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,318
It’s not that new if we were still in the main 701 thread…
Chiltern006
Member
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 809
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,205
I haven’t touched that one in months.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,318
It’s a bit of a struggle to get through…
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,205
Watching them shunt into/out of Derby station is enough for me!It’s a bit of a struggle to get through…
DanNCL
Established Member
Difficult for them to argue that when they've just won the HS2 contract.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,897
Fine. Make products that work or expect to go out of business. We shouldn’t be spending taxpayers’ money buying stuff from a failing assembly site just because of threats.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,205
Can we invite Siemens to take it on?
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,205
The Goole of it!Can we invite Siemens to take it on?
Goldfish62
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 13,235
As it is the current orders for Aventras are not far off being fulfilled in full, I doubt if any Aventras are ever going to be ordered again and the only new order currently in the books is for HS2 stock. I therefore can't see that cancelling the order when half the 701s at least are already built is going to make much difference either way.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well, it so happens that Siemens are in court to seek financial compensation for losing the HS2 order, so maybe recompense would be a nice fat order of roiling stock for SWR provided it's built in Goole. (Note: pure speculation on my part - I don't for one moment think that a serious proposition).
As it is with the likely dearth of future new roiling stock orders it seems unlikely that Newport, Derby, Newton Aycliffe and Goole are all going to survive and it doesn't necessarily have to be Derby that's protected although it would be a very sad day given its rich railway heritage and a disaster for the Derby economy.
Last edited:
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,897
You can bet the ROSCO won't have bought the 701s from Almost until SWR accept them.
- Status