Should SWR’s class 701 Aventra order be cancelled?'

[D365]

701s are already fitted with ETCS, note the tag on the right of the photo on the left hand cab side of the 701 saying ETCS isolated. We’ve been told not to go underneath in the pit while the ETCS is active.

Are they being fitted with Bombardier ETCS or being switched over to Alstom kit?

Didn’t realise that the onboard ETCS needs to be isolated in that instance.

 

[AlexNL]

I would expect it to be Bombardier's kit as that's the company that built the entire train + software. Swapping everything out for Alstom's kit is not likely to be an easy task.

I'm guessing that having to isolate ETCS before going into the pit has to do with the balise reader mounted underneath, this is always active and works with radio frequency. Going underneath a train with an active radio transmitter might be a health hazard.

 

[XAM2175]

Didn’t realise that the onboard ETCS needs to be isolated in that instance.

I'm guessing that having to isolate ETCS before going into the pit has to do with the balise reader mounted underneath, this is always active and works with radio frequency. Going underneath a train with an active radio transmitter might be a health hazard.

Yes, it's the same for all ETCS-fitted stock. There should be a warning label attached to that effect before the train enters service.

You can see it on the near-side anti-climber cover in this picture of 365525:

A Not-So 'Happy' Class 365, 365525

I had arrived at Longsight depot with a defective Mk.5 set, which had travelled ECS from York. Depositing it at the South end of the depot, I had to walk past the ETD shed, which had a door open. Located inside the shed for some time, and with an uncertain future, has been former Great Northern...

www.flickr.com

and to the left of the headlight in this picture of 97302:

Network Rail Yellow Class 97/3's, 97302 "Ffestiniog & Welsh Highland Railways / Rheilffyrdd Ffestiniog Ac Eryri" & 97304 "John Tiley"

This was an unexpected, but very welcome bonus. On the 19th April 2019, Network Rail Yellow Class 97/3's, No. 97302 "Ffestiniog & Welsh Highland Railways / Rheilffyrdd Ffestiniog Ac Eryri" and No. 97304 "John Tiley" wait to depart Crewe in some very nice sunshine. The pair were working 0C70, the...

www.flickr.com

 

[D365]

I would expect it to be Bombardier's kit as that's the company that built the entire train + software. Swapping everything out for Alstom's kit is not likely to be an easy task.

I'm guessing that having to isolate ETCS before going into the pit has to do with the balise reader mounted underneath, this is always active and works with radio frequency. Going underneath a train with an active radio transmitter might be a health hazard.

From what I’ve heard, Alstom are keen to do this nonetheless.

And yes that was my thought.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, it's the same for all ETCS-fitted stock. There should be a warning label attached to that effect before the train enters service.

You mean it’s not actually a scary story about Bombardier quality after all?

 

[43096]

I would expect it to be Bombardier's kit as that's the company that built the entire train + software. Swapping everything out for Alstom's kit is not likely to be an easy task.

I'm guessing that having to isolate ETCS before going into the pit has to do with the balise reader mounted underneath, this is always active and works with radio frequency. Going underneath a train with an active radio transmitter might be a health hazard.

From what I’ve heard, Alstom are keen to do this nonetheless.

And yes that was my thought.

From what I've heard there are issues with Bombardier ETCS kit across multiple train types.

That's all on top of Bombardier's inability to get trains into service with numerous defects being included "as standard" ex-factory. Alstom have a heck of a job on to sort that business out and regain customer confidence.

 

[Chiltern006]

701s are already fitted with ETCS, note the tag on the right of the photo on the left hand cab side of the 701 saying ETCS isolated. We’ve been told not to go underneath in the pit while the ETCS is active.

aha its like old and new but it's new and new

where the old is meant to be less reliable than the new but apparently not...

 

[hwl]

From what I've heard there are issues with Bombardier ETCS kit across multiple train types.

That's all on top of Bombardier's inability to get trains into service with numerous defects being included "as standard" ex-factory. Alstom have a heck of a job on to sort that business out and regain customer confidence.

Dealing with the Bangalore software office would have huge gains for multiple contact in many countries.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I often witness these shambolic units trundling aimlessly about when I am in and around the Eastleigh area, and I feel the customers - the leasing company plus SWR and the DfT have been more than patient, and it’s time to call it a day and ask for their (our) money back.
Usually in business there would be enormous penalty payments to pay if equipment is delivered late or is not fit for purpose. Luckily, modern manufacturing allows for items to be readily recycled, so perhaps it’s time for a dismantling and recycling programme to take place, at Alstom’s expense, with a full refund to the leasing company/finance company and the DfT/SWR.

But then what? It’s cutting off the nose to spite the face, because you’ll then either be stuck with ancient and falling apart 455s, or you’ll have to order something new which will take at least three years! Whereas if you stick with the 701s, yes it’s unacceptable but you’ll probably only be waiting for them another year at most. Maybe even two years, which would be shocking and disgraceful, but it’ll still bring new trains into service faster than we could by ordering from scratch now.

 

[Energy]

But then what? It’s cutting off the nose to spite the face, because you’ll then either be stuck with ancient and falling apart 455s, or you’ll have to order something new which will take at least three years! Whereas if you stick with the 701s, yes it’s unacceptable but you’ll probably only be waiting for them another year at most. Maybe even two years, which would be shocking and disgraceful, but it’ll still bring new trains into service faster than we could by ordering from scratch now.

Depends on the lead time for something standard like the 707. The 350/2s were ordered in late August/September 2007 but the first 10 entered service in December 2008. The 707s took about 2 years from order to into service and it won't be that long for more with driver training already been done on some drivers.

 

[DanNCL]

But then what? It’s cutting off the nose to spite the face, because you’ll then either be stuck with ancient and falling apart 455s, or you’ll have to order something new which will take at least three years! Whereas if you stick with the 701s, yes it’s unacceptable but you’ll probably only be waiting for them another year at most. Maybe even two years, which would be shocking and disgraceful, but it’ll still bring new trains into service faster than we could by ordering from scratch now.

If you were buying a new car, and your only option was a car that had 1500 faults (which is what some of the 701s have been found to have), would you take the sub standard new car, or would you make do with the car you already had for a bit longer until a more suitable replacement was available? Most people would choose the latter option.

As for lead times on new stock that all depends on a number of factors. If you’re ordering an already produced design that’s known to work reliably, all the equipment is in place for the work and the factory has capacity, you could have alternative units starting to roll off the production line within 6 months, and potentially in service after little more than a year. The primary reason most new orders take a lot longer is because a lot of design work has to be done before production begins, that wouldn’t be needed in the case of an alternative order from Siemens, and little would be needed for an alternative order from CAF or Hitachi (in both cases simply reducing a 23m design to 20m) of an alternative proven product. Even Stadler could probably adapt the 777 design to be suitable for SWR and deliver it in a reasonable timescale.

I can’t actually believe I’m recommending CAF as an alternative given their known issues, but at least they’ve managed to get units built and working in a reasonable timeframe.

As things currently stand there is a good chance of Stadler’s Tyne & Wear Metro units making it into service before the 701s. That would be pretty damning of the Aventra design as the Stadler units for Metro were ordered almost 3 years later than the 701s were.

Depends on the lead time for something standard like the 707. The 350/2s were ordered in late August/September 2007 but the first 10 entered service in December 2008. The 707s took about 2 years from order to into service and it won't be that long for more with driver training already been done on some drivers.

ÖBB have got a 16 month lead time on the Desiro MLs they’ve ordered from Siemens to replace the Talent 3 order. That includes time for driver training (as the units aren’t for the same regions as their existing Desiro MLs), which wouldn’t be needed to the same extent on SWR as many drivers already sign 707s.

 

[D365]

If you were buying a new car, and your only option was a car that had 1500 faults (which is what some of the 701s have been found to have), would you take the sub standard new car, or would you make do with the car you already had for a bit longer until a more suitable replacement was available? Most people would choose the latter option.

Vast, vast oversimplification.

1,500 faults? Where do you get that number from?

 

[DanNCL]

Vast, vast oversimplification.

1,500 faults? Where do you get that number from?

It may not be a directly comparable situation but it gets the point across.

That figure has been reported in the main 701 thread previously.

 

[D365]

It may not be a directly comparable situation but it gets the point across.

Don’t think it’s comparable at all. All train fleets are essentially prototypes, i.e. nothing like a production car that gets churned out in the tens of thousands.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It may not be a directly comparable situation but it gets the point across.

That figure has been reported in the main 701 thread previously.

It’s not at all comparable, and note how I did not say accepting the currently substandard 701s as they are now over ordering new stock would be the right thing to do, I said accepting them when they’re fixed and no longer substandard - when they’re decent. It may take up to a year but what I said was it’s between keeping 455s on, operating decent new stock from a years time or operating new stock from two and a half/three years time.

 

[43096]

1,500 faults? Where do you get that number from?

Alstom have stated that was the position when they acquired Bombardier Transportation. And it was 1500 faults per vehicle, as I understand it!

 

[Domh245]

That figure has been reported in the main 701 thread previously.

That figure refers to vehicles built during a period mid-covid when all quality control had been reduced in order to keep the line moving. It also refers to numbers as they came off the production line, not 'as-offered', Cars don't make it to the dealer with 1500 faults but they may well have had 1500 faults* prior to undergoing final QC & rectification


*of varying levels - this has never been clarified if it is major things like doors hanging off, or 500 screws on wiring looms that weren't torqued fully

 

[Goldfish62]

Don’t think it’s comparable at all. All train fleets are essentially prototypes, i.e. nothing like a production car that gets churned out in the tens of thousands.

Exactly the point!

 

[D365]

That figure refers to vehicles built during a period mid-covid when all quality control had been reduced in order to keep the line moving. It also refers to numbers as they came off the production line, not 'as-offered', Cars don't make it to the dealer with 1500 faults but they may well have had 1500 faults* prior to undergoing final QC & rectification

I wish that I could say more, but I’ll admit that I have seen some rather curious issues! Which goes to reinforce my point that train fleets are much more prototypical in their nature.

 

[dgl]

I wish that I could say more, but I’ll admit that I have seen some rather curious issues! Which goes to reinforce my point that train fleets are much more prototypical in their nature.

Even moreso, I would assume, in places like the UK where loading gauge limits mean that european designs have ti be adapted to UK specifications where in most of Europe they probably sell trains with less customisations required.

 

[Meerkat]

The primary reason most new orders take a lot longer is because a lot of design work has to be done before production begins, that wouldn’t be needed in the case of an alternative order from Siemens, and little would be needed for an alternative order from CAF or Hitachi (in both cases simply reducing a 23m design to 20m) of an alternative proven product. Even Stadler could probably adapt the 777 design to be suitable for SWR and deliver it in a reasonable timescale.

All those adaptions would be greater than the 701 from the 720s etc.

 

[Energy]

All those adaptions would be greater than the 701 from the 720s etc.

Well the 701s are effectively 710s but with a different interior and cab.

 

[DanNCL]

Don’t think it’s comparable at all. All train fleets are essentially prototypes, i.e. nothing like a production car that gets churned out in the tens of thousands.

The Aventra was advertised as an off the shelf design. The very nature of that is that the prototype stage has already been passed (which it should have been with the 345s) and it’s a production model.

The point stands. Nobody would accept a new car full of faults they’d wait for one suitable to be offered. Why should it be any different with trains?

All those adaptions would be greater than the 701 from the 720s etc.

Well the 701s are effectively 710s but with a different interior and cab.

It’s the different cab that seems to have caused many of the issues with the 701s.

Not sure about the CAF product but I do know that the Hitachi product already has identical lengths for driving and intermediate coaches so it literally would just be a case of trimming the coaches down to 20m. The Stadler adaptation would be more extreme (which is why I mentioned it last), but could still be done.
It’s pretty pointless discussing though as any alternative order would most likely end up with Siemens for 700s or 707s.

 

[Meerkat]

It’s pretty pointless discussing though as any alternative order would most likely end up with Siemens for 700s or 707s.

Not if they can't get near the competition's prices. You fancy asking the Treasury to fund something more expensive plus the start up costs, legal action with Alstom, and the likely impact on the Derby plant?
Do Siemens still have the equipment and capacity to churn out 707s? And of course they don't match the spec.....

 

[PG]

Maybe even two years, which would be shocking and disgraceful, but it’ll still bring new trains into service faster than we could by ordering from scratch now.

If it does take another couple of years then can you really call a train which was built 3 or 4 years ago (but hasn't turned a wheel in revenue earning service) new?

 

[DanNCL]

It’s not at all comparable, and note how I did not say accepting the currently substandard 701s as they are now over ordering new stock would be the right thing to do, I said accepting them when they’re fixed and no longer substandard - when they’re decent. It may take up to a year but what I said was it’s between keeping 455s on, operating decent new stock from a years time or operating new stock from two and a half/three years time.

If it does take another couple of years then can you really call a train which was built 3 or 4 years ago (but hasn't turned a wheel in revenue earning service) new?

There's no guarantee at all the 701s will be in any serviceable state in a year. OBB have got a lead time of 1 year and 4 months on the Desiro ML units they ordered to replace the Talent 3s, and by doing so they've got a new fleet of trains entering service at the same time as previously but of much better quality.

Of note is that the Desiro ML units OBB ordered to replace the Talent 3s are not quite to the specification set out for the Vorarlberg and Tyrol routes that the Talent 3s had to stick to. On the same basis an order to replace the 701s would likely not need to strictly stick to the SWR Metro spec either.

The first 701s are already nearly 3 years old, there's a decent chance they could be nearing 5 years old before they're anywhere near serviceable. You can't call that new.

 

[43096]

Not if they can't get near the competition's prices. You fancy asking the Treasury to fund something more expensive plus the start up costs, legal action with Alstom, and the likely impact on the Derby plant?
Do Siemens still have the equipment and capacity to churn out 707s? And of course they don't match the spec.....

Ignore the impact on Derby: if the place shuts it isn’t the end of the world as a) it’s basically an assembly site with little value added and b) it turns out dross so doesn’t deserve supporting.

As there’s no end in sight to the 701 fiasco, you’d be better now cancelling and ordering from Siemens which a) will give certainty on in service date as the product is already proven on the routes to be run; b) is likely a better built train and c) gives the opportunity to change the quantity of units built to match the new realities of passenger numbers.

Personally, I would follow this route: bin Alstom and buy from Siemens instead as the lowest risk alternative.

 

[dgl]

I wonder if the government could create an electrification project that could use the 701's.
Then Alstom have got the time to get them right and Siemens units can be ordered for SWR to replace them.

 

[Meerkat]

Ignore the impact on Derby: if the place shuts it isn’t the end of the world as a) it’s basically an assembly site with little value added and b) it turns out dross so doesn’t deserve supporting.

As there’s no end in sight to the 701 fiasco, you’d be better now cancelling and ordering from Siemens which a) will give certainty on in service date as the product is already proven on the routes to be run; b) is likely a better built train and c) gives the opportunity to change the quantity of units built to match the new realities of passenger numbers.

That's totally unrealistic - do you not remember the fuss about Siemens getting Thameslink! It might only be an assembly sites but how many of the bits are produced here, but wouldn't be if the assembly was done abroad?
Every new order gives this certainty, which almost always turns out to be less than certain. And the Siemens product doesn't match the spec.
They haven't all been built yet have they? So the first step in playing hardball would be to reduce the order of 701s if they arent really needed

 

[Mikey C]

Isn't it a design/software issue, rather than an assembly line issue anyway?