Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway: progress updates

[Geogregor]

Apparently, it takes 40 minutes for a train to boot up and if the system crashes during that phase, it starts again from scratch.

In 2022?? Wow....

 

[Bletchleyite]

In 2022?? Wow....

Quite. If that is true it is not fit for purpose.

40 seconds would seem reasonable.

 

[Pete_uk]

It can't take 40 minutes to boot up as others have said 40 seconds would be more likely!

 

[PG]

Quite. If that is true it is not fit for purpose.

That'll be why SWR haven't accepted them into service.

 

[Robert Carroll]

That'll be why SWR haven't accepted them into service.

That was the general gist of the MD's comments on the subject.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That was the general gist of the MD's comments on the subject.

Crickey, if it takes 40 minutes to boot up the system on a 701 then they better employ a lad on minimum wage to start one up before the driver books on. It would be an excellent way to start someone off on a railway career towards driver. Looking on the bright side, I suppose it took longer to get a steam engine in steam !.

 

[Goldfish62]

Crickey, if it takes 40 minutes to boot up the system on a 701 then they better employ a lad on minimum wage to start one up before the driver books on. It would be an excellent way to start someone off on a railway career towards driver. Looking on the bright side, I suppose it took longer to get a steam engine in steam !.

I recall it was the exact same problem with the Class 710s initially.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Ah, more forum “fantasy fleets” games that take no notice of commercial realities.

The 458s are on lease to 2027, the 450s to 2025 and are more expensive to lease. In an era of cost savings, which fleet are you off leasing?

It was the MD who suggested they will have an excess of units i offered up the most sensible solution for SWR a split Aventra and Siemens fleet without a micro 458 fleet would be the least cost approach on rolling stock costs in the long run.

Interesting they have the 458s on a lease that is way beyond their current NRC which expires in May 2023 although will inevitably get its two year extension given the current hiatus with the industry so implies DfT must be underwriting. Mind you SWR (the taxpayer) had to buy themselves out of the 442 lease so i wouldn't be surprised that someone in DfT will have run the numbers about paying Alstom compensation to cancel the contract.

Anyhow DfT are saving the higher leasing charges for the 701s the longer they sit idle.

 

[Robert Carroll]

Does anyone know how many 701s have been built so far, please?

 

[Goldfish62]

Anyhow DfT are saving the higher leasing charges for the 701s the longer they sit idle.

Although presumably leasing costs are being incurred by the 17 already accepted.

 

[Domh245]

Although presumably leasing costs are being incurred by the 17 already accepted.

I thought those were only accepted by the ROSCO, but not SWR? ie Rock Rail have paid Alstom for 17 units, but SWR have yet to accept them so are not yet paying Rock

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I thought those were only accepted by the ROSCO, but not SWR? ie Rock Rail have paid Alstom for 17 units, but SWR have yet to accept them so are not yet paying Rock

As they are "charged" it certainly implies that Rock Rail South Western Ltd are the legal owners of the units and their advisors must have signed off the units as compliant before they accepted them. Given the costs involved here Rock Rail wouldn't want to accept units unless their customer was happy they complied with the specifications so they would receive leasing income. Im guessing here after the hiatus with no new units charged for over a year both parties must have agreed to begin accepting units again because Alstom had got them to an acceptable level (not necessarily fully compliant) then either in traffic testing has shown up issues or Alstom were supposed to have done a software drop by a certain point to deal with underlying issues (this is what Clare Mann is inferring from above) and as that hasn't happened, or wasn't succesful, no further units have been accepted. The Lessor wouldn't want to accept too many unless they were going to receive income as they will probably have to make final contractual payments to Alstom and are already having to pay interest and capital repayment costs on the loans although of course any of this could have been changed as the details in teh accounts are from 18mths ago. Fortunately they've had 110m in compensation from Bombardier up to 31/3/2021 so they have sufficient funds to manage the loan costs currently and declare they are solvent otherwise their lenders could have potentially made them insolvent.

Now Crossrail is fully operational the Alstom ne Bombardier software teams should be able to be deployed here to get this sorted.

 

[Snow1964]

Now Crossrail is fully operational the Alstom ne Bombardier software teams should be able to be deployed here to get this sorted.

Strictly the 345s on Crossrail have 2 more software releases, ER300 at Christmas, and ER400 (due April). But these are more to do with signalling and auto reverse than making train work.

However I get your idea, that it should mean more staff previously working on Crossrail trains might now be available to fix the 701 software.

What I don’t know is if they will allow a slimmed down version without the auto door opening at busy suburban stations (in same way some parts of Crossrail eg auto reverse) were temporarily deferred, or if it will a working version of software with all functionality that is required. You can’t really do training with auto door, if it is not working.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Now Crossrail is fully operational

It isn't. There are still some major software changes to be completed on the units. Notably ELR300 in December and ELR400 in Easter 2023. As such, there will still be a significant number of Alstom engineers working occupied primarily by that project rather than SWR.

 

[Peter Sarf]

As they are "charged" it certainly implies that Rock Rail South Western Ltd are the legal owners of the units and their advisors must have signed off the units as compliant before they accepted them. Given the costs involved here Rock Rail wouldn't want to accept units unless their customer was happy they complied with the specifications so they would receive leasing income. Im guessing here after the hiatus with no new units charged for over a year both parties must have agreed to begin accepting units again because Alstom had got them to an acceptable level (not necessarily fully compliant) then either in traffic testing has shown up issues or Alstom were supposed to have done a software drop by a certain point to deal with underlying issues (this is what Clare Mann is inferring from above) and as that hasn't happened, or wasn't succesful, no further units have been accepted. The Lessor wouldn't want to accept too many unless they were going to receive income as they will probably have to make final contractual payments to Alstom and are already having to pay interest and capital repayment costs on the loans although of course any of this could have been changed as the details in teh accounts are from 18mths ago. Fortunately they've had 110m in compensation from Bombardier up to 31/3/2021 so they have sufficient funds to manage the loan costs currently and declare they are solvent otherwise their lenders could have potentially made them insolvent.

Now Crossrail is fully operational the Alstom ne Bombardier software teams should be able to be deployed here to get this sorted.

Yes I hope so. Of course, following Crossrail completion (aiui largely complete ?), it would make sense that Alstom can now concentrate (a little more at least) on the 701s that Bombardiers created. It does not look like it BUT is there more to do for 710s and 720s first though ?.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes I hope so. Of course, following Crossrail completion (aiui largely complete ?), it would make sense that Alstom can now concentrate (a little more at least) on the 701s that Bombardiers created. It does not look like it BUT is there more to do for 710s and 720s first though ?.

Its only significant difference ought to be the ABDO system as at its core its an Aventra platform. So given the driver for ABDO is somewhat down the "needs" list with reduced passenger demand you would have thought it could be deferred but then i suppose drivers would need further training on that aspect but no different to the 700's where ATO competency has been an add on.

It is quite extraordinary how tight lipped the industry around this is with no definitive reasons ever released by any party other SWR revealing their frustration on a couple of occasions. Yes technically the nearly billions pounds spent isn't directly taxpayers dosh yet the tax payer is on the hook for costs with existing stock as well as not getting the promised benfits.

 

[Goldfish62]

I thought those were only accepted by the ROSCO, but not SWR? ie Rock Rail have paid Alstom for 17 units, but SWR have yet to accept them so are not yet paying Rock

They have clearly accepted some units because Claire Mann stated that SWR won't be accepting any *more*units.

As for Rock Rail, why would they buy something, only to not receive the income to pay off the loan that they took out for the purchase?

Surly it's no different to the fact that WMT have accepted some 730s, but are not yet happy to start crew training.

 

[Snow1964]

They have clearly accepted some units because Claire Mann stated that SWR won't be accepting any *more*units.

As for Rock Rail, why would they buy something, only to not receive the income to pay off the loan that they took out for the purchase?

Surly it's no different to the fact that WMT have accepted some 730s, but are not yet happy to start crew training.

It is going to depend on what Rock Rail purchase contract says, probably something like built and delivered and then you pay. There may be a few weeks to achieve fault free running (contractually even if not happened in practice). Then normally would then be getting lease rentals. However if fault free isn’t successfully completed then manufacture pays penalties instead. ( The commercial contracts and penalty clauses are not public so details might be different)

Rock Rail accounts are showing millions in compensation from manufacturers but nothing in lease revenue (published accounts are for months ago so could have changed more recently).

 

[Goldfish62]

Rock Rail accounts are showing millions in compensation from manufacturers but nothing in lease revenue (published accounts are for months ago so could have changed more recently).

Yes, the accounts are for the year ending 31 Dec 21, and the first units were accepted in late June 22.

 

[WarrenTManager]

It is quite extraordinary how tight lipped the industry around this is with no definitive reasons ever released by any party other SWR revealing their frustration on a couple of occasions. Yes technically the nearly billions pounds spent isn't directly taxpayers dosh yet the tax payer is on the hook for costs with existing stock as well as not getting the promised benfits.

Probably because we would be sacked.

 

[43096]

It is quite extraordinary how tight lipped the industry around this is with no definitive reasons ever released by any party other SWR revealing their frustration on a couple of occasions. Yes technically the nearly billions pounds spent isn't directly taxpayers dosh yet the tax payer is on the hook for costs with existing stock as well as not getting the promised benfits.

I'd suggest that taxpayers are saving substantial amounts of cash currently on this. Post-pandemic there are more trains on order than SWR now needs, so SWR is saving on lease costs while at the same time have had the ability to trim their existing fleet to match current demand.

 

[Snow1964]

I'd suggest that taxpayers are saving substantial amounts of cash currently on this. Post-pandemic there are more trains on order than SWR now needs, so SWR is saving on lease costs while at the same time have had the ability to trim their existing fleet to match current demand.

As the reason for such a big homogeneous order was publicly stated as cheaper than keeping existing trains, and the existing trains are now needing unplanned expensive work, I don’t understand how they can be saving money.

Yes there are currently fewer trains, but SWR are having to lease the 707s back from South Eastern, and if there had been more certainty with the 701s could probably have dropped the plan to keep 28 x 4car 458s. And might also be on the hook for costs of keeping Southerns 313s if SE can’t send replacement trains because of a lack of 707s.

So net saving might not actually be very much, or could even be more when all the unexpected other costs are added.

 

[VWRO2]

With the units sitting as long as they are, cut out and with no air circulation,I wonder how much mold and mildew will begin growing on the furnished surfaces.....

 

[43096]

As the reason for such a big homogeneous order was publicly stated as cheaper than keeping existing trains, and the existing trains are now needing unplanned expensive work, I don’t understand how they can be saving money.

You don't think that leasing 557 cars (83 x 455, 33 x 458, 12 x 707) would be cheaper than leasing 750 Aventra cars?

Yes there are currently fewer trains, but SWR are having to lease the 707s back from South Eastern, and if there had been more certainty with the 701s could probably have dropped the plan to keep 28 x 4car 458s.

The long-term retention of the 458s is irrelevant with regard to the 701s: the 458s are direct replacements for the 442s.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

As the reason for such a big homogeneous order was publicly stated as cheaper than keeping existing trains, and the existing trains are now needing unplanned expensive work, I don’t understand how they can be saving money.

Yes there are currently fewer trains, but SWR are having to lease the 707s back from South Eastern, and if there had been more certainty with the 701s could probably have dropped the plan to keep 28 x 4car 458s. And might also be on the hook for costs of keeping Southerns 313s if SE can’t send replacement trains because of a lack of 707s.

So net saving might not actually be very much, or could even be more when all the unexpected other costs are added.

46 year old 313's must be cheapest units to lease in the UK and if Southern were smart they made sure they robbed the GN313 mercilessly so they have spares to keep them going a little longer to be one of the longest used EMUs in the UK. Nice and simple easy to batter back into use and certainly didn't sit in the sidings for the first three years of their lives worked straight out the box.

 

[Goldfish62]

46 year old 313's must be cheapest units to lease in the UK and if Southern were smart they made sure they robbed the GN313 mercilessly so they have spares to keep them going a little longer to be one of the longest used EMUs in the UK. Nice and simple easy to batter back into use and certainly didn't sit in the sidings for the first three years of their lives worked straight out the box.

I'm not so sure. There must be some significant savings from removing a small non-standard fleet and replacing with additional Electrostars, if necessary.

Back to the 701s, Roger Ford recently stated that adjusted for today's prices a Class 323 costs £1.35m per carriage, while a Class 701 costs £1.33m per carriage.

He also notes that since the 701 order and others around the same time, rolling stock had trebled in price, so any prospect of large orders for the time being must be grim.

 

[amazon1675]

Could someone who is across this ever-lengthening saga produce a flow chart of where we are now,and how we have got here with these units please? Given the additional costs of keeping the old stock in use,the build and snagging costs of the 701s,the cost of storing them,the likely degradation of them sitting around ,the interest payments and whatever else is involved could be an interesting read. Remind me when the first one was completed.

We all know what happened to the 442 project,and whilst nobody is openly suggesting the 701 scheme be cancelled,just when will the various issues preventing them being operated in passenger service start to be resolved? Will the apparent freezing of GBR have any effect on who pays for what and when going forward? With a two year recession ahead,bullets may need to be bitten.

Siemens must be watching on and smiling.

 

[Goldfish62]

Could someone who is across this ever-lengthening saga produce a flow chart of where we are now,and how we have got here with these units please? Given the additional costs of keeping the old stock in use,the build and snagging costs of the 701s,the cost of storing them,the likely degradation of them sitting around ,the interest payments and whatever else is involved could be an interesting read. Remind me when the first one was completed.

We all know what happened to the 442 project,and whilst nobody is openly suggesting the 701 scheme be cancelled,just when will the various issues preventing them being operated in passenger service start to be resolved? Will the apparent freezing of GBR have any effect on who pays for what and when going forward? With a two year recession ahead,bullets may need to be bitten.

Siemens must be watching on and smiling.

I can't produce a flow chart, but can help with some dates.

The first Class 701 was delivered in June 2020 and testing began in August 2020. From memory the expectation was that the first units would enter service by the end of that year. This then moved to "early 2021", and the rest is history.

All pretty similar to the similarly delayed Class 730 and Class 777, among others. I think perhaps the size of the order, what has turned out to be wholly unrealistic timescales, and well-publicised corner cutting with building during Covid lockdown have given the 701s a higher profile than other heavily delayed trains.

From recent posts in this thread the main outstanding issue seems to be booting up - length of time and crashing. This is identical to what delayed the 710s entering service. Once a successful software update resolved that issue the 710s entered service pretty quickly.

 

[Trainbike46]

So although there are some problems with few specific parts, the main problem is software.

And this isn't surprising, Bombardier has had software issues on basically every new fleet they built over the last ten years, whether that was in the UK, in North America or in mainland europe. For example, the TRAXX locomotives have had major software issues for years after introduction in the Netherlands

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2022 ==

Anyhow DfT are saving the higher leasing charges for the 701s the longer they sit idle.

Are the 701s more expensive to lease and maintain compared to what they'll replace then?

Edit: I see the comment relating to there being way more 701s than what they'll be replacing - I guess that makes sense

 

[swt_passenger]

Edit: I see the comment relating to there being way more 701s than what they'll be replacing - I guess that makes sense

When they were ordered the total of 750 (60x10, 30x5) vehicles was intended to replace all of the 455, 456, 458, and 707. I think that was 742 vehicles. Seems pretty close to me. Should the 458s be counted as being replaced?