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

[Matt Taylor]

Not from what I’ve been told. The main method of dispatch will be using DOO cameras, although there will be a method for guards to maintain dispatch competency.

I'm sure I read somewhere that guards will still dispatch from starting stations, this would ensure competency is maintained. I may be wrong however.

 

[Wyrleybart]

If Alstom are concentrating on other classes why are SWR accepting the 701's if they don't work as specified?

Or to rephrase the question slightly - who thought it was a good idea to order about 2800 EMU vehicles from Bombardier who have one construction site at Etches Park. Even if the every unit class worked, straight out of the box, it would still have been highly debatable whether the class 345s would interact with three different signalling systems in an untried manner.

A very tall order which DfT who control the TOCs should really have seen through.

 

[Goldfish62]

If Alstom are concentrating on other classes why are SWR accepting the 701's if they don't work as specified?

And why are Alstom allowed to concentrate on other classes at the expense of the 701s? It's their fault the trains have so problems and SWR is just as much a customer as the other operators.

 

[NSEWonderer]

If Alstom are concentrating on other classes why are SWR accepting the 701's if they don't work as specified?

They're accepting the new batches that do work to specified at least enough for runs to be done. There is a critical organisation issue with the introduction of the 701s that's making its Introduction slow on SWRs side after all, if the previous update is true then depot drivers have started to train on the 701s of which is done on the newer batch with the modifications.

If there was critical issues then yes SWR would have rejected at least one of them which points to it not being solely an Alstom issue.

Alstom/ Bombardier defo have the brunt of the issues plaguing the 345, 710 and 701 but the latter two trains were introduced more better. Where as the 720 were mainly seamless and don't seem to have much issues. There is a pretty clear difference in how the other companies introduced these new stock than how SWR did. For instance they didn't send a load of stock to another operator before receiving and actually testing their new train

 

[Snow1964]

I am not clear if there are still problems with the 701s that are not there on 720s.

Obviously some trains still need the physical modifications to go through, but are the physically modified ones, updated with new software actually good to use (even if freight drivers, rather than SWR drivers) are operating them.

Trying to understand if the modified and updated units are now the problem, or if it is just lack of staff trained to use them.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Or the ‘franchise’ will be up! Less than 2 years to go now!

Not the first time that's happened - the 707s did not enter service until after the franchise that ordered them had ended. (Apart from a single face-saving run three days before the end)

 

[gazr]

Just seen a GBRf 47 hauling a heavily graffiti'd 701 near Wimbledon- good luck cleaning that mess up.

 

[islandmonkey]

Which year?

In the year 3023

 

[Fazaar1889]

In the year 3023

Only 1000 years away? Optimistic today are we?

 

[The_Train]

Will we still be able to classify these as "new trains" when they do enter service?

 

[Bigfoot]

And I'm surprised Alstom hasn't taken the approach they took with the 345s to get these 701s into some kind of service - load them with a more basic version of the software without some of the more troublesome and complex stuff that seems to be causing the issues (what's the stuff that will eventually be used on the Windsor side again?), then update them when they're worked up a decent number of miles on them. Unless the software is that bad that they can't last a day without throwing a leg out of bed.

The software is that bad. Or at least it was until very recently.

 

[WarrenTManager]

If Alstom are concentrating on other classes why are SWR accepting the 701's if they don't work as specified?

I am not part of the project but from past experience as long as the minimum standard is met then it’s likely the units have to be provisionally accepted. They may still have a snagging list of items that are not right. There are various milestones I imagine for the full acceptance.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I am not part of the project but from past experience as long as the minimum standard is met then it’s likely the units have to be provisionally accepted. They may still have a snagging list of items that are not right. There are various milestones I imagine for the full acceptance.

One would hope being able to use them in passenger service was a minimum standard then!

 

[Invincible]

On realtimetrains 5Q50/5Q51 test from Eastleigh to Waterloo return ran today.

Realtime Trains | 5Q51 1115 London Waterloo to Staines Up Loop | 04/07/2023

Real-time train running information for 5Q51 1115 departure from London Waterloo to Staines Up Loop on 04/07/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The recorded timings between Shawford to Eastleigh East look at bid odd (problem with sensors 177m out?), but arrived at Eastleigh on time where it terminated, did not go onto Poole and Staines.

 

[swt_passenger]

On realtimetrains 5Q50/5Q51 test from Eastleigh to Waterloo return ran today.

Realtime Trains | 5Q51 1115 London Waterloo to Staines Up Loop | 04/07/2023

Real-time train running information for 5Q51 1115 departure from London Waterloo to Staines Up Loop on 04/07/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The recorded timings between Shawford to Eastleigh East look at bid odd (problem with sensors 177m out?), but arrived at Eastleigh on time where it terminated, did not go onto Poole and Staines.

Those times in red around Shawford are in the reverse order for a normal down run, (ie if you read them up the page from Eastleigh to Shawford Jn) and are in the same ballpark as the eventual up run, ie around 1527 at Eastleigh in up direction. I cannot explain why timings seem to restart from Branksome in the up direction.

It’s happened before when a service runs back and forth through the same places, but I don’t think there‘s a straightforward explanation…

 

[Invincible]

The times seemed ok for the test 5Q50/5Q51 today to Eastleigh to Waterloo return but then

*This service is partially cancelled​

This service was cancelled between Eastleigh and Staines Up Loop due to a problem with the train (ML)."

 

[WarrenTManager]

Just seen a GBRf 47 hauling a heavily graffiti'd 701 near Wimbledon- good luck cleaning that mess up.

701049 is on 10 road depot today and has been heavily ‘done’ by ‘artists’ I assume that’s the unit you saw.

 

[Ian Hardy]

450s to Brighton??? (Only from Basingstoke, as I recall).

Back in April 2005 there was a through service from Waterloo to Brighton which operated as a stopping service to Basingstoke, but it continued to Brighton. It left Clapham Junction at 07:19 and arrived at Brighton at 10:14.

 

[Class455]

Back in April 2005 there was a through service from Waterloo to Brighton which operated as a stopping service to Basingstoke, but it continued to Brighton. It left Clapham Junction at 07:19 and arrived at Brighton at 10:14.

Which way did that go to reach Brighton beyond Basingstoke?

 

[Energy]

Or to rephrase the question slightly - who thought it was a good idea to order about 2800 EMU vehicles from Bombardier who have one construction site at Etches Park. Even if the every unit class worked, straight out of the box, it would still have been highly debatable whether the class 345s would interact with three different signalling systems in an untried manner.

A very tall order which DfT who control the TOCs should really have seen through.

Bombardier thought they had production capacity or they would've said no. The DfT also didn't specify manufacturers during the franchising period, they did specify capacity requirements (which the 707s didn't meet for standees) but there was nothing stopping bidders using another manufacturer.

As for the 345s they were ordered by TfL not the DfT.

 

[greaterwest]

Which way did that go to reach Brighton beyond Basingstoke?

It went via Eastleigh, Fareham and Havant.

There was a leftover direct evening service from Basingstoke to Havant until the late 2010's which I suspect was a remnant of this.

 

[Invincible]

On RTT the test 5Q50/5Q51 was cancelled today (701053 as used on previous test runs?). So not clear if the fault was software or not?

 

[GeoffS]

It went via Eastleigh, Fareham and Havant.

There was a leftover direct evening service from Basingstoke to Havant until the late 2010's which I suspect was a remnant of this.

There had also been an hourly service between Brighton and Basingstoke, Class 450-operated except every 3rd hour when it was extended to and from Reading using Class 170s, which SWT had then. I think it was discontinued when someone in authority decided the 450s were needed to enhance the rush-hour out of Waterloo (and then the 170s went elsewhere). At around the same time Southern's previous service to Bournemouth was curtailed back to Southampton.

 

[Monty]

Not from what I’ve been told. The main method of dispatch will be using DOO cameras, although there will be a method for guards to maintain dispatch competency.

It's far from being agreed, some driver reps are now saying even though they may operate the doors it does not state anything about managing the PTI. There are still some people pushing for Driver open, Guard close too in order to speed up the introduction to service.

 

[swt_passenger]

There had also been an hourly service between Brighton and Basingstoke, Class 450-operated except every 3rd hour when it was extended to and from Reading using Class 170s, which SWT had then. I think it was discontinued when someone in authority decided the 450s were needed to enhance the rush-hour out of Waterloo (and then the 170s went elsewhere). At around the same time Southern's previous service to Bournemouth was curtailed back to Southampton.

It was discontinued because DfT decided an extra Southern service from Brighton to Southampton all week was better use of track capacity. The SWT service didn’t run all day, it was diverted from or to Portsmouth in the peak flow periods, ie up in the morning and down in the early evening.

We’re getting somewhat off topic though…

 

[TEW]

It's far from being agreed, some driver reps are now saying even though they may operate the doors it does not state anything about managing the PTI. There are still some people pushing for Driver open, Guard close too in order to speed up the introduction to service.

"Drivers to monitor CCTV of the PTI corridor where in cab technology allows."

Drivers might not like it and might like to think otherwise, but they have agreed it.

 

[alf]

"Drivers to monitor CCTV of the PTI corridor where in cab technology allows."

Drivers might not like it and might like to think otherwise, but they have agreed it.

And the same agreement, which was in return for large multiple year pay increases for all SWR drivers also stated that SWR drivers agreed to door operation, releasing & closing, on ANY OTHER stock that was modified for DOO operation.

 

[Towers]

"Drivers to monitor CCTV of the PTI corridor where in cab technology allows."

Drivers might not like it and might like to think otherwise, but they have agreed it.

Have to agree there, assuming that’s from the contract. I’m no fan of drivers dispatching by any means, and particularly not when there’s a guard on the train who is available to do it, but I think it’s a bit late to be arguing about what the contract says in this case!

 

[TEW]

Have to agree there, assuming that’s from the contract. I’m no fan of drivers dispatching by any means, and particularly not when there’s a guard on the train who is available to do it, but I think it’s a bit late to be arguing about what the contract says in this case!

It's from the 2019 drivers pay deal. I agree with you, I'm not in favour of it, but a lot of people seem to think SWR drivers haven't really agreed to it, and I am pretty sure they have.

 

[vikingdriver]

It's from the 2019 drivers pay deal. I agree with you, I'm not in favour of it, but a lot of people seem to think SWR drivers haven't really agreed to it, and I am pretty sure they have.

I'm not sure, our reps were on about there were still things to agree regarding this as well. We won't be driving them so didn't think much more of it to further question exactly what needed to be agreed. That aside, the driver training task ahead is going to be messy now the mainline drivers have joined the industrial dispute.