• 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!

Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Eastern?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Geogregor

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2016
Messages
458
Location
London
Moderator Note - split from:

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

701001 - In Passenger Service (2 Mar 26) 701002 - In Passenger Service (18 May 26) 701003 - In Passenger Service (27 Jul 26) 701004 - In Passenger Service (10 Jul 26) 701005 - In Passenger Service (27 Aug 25) 701006 - In Passenger Service (6 Mar 26) 701007 - In Passenger Service (24 Feb 26)...
www.railforums.co.uk www.railforums.co.uk

Strange post from Southeastern boss...

x.com

twitter.com twitter.com

What is he hinting?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

OneTrackMinded

OneTrackMinded

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2023
Messages
1,096
Location
Richmond
JonathanH said:
Not if they just reformed the SWR ones.
Click to expand...
Why would SWR give them the 701s..? This is a large scale investment into the SWR network, part of the franchise commitment. They're not just going to move them over to SE because they want them

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

In other news, the rumour about the new services next week has turned out true, confirmed by SWR staff
 
J

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,325
OneTrackMinded said:
Why would SWR give them the 701s..? This is a large scale investment into the SWR network, part of the franchise commitment. They're not just going to move them over to SE because they want them
Click to expand...
Your question should be why would the DfT reallocate part of the SWR build of 701s to Southeastern. DfT (and Treasury) calls the shots, not SWR, they just run the trains.

There is no 'franchise commitment', there is a contract for SWR to provide a certain level of service specified by the DfT.
 
OneTrackMinded

OneTrackMinded

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2023
Messages
1,096
Location
Richmond
JonathanH said:
Your question should be why would the DfT reallocate part of the SWR build of 701s to Southeastern. DfT (and Treasury) calls the shots, not SWR, they just run the trains.

There is no 'franchise commitment', there is a contract for SWR to provide a certain level of service specified by the DfT.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless it would be a complete scandal. Delaying them for 4 years and then sending them off somewhere else.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

SE MD has now confirmed it was just a comment about colours:

x.com

x.com x.com
 
Last edited:
J

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,325
OneTrackMinded said:
Nonetheless it would be a complete scandal. Delaying them for 4 years and then sending them off somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Logically, there are 60 10-car and 30 5-car trains for SWR, 750 vehicles, and, following withdrawals, about 80 4-car 455s, 125 4-car 465s and 35 2-car 466s to replace. The shortfall in 701s to replace both fleets isn't many units.

It would be an interesting bodge to reform these into 8-car units, then build a few more, and take out all the 455s, 465s and 466s across both operations, with the 458/4s at SWR and a few transferred 377s at Southeastern picking up the shortfall.

Even if that didn't happen, putting SWR's spare 701s at Southeastern might allow the Networker replacement to be specified as needing to be compatible and therefore restrict it to being built at Derby.

Minimises the size of any extra build at Derby while keeping it open and restricting the scope of the tender, then if a growth build is needed later when money is less tight, that can be a further extension of the build.

Speculative obviously, but you can't just award the Networker replacement contract to Derby without some legal way of restricting it.
 
43096

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,798
JonathanH said:
Speculative obviously, but you can't just award the Networker replacement contract to Derby without some legal way of restricting it.
Click to expand...
You can if SWR have an option in the 701 contract for additional sets.
 
C

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
5,453
Location
London
OneTrackMinded said:
Nonetheless it would be a complete scandal. Delaying them for 4 years and then sending them off somewhere else.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

SE MD has now confirmed it was just a comment about colours:

x.com

x.com x.com
Click to expand...
If the MD's making a specific statement like that, I fully expect an announcement on Monday that Litchurch Lane has been "saved" by a contract to build Aventras for Southeastern.
 
PGAT

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
2,128
Location
Selhurst
brad465 said:
Yes this is why I used those two and not the other stations on that line, which also are max 8 car.

Southeastern need more trains that are 4/8/12 car, not 5/10.
Click to expand...
4/6 would be ideal since you can then also form 10 car trains
 
H

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,254
brad465 said:
*Cough cough* Herne Hill Brixton too short *Cough Cough*
Click to expand...
Herne Hill platform are currently 9.5car length, especially if you get rid of the requirement for the networker/455 DOO monitors (which is the big problem). SWR's ASDO system would address precision stopping requirements and any junction blocking issues for the 10th car. A number of the other platforms along the route are already 9+car length especially if platform monitors go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top