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

[Nicholas Lewis]

Several senior managers didn’t transfer but that isn’t the real problem.

The problems started when the DfT train service specification, which was agreed at NR HQ level, couldn’t be implemented because the NR route said (quite rightly) it was unworkable. If COVID hadn’t have happened, there would have been the mother of all franchise contract change events, which would have cost the DfT dearly because FG are very good at that type of thing.

I’m not going to comment on the 701 debacle as there are legal issues involved here and it would be instantly career ending to do so. Sufficient to say that the DfT have been aware and are very much involved in what SWR has done or not done.

The DfT are the ones who sign off all timetable alterations, staff recruitment and training plans. They are effectively deciding what can be done and when. Costs and not cancelling trains to release staff are very much in their mind when they look at this.

If Labour get in, the current procurement exercise for a new DA (to the present incumbants) for SWR will probably be terminated and it will move to DOHL. That will free up more funds for SWR (like it did for TPE) as, looking at it from a very cynical DfT view, DOHL is a much cheaper form of DfT control than doing it via a TOC owning group./

DafT are permitting other operators to release staff for training on new trains so why wouldn't they do that with SWR?

 

[norbitonflyer]

As for TfL proposals to take over (parts) of the main suburban (SW) network (more than a decade ago I can say, having been asked to undertake a minor investigative roll in that regard). TfL wanted to cherry pick certain main sub routes to operate themselves, not the entire main sub network (lets be clear about that). Those routes concerned had therefore to be re-planned to be self contained (within that specific group of routes that Tfl 'wanted') in order that they would not interfere with the remaining SWT suburban routes.
T

Indeed, the complex Chessington/ Hampton Court/ Epsom/ Guildford (two routes)/ Woking services would be more of a challenge.
Reading, Windsor delve deeper into Berkshire. And the Hounslow Loop is now too intimately involved with the Addlestone route.

But the Kingston Loop and Shepperton services, only the latter of which strays outside the GLA boundary and then not by much, are already self-contained.

 

[PGAT]

Sadiq has proposed taking over a few lines with TfL if Labour win the next general election, although it's only portions of GN and SE, no mention of SWR at all

Sadiq Khan: TfL would do a better job of running London commuter trains

Bid to seize control of Southeastern metro services and Great Northern trains

www.standard.co.uk

I assume because Crossrail 2 would fulfill that role if it ever happens

 

[NSEWonderer]

I assume because Crossrail 2 would fulfill that role if it ever happen

Assuming we see Crossrail 2 in the form it was last envisioned as, if at all!

 

[Clarence Yard]

DafT are permitting other operators to release staff for training on new trains so why wouldn't they do that with SWR?

It varies from TOC to TOC. Having to cancel trains to do it is always a bit of a problem for the DfT but, irrespective, the cost of doing it is always a consideration.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

View attachment 701trainingconidential-4.mp4
Part of the SWR training IVT system by 5lamps. Anyone want to guess how many years old this is?

 

[43096]

View attachment 157223
Part of the SWR training IVT system by 5lamps. Anyone want to guess how many years old this is?

Well there's no Arterio branding, so that must date it quite a bit?

 

[Bumpkin]

ABDO and the enhanced timetable have both been scrapped. The ABDO buttons right in the centre of the cab will remain underutilised for whoever knows long, if ever used

ABDO hasn’t been scrapped? NR have started installing the balises between Putney and Richmond for testing

 

[Bigfoot]

ABDO hasn’t been scrapped? NR have started installing the balises between Putney and Richmond for testing

Those balises are for ETCS, the tender for abdo was only put out at the start of the year. Timescale of 18-24 months before it arrives/testing.

 

[800001]

Those balises are for ETCS, the tender for abdo was only put out at the start of the year. Timescale of 18-24 months before it arrives/testing.

Am sure I’ve read some where amongst the thousands of posts on here that ABDO balises had started to be installed several weeks ago!

 

[OneTrackMinded]

ABDO hasn’t been scrapped? NR have started installing the balises between Putney and Richmond for testing

Yes but they are to be used for testing in order to complete a contract, and then won't be used in operation

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2024 ==

Well there's no Arterio branding, so that must date it quite a bit?

3 years

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2024 ==

Those balises are for ETCS

They're installing ETCS??

 

[Waterlemon]

Those balises are for ETCS, the tender for abdo was only put out at the start of the year. Timescale of 18-24 months before it arrives/testing.

The balises are for ABDO and testing is being planned with GBRF + 701's. Why are you so confidently wrong?

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Yes but they are to be used for testing in order to complete a contract, and then won't be used in operation

For any SWR staff this is apparently paragraph 3 of the TTCB issued 12 March

 

[Towers]

Yes but they are to be used for testing in order to complete a contract, and then won't be used in operation

It would be interesting to see a figure for the overall spend on abortive contracts/projects between ABDO kit, 458s and 442s!

 

[Bigfoot]

The balises are for ABDO and testing is being planned with GBRF + 701's. Why are you so confidently wrong?

Internal documents.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Internal documents.

As far as I know there are no plans to install ETCS on SWR...

 

[43096]

As far as I know there are no plans to install ETCS on SWR...

Does ABDO use ETCS balises and therein lies the confusion?

 

[Waterlemon]

Internal documents.

If its the TCB you have misunderstood it. Try searching for "ABDO" on the sharepoint.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

I still find it quite silly that they're going to the trouble of installing these beacons, testing and then not using them in passenger service. I know it's all to complete a contract, but surely something else could have been worked out..? The woes of the rail industry

 

[DelW]

It varies from TOC to TOC. Having to cancel trains to do it is always a bit of a problem for the DfT but, irrespective, the cost of doing it is always a consideration.

And yet DfT seems willing to squander unknown but inevitably large amounts of taxpayers' money storing unused SWR trains in sidings all round the country. That's apart from the cost of (hopefully) maintaining them in usable condition, and shuffling them around between sites at intervals. All the while patching up elderly 455s to keep them running, because without them SWR would fall apart completely.

That lot must surely be costing more than a training programme, which will have to be funded eventually anyway (unless the plan really is to scrap them unused, as has been suggested for 458/4s).

None of it makes any sense!

 

[Bigfoot]

If its the TCB you have misunderstood it. Try searching for "ABDO" on the sharepoint.

It's not the TCB have a read of January's DCC minutes.

 

[hwl]

Does ABDO use ETCS balises and therein lies the confusion?

Correct

 

[NSEWonderer]

It's not the TCB have a read of January's DCC minutes.

Would this be around the Reading, Woking and Wokingham lines for SWR. I seem to remember ETCS preliminary work was suppose to take place around those 3 areas.

 

[amazon1675]

And yet DfT seems willing to squander unknown but inevitably large amounts of taxpayers' money storing unused SWR trains in sidings all round the country. That's apart from the cost of (hopefully) maintaining them in usable condition, and shuffling them around between sites at intervals. All the while patching up elderly 455s to keep them running, because without them SWR would fall apart completely.

That lot must surely be costing more than a training programme, which will have to be funded eventually anyway (unless the plan really is to scrap them unused, as has been suggested for 458/4s).

None of it makes any sense!

OOLR...might as well get it done given how much Govt. money is already supporting this saga.Storing almost the whole fleet of 90 units built to replace an existing whole fleet of trains makes Connex look like it was well run...and we all know what happenend to them ! Oh,and add in refurbishing the 458s which it seems will be be stored or binned as well and you really wonder why this is all happening.Oh yes...plus the 442s...and soon the 484s.....

 

[OneTrackMinded]

OOLR...might as well get it done given how much Govt. money is already supporting this saga.Storing almost the whole fleet of 90 units built to replace an existing whole fleet of trains makes Connex look like it was well run...and we all know what happenend to them ! Oh,and add in refurbishing the 458s which it seems will be be stored or binned as well and you really wonder why this is all happening.Oh yes...plus the 442s...and soon the 484s.....

The government will try to avoid OLR on any operators as much as possible because the general election coming up and what Labour is planning to do with the railways if they win. If anything they'll do a hastily extension of the contract

 

[AJDesiro]

Good news but the DfT still need to approve it

If the DfT have allowed SWR to sort out the training package, surely that's already done and dusted? NRCs don't allow the TOC to do anything without the Secretary of State's approval.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If the DfT have allowed SWR to sort out the training package, surely that's already done and dusted? NRCs don't allow the TOC to do anything without the Secretary of State's approval.

Not strictly correct as they agree an annual business plan with each operator and its deviation from the annual business plan that get DafTs staff involved in evaluating the change and agreeing to it.

In the 23/24 business plan the following is recorded for the 701's which would have involved SWR costing the task and resources to achieve the desired outcome and then DafT signing it off so SWR could get on with it.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The government will try to avoid OLR on any operators as much as possible because the general election coming up and what Labour is planning to do with the railways if they win. If anything they'll do a hastily extension of the contract

They can’t. There is a legal procurement process now in progress to start a new NRC when the current NRC ends in 2025. Presumably Labour will cancel that before the implementation date and just hand it to DOHL.

On another post, the DfT hold regular meetings with TOCs on a variety of subjects as well as authorising a variety of expenditure during the business year concerned. It isn’t just a process of report and DfT authorise - depending on the subject, it can get intensive, intrusive and sometimes a bit long winded too!

 

[Stephen42]

Not strictly correct as they agree an annual business plan with each operator and its deviation from the annual business plan that get DafTs staff involved in evaluating the change and agreeing to it.

In the 23/24 business plan the following is recorded for the 701's which would have involved SWR costing the task and resources to achieve the desired outcome and then DafT signing it off so SWR could get on with it.

View attachment 157328

With a programme across multiple business years and plenty of other communications not in the public domain, the training programme may not be covered at all under the above as there may be an agreement to agree the training plan with the DfT before signing off. It's reasonable endeavours not best endeavours anyway.

Either way if SWR have agreed the training package, it would be surprising if they hadn't already obtained an agreement from anyone they needed to. Negotiations aren't much fun if the other party agrees something and then comes back later to say they didn't have authorisation to do so.

 

[norbitonflyer]

End of April, and no new units in sevice this month. The last one was back at the beginning of March

Until April 12th: Diagram 2U91/92/93/94
January 9-12, one round trip only
January 15th - No run (not scheduled)
January 30th/April 8th - No run (strike).
February 1st - cancelled due to incident at Wraysbury.
*March 15, 28th - First run cancelled due to train failure. Second ran as normal.
March 29th, April 1st - Bank holidays

701028 (3) February 6th, 7th, 9th
701036 (1) March 7th
701037 (21) January 9, 11, 18, Feb 15, 20, 26-29, Mar 1, 4, 5, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, Apr 9-12
701039 (8) January 10th, 12th, 17th, 23rd, 26th, 31st, Feb (1st), 2nd, 5th
701043 (30) January 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 29, Feb 8, 12-14, 16, 19, 21-23, Mar 6, 8, 11-15*, 19, 20, 25, 28*, Apr 2-5

from April 15th: Diagram 2U09/16/19/26/29/36 +

*May 2nd, June 4th - third round trip cancelled due to door failure
May 6th, 27th - Bank holiday
May 7th - no run (strike)
+May 8th-10th - ran 2U31/2U38 instead of 2U29/2U36
x June 14th originally reported on RTT as 701036
$ June 18th, first round trip cancelled, June 18th - 21st, third round trip not scheduled
% June 26th, 2U26/29/36 cancelled due to "problem with safety system".

701036 (8) June 5th, 17th-21st$, 24th, 25th
701037 (17) Apr 22, May 8th-10th+, 14th, 20th-24th, 29th, June 3rd, 10th-13th, 27th
701043 (27) Apr 15th-19th, 23rd-26th, 29th, 30th, May 1st-3rd*, 13th, 15th-17th, 28th, 30th, 31st, June 4th*, 6th, 7th, 14thx, 26th%, 28th

from July 1st: Diagram 2U09/16/19/26; 2R53

* July 3rd - 2R53 cancelled - no crew. Aug5th, 2U09 started at Staines
Aug 12th, 2U09/2U16 cancelled
Sept 10th 2u19/2u26 cancelled -door fault
Sept 11th only 2R53 runs, crew problem
Sept 20th 2U09/16 did not run - broken rail, and 2R53 - planning error

701036 (19) Aug 19th-23rd, 30th, Sept 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th-13th*, 16th- 19th
701037 (7) July 15th-19th, 22nd, 23rd
701039 (32) July 1st-5th*, 8th-12th, 25th, 26th, 29th-31st, Aug 1st, 2nd, 5th*-9th, 12th*-16th, 27th-29th, Sept 4th, 20th
701043 (1) July 24th

from Sept 23rd: Diagram 2U09/16/19/26 etc to 2U69/76
from Sept 30th: Diagram 2H96/93/60/59/68/67/76/77 and 2H90/89 following morning
* Sept 23rd intended to be unit 037: 2U09/16 did not run
* Sept 30th 701039 ran 2H90/89, but ran 2H90 ECS.
* Oct 1st 2U09 started at Staines
* Oct 7th,8th 2H76 terminated at Wimbldon and 2H77 did not run
* Oct 8th 701043 ran 2H90/89, but did not run am on 9th (036 did)
* Oct 11th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 22nd no evening 2Hxx diagram
* Oct 15th 2H60/59/76/77 cancelled due to trespass
* Oct 18th 2U56 and subsequent cancelled due to door failure
* Oct 21st 2H90/89/67/76/77 did not run
* Oct 24th 701043 worked up to 2U16, then evening H diagram. 701037 from 2u19. but 2H76/77 did not run
* Oct 25th 2h60/59 did not run


701036 (12) Sept 23rd*, 26th, 30th(U) Oct 1st (H), 3rd (U) 4th (H) 7th (U) 9th (H inc am), 16th (U) 18th (H.inc am) 21st (U), 23rd (U)
701037 (16) Sept 24th, 25th, 27th, Oct 1st, 2nd, 4th(U) 7th (H)* 9th (U) 10th (H), 14th (U), 15th (U) 16th (H.am), 17th (U), 18th (U*) 22nd (U), 23rd (H.inc am) 24th (U*) 25th (U)
701039 (10) Sept 30th(H)* Oct 2nd (H), 3rd (H) 7th (H.am), 8th (U), 11th (U), 14th (H.am), 15th (H inc am), 17th (H.am), 21st (H*)
701043 (3) Oct 8th (H all day), 10th (U), 24th (U/H*), 25th (H*)

Totals, first and most recent outings
701037 (63) January 9th, October 25th
701043 (63) January 16th, October 24th
701039 (50) January 10th, October 21st
701036 (40) March 7th, October 23rd
701028 (3) February 6th, February 9th

Total 219