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

[Goldfish62]

I’m just querying (it wasn’t a statement), the earlier proposition that because there’s been a change of government SWR managers will suddenly be sacked.

Ah right, I understand now! Obviously not the case.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Following units have had a charge raised against them on 2nd July 24

701517/518/519/520/521/522/523/524/527/528/529/530

701002/057

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10754652/filing-history

 

[Peter Sarf]

Following units have had a charge raised against them on 2nd July 24

701517/518/519/520/521/522/523/524/527/528/529/530

701002/057

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10754652/filing-history

A nice healthy contiguous (ignoring 25 & 26) run of 701/5s there.

Suggests these later builds are easier to commission ?.

 

[LambicHedgehog]

Following units have had a charge raised against them on 2nd July 24

701517/518/519/520/521/522/523/524/527/528/529/530

701002/057

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10754652/filing-history

I think this means the 701 acceptance situation is now as follows:

Missing units:

001, 003, 005, 007-008, 010, 053, 058-060, 501-504, 525-526 (14 units)

Accepted units:

74 units

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Suggests these later builds are easier to commission ?.

Certainly looks as though the 720/5s have been able to pass through the acceptance process as you would expect as many of the early build were just stored once they were built I recollect.

 

[Recessio]

Certainly looks as though the 720/5s have been able to pass through the acceptance process as you would expect as many of the early build were just stored once they were built I recollect.

Do the earlier builds require any modifications or updates to match the 720/5s, or are they identical (other than time of manufacture)? I'm wondering if there was anything learnt from the earlier units that informed changes to the 720/5s, that now needs to be retrospectively applied to the earlier units and could be the source of delay

 

[Snow1964]

Following units have had a charge raised against them on 2nd July 24

701517/518/519/520/521/522/523/524/527/528/529/530

701002/057

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10754652/filing-history

I think the list of charges is now

002, 004, 006, 009, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 021, 022, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 057, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 527, 528, 529, 530

Missing units :
001, 003, 005, 007, 008, 010, 058, 059, 060
501, 502, 503, 504, 525, 526

51 of 60 10car, and 24 of 30 5car,
so 630 of 750 (84%) vehicles accepted


EDIT must be missing one, as there are 79 charges (1 general, 1 simulators, 1 spares, and thus 75 trains)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think the list of charges is now

002, 004, 006, 009, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 021, 022, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 057, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 527, 528, 529, 530

Missing units :
001, 003, 005, 007, 008, 010, 058, 059, 060
501, 502, 503, 504, 525, 526

51 of 60 10car, and 24 of 30 5car,
so 630 of 750 (84%) vehicles accepted


EDIT must be missing one, as there are 79 charges (1 general, 1 simulators, 1 spares, and thus 75 trains)

Be interesting to know whether SWR are now fully liable for leasing charges or not?

 

[Snow1964]

Be interesting to know whether SWR are now fully liable for leasing charges or not?

Based on notes in recently published Rock Rail accounts, appears once accepted they are generating lease income.

There was in 2023 damages/compensation from Alstom, but much less than previous 2 years, I guess SWR gets rebated this late delivery and/or not performing money. They can then pay for extended 455 leases with it.

Looking at other notes, eg lease commitments etc, it suggests SWR have gradually been paying for more of the fleet (as they are accepted) so presumably now leasing about 84% of the fleet.

Of course if late delivery compensation is now drying up, rather suggests SWR are leasing both 701s and the legacy 455 fleet, without any compensation covering the double leasing.

Unclear to me why DfT would tolerate leasing two fleets (except for short transition overlap of few weeks as old trains are replaced by new)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Based on notes in recently published Rock Rail accounts, appears once accepted they are generating lease income.

There was in 2023 damages/compensation from Alstom, but much less than previous 2 years, I guess SWR gets rebated this late delivery and/or not performing money. They can then pay for extended 455 leases with it.

Looking at other notes, eg lease commitments etc, it suggests SWR have gradually been paying for more of the fleet (as they are accepted) so presumably now leasing about 84% of the fleet.

Of course if late delivery compensation is now drying up, rather suggests SWR are leasing both 701s and the legacy 455 fleet, without any compensation covering the double leasing.

Unclear to me why DfT would tolerate leasing two fleets (except for short transition overlap of few weeks as old trains are replaced by new)

DfT won't want to as it will be hurting their budget so could lead to cutbacks elsewhere but there hardly in a position to really influence SWR short of taking the contract away from them and bringing in a team that knows how to get new trains into service - James Burle from GA springs to mind

 

[WarrenTManager]

Missing units :
001, 003, 005, 007, 008, 010, 058, 059, 060
501, 502, 503, 504, 525, 526

008 is on FFR now. 010 I believe came to the Park this afternoon in preparation for FFR.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

DfT won't want to as it will be hurting their budget so could lead to cutbacks elsewhere but there hardly in a position to really influence SWR short of taking the contract away from them and bringing in a team that knows how to get new trains into service - James Burle from GA springs to mind

The issue at SWR with the 701 is not an issue with the new trains as such but the method of working - these are the first SWR units not under guard control and there are challenges with the method of working. Whilst the DOO cameras are the same as on the 345s issues are being raised as this is the first use of non guard controlled stock on SWR. This occurring whilst a national dispute is ongoing is challenging.

The single daily 701 diagram runs under a trial agreement with ASLEF.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Do the earlier builds require any modifications or updates to match the 720/5s, or are they identical (other than time of manufacture)? I'm wondering if there was anything learnt from the earlier units that informed changes to the 720/5s, that now needs to be retrospectively applied to the earlier units and could be the source of delay

Cab redesign I seem to recall. This involved moving the bulkhead further back as the cabs on 701s were smaller than on other Aventras. Not raised / discovered / addressed until after some/many had been built.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

DfT won't want to as it will be hurting their budget so could lead to cutbacks elsewhere but there hardly in a position to really influence SWR short of taking the contract away from them and bringing in a team that knows how to get new trains into service - James Burle from GA springs to mind

I believe that this new government is going to be putting the railways back into public ownership.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I believe that this new government is going to be putting the railways back into public ownership.

Still be paying for two fleets of trains though as the govt wont be owning the trains

 

[Waterlemon]

The issue at SWR with the 701 is not an issue with the new trains as such but the method of working - these are the first SWR units not under guard control and there are challenges with the method of working. Whilst the DOO cameras are the same as on the 345s issues are being raised as this is the first use of non guard controlled stock on SWR. This occurring whilst a national dispute is ongoing is challenging.

The single daily 701 diagram runs under a trial agreement with ASLEF.

There very much were issues with the 701's.
345's dont have DOO cameras

 

[Goldfish62]

There very much were issues with the 701's.

So they have different cameras to the 710s and 720s? Surprising if true. I'd have thought they'd all be of a standard design.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

Cab redesign I seem to recall. This involved moving the bulkhead further back as the cabs on 701s were smaller than on other Aventras. Not raised / discovered / addressed until after some/many had been built.

And redesigning the standard Aventra drivers desk which while acceptable elsewhere, was seemingly not acceptable to ASLEF locally.

 

[Snow1964]

And redesigning the standard Aventra drivers desk which while acceptable elsewhere, was seemingly not acceptable to ASLEF locally.

A concept I have never really understood, how can ASLEF agree anything nationally (pay, conditions, design of a cab etc), if a local branch is allowed to veto the decision. Undermines the Executive.

It is all very strange to me, because I am only familiar with employment contracts that basically say your role and duties and in return for being paid that's what you do. I have never come across anything like if you don't like the decor or style of desk in your workplace then can refuse to work.

I kind of feel not being told real reason.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

There very much were issues with the 701's.
345's dont have DOO cameras

There were issues but these have long been sorted.

 

[Flange Squeal]

A concept I have never really understood, how can ASLEF agree anything nationally (pay, conditions, design of a cab etc), if a local branch is allowed to veto the decision. Undermines the Executive.

Pay and conditions aren’t negotiated and agreed nationally - they are negotiated between the operator and their local ASLEF company council. That’s why drivers on each TOC have different pay and conditions.

 

[Clarence Yard]

DfT won't want to as it will be hurting their budget so could lead to cutbacks elsewhere but there hardly in a position to really influence SWR short of taking the contract away from them and bringing in a team that knows how to get new trains into service - James Burle from GA springs to mind

The DfT influence is all over this because SWR is on an NRC so every significant move has to be agreed with them first. As stated above, the problem is staff relations - there are still those that do not want them at all because of the changed role of the guard.

Staff relations on SWR are a world away from those on GA and it has little to do with who manages them.

 

[Invincible]

Pay and conditions aren’t negotiated and agreed nationally - they are negotiated between the operator and their local ASLEF company council. That’s why drivers on each TOC have different pay and conditions.

Didn't the Conservatives change pay and conditions negotiations from the local operator to the national Rail Delivery group.

 

[DMckduck]

Didn't the Conservatives change pay and conditions negotiations from the local operator to the national Rail Delivery group.

They tried to across the board with both the RMT and ASLEF, it achieved precisely what anyone with a brain knew it would and that was nothing.

Privatisation and competition means every company has different terms and conditions and pay rates, so negotiating them under one umbrella will never make sense.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

I have recently learnt from my friend of mine who knows an SWR driver that the 701 software is not built from scratch (entirely Aventra software as we were all guessing) and instead based off the 345 software which itself is basically Electrostar software. And apparently completely to my surprise, the only train in the family to have software built from the ground up and not related to the Electrostar was the 710. Why they decided to go back to an old codebase instead of using the newer one is anyone's guess, my friend, a software engineer says.

He also said that according to this SWR driver when the train was delivered it had interlock light issues because it was expecting 6 doors per coach rather than 4....

 

[Roast Veg]

Why they decided to go back to an old codebase instead of using the newer one is anyone's guess, my friend, a software engineer says.

Likely depends on who was available in Bangalore to do the work.

 

[wickham]

Re: Post 9634 and associated comments regarding charges raised in connection with the Class 701 fleet: I am a little confused as to the effective date of this batch. The document sates "Document created 25.06.24" and "Received for filing 02.07.24". Am I therefore incorrect in thinking that the effective date is actually 25.06.24 and not 02.07.24 as stated in the post ? I am not nit-picking but this does make a defference for those of us that keep records, ie: it is a different month !

 

[Goldfish62]

I have recently learnt from my friend of mine who knows an SWR driver that the 701 software is not built from scratch (entirely Aventra software as we were all guessing) and instead based off the 345 software which itself is basically Electrostar software. And apparently completely to my surprise, the only train in the family to have software built from the ground up and not related to the Electrostar was the 710. Why they decided to go back to an old codebase instead of using the newer one is anyone's guess, my friend, a software engineer says.

The 345s had a major software update early this year which largely fixed the ongoing reliability problems.

Could it be that the 701s did have Aventra-specific software, but this was replaced with the 345 version on the basis of getting the trains working?

The 345s sound completely different to other Aventras, whereas the 701s sound like a standard Aventra. I had assumed the difference with the 345s was due to the software, but perhaps not?

 

[wickham]

5Q84 1315 Marchwood to Wimbledon Park ran yesterday 09.07.24 - anyone know which unit was moved please ?
I note that another 5Q84 is booked to run tomorrow 11.07.24.

 

[3973EXL]

5Q84 1315 Marchwood to Wimbledon Park ran yesterday 09.07.24 - anyone know which unit was moved please ?
I note that another 5Q84 is booked to run tomorrow 11.07.24.

it ran light - 0Z84

Realtime Trains | Departures from Marchwood M.O.D. around 1300 on 09/07/2024

Train information at Marchwood M.O.D. around 1300 on 09/07/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Casualties exercise, 701037