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

[43066]

I suspect all the easy platform extensions have been done now, and SWR are not capable of clever diagramming as we've seen over the past few months.

There is that(!)

I was living in and commuting from Epsom at the time, and I also seem to remember the platform extensions when the 456s were brought in didn’t exactly go smoothly, admittedly that was NR’s responsibility, rather than SWT (as was).

It rather feels like the unions are sitting there, arms folded, saying "we don't like that" at every attempt to get these trains into service.

The issue is that the goalposts keep being moved and problems are arising which are either insurmountable or conflicting with other issues: a case in point is ten car trains, with no intermediate cabs, now needing to be guard dispatched because the lighting isn’t right for the DCO method both unions long since agreed to.

Remember the unions’ role is to protect their members. It would be quite wrong to compromise that by agreeing to “fudges” that cover for the employer’s frankly embarrassing failures to sort lighting, shortcomings in train spec etc. DCO was agreed to, so the unions had done “their bit”, and seemingly the only thing stopping it has been a failure to implement it safely.

I won't often defend unions actions but, in this case,
in the face of unworkable proposals from SWR management (&or DfT - who knows?), someone has to stand up and say it won't work, with the power to stop it happening. The tragedy here is that all the expertise isn't collaborating to find something workable, instead of the veto tennis we seem to be seeing.

Indeed.

Unions will back down once the 455 cab doors start falling off

Let’s hope it doesnt reach that stage(!) but, if it did, The union response would be to insist on urgent repairs to cab doors rather than saying: “The old trains are unsafe so we will agree to a method of working that’s also unsafe on the new ones”.

 

[Goldfish62]

There is that(!)

I was living in and commuting from Epsom at the time, and I also seem to remember the platform extensions when the 456s were brought in didn’t exactly go smoothly, admittedly that was NR’s responsibility, rather than SWT (as was).

The extensions on the mainline side had to be done because the 455/466s didn't have SDO.

On the Windsor lines side however, where aside from Kingston loop services the 10 coach trains were exclusively 458/5s and 707s it was very much cost v need for doing so. Longcross could easily be done tomorrow, but given it's a rarity to ever see anyone board or alight a train there it's unlikely there's ever be a case for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2025 ==

Remember the unions’ role is to protect their members. It would be quite wrong to compromise that by agreeing to “fudges” that cover for the employer’s frankly embarrassing failures to sort lighting, shortcomings in train spec etc. DCO was agreed to, so the unions had done “their bit”, and seemingly the only thing stopping it has been a failure to implement it safely.

Yes, we mustn't forget that SWR had several years to get the platforms ready, but failed to do so. Quite a stunning example of failure if you think about it.

 

[brooklynbound]

I seem to recall that the sliding doors caused problems with the introduction of the 508s.

I remember being stuck on a 4 SUB outside Putney station for ages because the doors had failed on the new sliding door train in the platform in front of us. Given this was pre loudspeakers in units, the guard got out and walked along the train to tell us what had gone wrong. General opinion among my fellow passengers was that they should have stuck with the slammers as they were easier to get out of.

 

[Towers]

Any sensible business would be able to keep the 455s going for as long as it takes. Spare parts might be costly to obtain, but not impossible. The Belgians have just finished using EMUs dating from the 1960s. Going back the the arrival of the Networkers, the unrefurbished EPBs were far more battered than the SWR 455s are now but they kept going. They were essentially in as built 1950s condition. The 455s have had an extensive refurb and also modern traction equipment installed.

The 455s will be kept in service for as long as they’re needed, the alternative of shutting down the Waterloo suburban network isn’t going to happen. TfW are scrapping their 150s as life expired, out of exam etc, and yet Northern and GWR have fleets of identical - and indeed even older - units which will be in service for a number of years yet. These are the same MK3 steel bodyshells as the 455s. Some of these units are doubtless as rotten as a peach, but some of them were like that ten years ago and they’re still going strong. Rot can be sorted if need be. It’s time consuming and expensive, but nothing that can’t be repaired on a heavy overhaul if it needs doing.

 

[markle]

deleted

 

[Bikeman78]

Unions will back down once the 455 cab doors start falling off

I guess you don't remember the class 205 DEMUs on the Uckfield line? Every panel, door and luggage rack in the power car rattled and vibrated, but even they carried on for years in that state. I must say that I find repeated reports of 455s falling apart quite amusing. I thought they were a bit cheap and rattly 30 years ago, and yet here they are, still working fine.

 

[Goldfish62]

I thought they were a bit cheap and rattly 30 years ago, and yet here they are, still working fine.

They're not working fine, that's the problem.

 

[Bikeman78]

There isn't exactly a surfeit of 455s available for SWR to have a bunch of them off for a heavy overhaul without a significant impact on passenger service.

They will have to stop anyway when they run out of miles or time. So they can stop one or two at a time now, or wait for the problem to get progressively worse as more units have to stop.

 

[Goldfish62]

They will have to stop anyway when they run out of miles or time. So they can stop one or two at a time now, or wait for the problem to get progressively worse as more units have to stop.

Or the money can be spent instead on getting platforms up to scratch for DCO, starting with the ones where there are length or sighting issues making it problematic for guard dispatch.

 

[Bikeman78]

They're not working fine, that's the problem.

In terms of getting people from A to B, they generally are. If you don't like them, that's fine. I can't stand Voyagers but they are still a reliable machine that rarely breaks down. As regards this discussion, SWR needs to find a way of getting the 701s into service ASAP. Alternatively, they need to continue to maintain the 455s for as long as it takes. Otherwise, they are stuffed. There would basically be no stopping service from Waterloo on all the routes through Wimbledon.

 

[Goldfish62]

In terms of getting people from A to B, they generally are. If you don't like them, that's fine.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with whether I like them or not. Whatever gave you that idea? As has been highlighted umpteen times here and elsewhere corrosion is a major issue (and you can't just keep welding and welding) and sourcing of parts is a issue. Plus the not minor fact that the trains provide insufficient capacity now, let alone catering for any future increases in passenger numbers.

So no, they are most definitely not fine.

 

[class701]

If only there were some perfectly serviceable 456s they could stick on the end of an eight-car 455 in the interim. Perhaps they could breakup the ten-car 701 with two 455 cabs in the middle 455-7 style.

 

[Deepgreen]

Similar comparisons were made when the 455s were introduced. There's very little that can go wrong with a slam door.

Absolutely! Your moniker suggests you are from my neck of the woods - I grew up between Norbiton and New Malden and my grandmother used to live in Norbiton. The worst thing I can recall going wrong with a SUB/EPB was a bulb going in a saloon!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2025 ==

I'm too young to recall the SUB to class 508 switch. I do vaguely recall shiny space age trains in amongst the thousands of slam door trains, which must have been 508s. I do recall the 465/466 and 357s when new. With the former, the BREL and Met-Cam units would not talk to each other. The 357s had various problems such that a motley collection of classes 310/312 and 317 were hired in to cover for a year. Both of these seem like a walk in the park compared to the class 701s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==


Perhaps someone could elaborate, on a new thread if necessary. The traction equipment is quite new. I think that most of the other systems are quite similar to class 150s, and most of them have no replacement on order. It's a shame that the Southern units weren't harvested for spare parts.

Not just a shame, but almost scandalously wasteful and short-sighted, even if only a few had been done to provide a reasonable level of sprares, given the sordid history of getting new stock into service these days. That's the fragmented railway of today for you.

 

[DMckduck]

Thanks for confirming.



Interesting! I can understand that - on the other hand if guards are being kept surely better to keep them keep them busy and as useful as possible.

Believe it or not the sentiment stated isn't true in the slightest, keeping the doors guarantees the job for the long term and why would others be so upset about other grades pay packet every four weeks.

There may be a few loud personalities moaning but I'm almost certain there is no bad blood or negative sentiment.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It's a shame that the Southern units weren't harvested for spare parts.

Apart from the basic bodyshells and maybe the door mechanisms, they didn't have much in common by the end. SWR had replaced both the seats and the traction systems, and Southern had modified the cabs to remove the gangway connections.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2025 ==

It might be cheaper/quicker at this stage, to order new driving cabs for all (or most) of the 60 ten-car units and make them five-car units.

It might be easier and quicker to build 120 new driving trailers, rather than modify the existing vehicles.

But I don't think having cabs in the middle of the trains will solve all the problems.

 

[DMckduck]

Question has to be asked, in ordering the 701 fleet as a type, which for the record I personally thought was (as far as the SW network was concerned) a step change for the good in passenger and operational terms, did certain 'facts', such as an assumption about DOO (I will say no more), but more crucially other issues partly train to platform interface etc, in certain operational circumstances, just get overlooked/ignored?

You've hit the nail on the head, whoever bought/signed off these trains within SWR was so incredibly short sighted that they assumed DOO was inevitable.

The product shows, we are now with stuck with a train that is designed for DOO and only that, trying to operate with a guard and the consequences are very obvious.

Platform curvature, signal sighting and short platforms from the back cab are all of a sudden a serious issue on a DOO train.

This procurement process will be a lesson for GBR, any new rolling stock should be suitable for all types of methods of working.

To also add, if DOO get through in early 2020, what kind of mess would the metro area be in now with what 5 diagrams?

 

[pompeyfan]

I understand the issues at station isn’t just a lack of lamp posts, it’s stuff that can’t easily be solved like glare from the signal lenses bouncing off the side of the train making it difficult to establish if the PTI is clear and close the doors. Trying to get signals re-sited is an absolute minefield and would result in blockades to put the foundations in to move signal gantries etc.

That said however, CCTV DOO isn’t a new concept (I believe 377s were the first units delivered with body side cameras 20 odd years ago) and there must be a solution to allow the numerous body side camera fleets to operate. Is the solution to reduce the safety standard? modify the cameras? Move the signals? I don’t know I’m afraid. I’ve said it before but GA managed it 4/5 years ago so it can’t be impossible (that said, they already had stretches of pure DOO, so might have been easier to push through the unions as it was seen as an increase in safety, rather than a decrease)

 

[Bikeman78]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with whether I like them or not. Whatever gave you that idea? As has been highlighted umpteen times here and elsewhere corrosion is a major issue (and you can't just keep welding and welding) and sourcing of parts is a issue. Plus the not minor fact that the trains provide insufficient capacity now, let alone catering for any future increases in passenger numbers.

So no, they are most definitely not fine.

We could go around in circles about this for weeks. My basic point still stands. They need to keep the old trains going until the new ones start running.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2025 ==

I’ve said it before but GA managed it 4/5 years ago so it can’t be impossible (that said, they already had stretches of pure DOO, so might have been easier to push through the unions as it was seen as an increase in safety, rather than a decrease)

I think you have hit the nail on the head. West Anglia drivers had been driving class 317 DOO for 30 years. At some stations they simply lowered the cab window and/or looked in a mirror to view the full length of an eight car train. Imagine that on a dark wet day. From that starting point, the only way was up.

 

[Warrior2852]

Wow - really surprised at that! My uneducated guess is that there was originally to be no guards panel and the only way one could be designed in as described due to the passcom being in the way?

I've seen this arrangement of guard panels in a fair few classes on other operators too - Northern's 195s and 331s have them diagonally too for instance.

 

[waterboo]

And in fairness, Northern do not have the ability to despatch from the cab in 195 / 331s. So in crush loaded trains they always have to use the vestibule. I know it's not ideal but given that DOGC is a temporary measure (one hopes), why can't SWR guards join their Northern colleagues, if there is a precedent set? At least the guards don't have to open the doors on SWR so they have greater freedom to hop off and rejoin the train at a suitable despatch location, without door release time penalty.

 

[Carlisle]

That said however, CCTV DOO isn’t a new concept (I believe 377s were the first units delivered with body side cameras 20 odd years ago)

It was the Scotrail class 334s

 

[nuts & bolts]

Longcross could easily be done tomorrow, but given it's a rarity to ever see anyone board or alight a train there it's unlikely there's ever be a case for it.

In the morning peak there are a few customers boarding and alighting due to the film studio and the residential development which is almost complete.

 

[Theburritoz]

There is probably a reason why no one has suggested this but is it possible to just remove one carriage from the 10 carriage units until a solution is found?

 

[DelW]

They will have to stop anyway when they run out of miles or time. So they can stop one or two at a time now, or wait for the problem to get progressively worse as more units have to stop.

The timescale for heavy overhaul and corrosion repairs is likely to be several months per unit. Releasing one or two at a time would produce a single-figure number of overhauled trains per year. Even if more could be released (which would worsen current overcrowding), I doubt there's enough workshop capacity to complete most of the fleet within the eighteen months or so that is all they have left.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

There is probably a reason why no one has suggested this but is it possible to just remove one carriage from the 10 carriage units until a solution is found?

It's technically possible. They've done it with other Aventras, notably the 345 going from 7 to 9. However it would be a bit of a unnecessarily complex process as you'd have to move the extra carriage out and then get the cab carriage from behind that and attach that to the back, which I don't think would be feasible at the depots so they'd all have to go to Derby again

 

[D365]

Why have no five-car units even reached SWR yet anyway? What's the excuse there? The five-cars should be in service first in pairs. Now there's an idea!

Where are all the 5-car 701s and why are they not in service in pairs? They could fill in the shortfall in stock next week.

Because SWR is understandably prioritising the ten car units…

 

[DMckduck]

There is probably a reason why no one has suggested this but is it possible to just remove one carriage from the 10 carriage units until a solution is found?

9 is no good on the metro network, it would need to be 7 to fit all short platforms on the network.

No doubt it would make a mess of the TMS aswell.

 

[Meerkat]

This is probably a really stupid question but how do the guards operate the doors from a cab - could they do it from the drivers cab if that’s on the platform?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Because SWR is understandably prioritising the ten car units…

Why? a usable 2x5 has more available seats than an unusable 10car

There is probably a reason why no one has suggested this but is it possible to just remove one carriage from the 10 carriage units until a solution is found?

It might be possible - depends if there is a car in the train with no essential equipment. It would anyway probably need a soaftware tweak to let the train's computer know there are only nine cars, or some black box in the connection between the cars at the point where a car has been removed to fool the system into thinking it's still there.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I understand the issues at station isn’t just a lack of lamp posts, it’s stuff that can’t easily be solved like glare from the signal lenses bouncing off the side of the train making it difficult to establish if the PTI is clear and close the doors. Trying to get signals re-sited is an absolute minefield and would result in blockades to put the foundations in to move signal gantries etc.

That said however, CCTV DOO isn’t a new concept (I believe 377s were the first units delivered with body side cameras 20 odd years ago) and there must be a solution to allow the numerous body side camera fleets to operate. Is the solution to reduce the safety standard? modify the cameras? Move the signals? I don’t know I’m afraid. I’ve said it before but GA managed it 4/5 years ago so it can’t be impossible (that said, they already had stretches of pure DOO, so might have been easier to push through the unions as it was seen as an increase in safety, rather than a decrease)

100's of stations are lit for DOO working and are even operated with Aventra platform trains and plenty of other trains with bodyside cameras now v platform monitors. Something is seriously awry on the SW and the industry should hold its head in shame about what has unfolded here.