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

[TEW]

The complete new diagram next week is;
5M03 0556 Wimbledon Park Depot to Wimbledon
2M03 0609 Wimbledon to Chessington South
2M10 0634 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2M09 0720 London Waterloo to Chessington South
2M16 0804 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2F15 0850 London Waterloo to Woking
2F24 1003 Woking to London Waterloo
2G25 1103 London Waterloo to Guildford
2G36 1234 Guildford to London Waterloo
2M35 1347 London Waterloo to Chessington South
2M42 1434 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2F41 1520 London Waterloo to Woking
2F50 1633 Woking to London Waterloo
2J51 1736 London Waterloo to Hampton Court
2J58 1824 Hampton Court to London Waterloo
1D57 1924 London Waterloo to Dorking
1D66 2030 Dorking to London Waterloo
2J67 2136 London Waterloo to Hampton Court
2J74 2224 Hampton Court to London Waterloo
1D73 2310 London Waterloo to Dorking
5Y70 0009 Dorking to Wimbledon Park Depot

 

[norbitonflyer]

Yes. Diagram starting with 2M03. Unsure of the entire days allocation. But it’ll cycle between 2M/2G/2F

The units working 2M03 today (5869/5701) continued/will continue as follows:

2M03-2M10-2M09-2M16-2F15-2F24-2G25-2G36-2M35-2M42-2F41-2F50-2G51-2G62-2M61-2M68-2F67-2F80-1F83

(currently on 2F50: the units rostered for 1F83 are not shown on RTT but that is the next train out of the paltform 2F80 arrives on at Waterloo)

Whether that diagram will be changed next week remains to be seen

EDIT: The previous poster suggests the dagrams will be altered next week, presumably to get the 701 back to Wimbledon rather than stuck at Guildford overnight, so the diagram will be different after 2F50

 

[Goldfish62]

Grea

The complete new diagram next week is;
5M03 0556 Wimbledon Park Depot to Wimbledon
2M03 0609 Wimbledon to Chessington South
2M10 0634 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2M09 0720 London Waterloo to Chessington South
2M16 0804 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2F15 0850 London Waterloo to Woking
2F24 1003 Woking to London Waterloo
2G25 1103 London Waterloo to Guildford
2G36 1234 Guildford to London Waterloo
2M35 1347 London Waterloo to Chessington South
2M42 1434 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2F41 1520 London Waterloo to Woking
2F50 1633 Woking to London Waterloo
2J51 1736 London Waterloo to Hampton Court
2J58 1824 Hampton Court to London Waterloo
1D57 1924 London Waterloo to Dorking
1D66 2030 Dorking to London Waterloo
2J67 2136 London Waterloo to Hampton Court
2J74 2224 Hampton Court to London Waterloo
1D73 2310 London Waterloo to Dorking
5Y70 0009 Dorking to Wimbledon Park Depot

Great, thanks.

 

[Siemens Staines]

The complete new diagram next week is;
5M03 0556 Wimbledon Park Depot to Wimbledon
2M03 0609 Wimbledon to Chessington South
2M10 0634 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2M09 0720 London Waterloo to Chessington South
2M16 0804 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2F15 0850 London Waterloo to Woking
2F24 1003 Woking to London Waterloo
2G25 1103 London Waterloo to Guildford
2G36 1234 Guildford to London Waterloo
2M35 1347 London Waterloo to Chessington South
2M42 1434 Chessington South to London Waterloo
2F41 1520 London Waterloo to Woking
2F50 1633 Woking to London Waterloo
2J51 1736 London Waterloo to Hampton Court
2J58 1824 Hampton Court to London Waterloo
1D57 1924 London Waterloo to Dorking
1D66 2030 Dorking to London Waterloo
2J67 2136 London Waterloo to Hampton Court
2J74 2224 Hampton Court to London Waterloo
1D73 2310 London Waterloo to Dorking
5Y70 0009 Dorking to Wimbledon Park Depot

Thank you for this information. So presumably the 2*455 on

2D50 1558 Guildford to London Waterloo
will work
2G51 1733 London Waterloo to Guildford

and everything else remains the same?

 

[Bigfoot]

EDIT: The previous poster suggests the dagrams will be altered next week, presumably to get the 701 back to Wimbledon rather than stuck at Guildford overnight, so the diagram will be different after 2F50

Currently either none or only a tiny number of Guildford Drivers are trained on 701s. Would have to be a night link Waterloo crew staying overnight or cross covered from Woking/Wimbledon which is unlikely to happen.

 

[TEW]

Thank you for this information. So presumably the 2*455 on

2D50 1558 Guildford to London Waterloo
will work
2G51 1733 London Waterloo to Guildford

and everything else remains the same?

That is correct.

 

[cactustwirly]

Hmm … could illustrate a downside of using a very long train on a lightly used service. Less deterrent to vandalism and generally bad behaviour, also deters people from using trains if they think they may be sitting in an empty coach wondering who might get on at the next station. The ideal is surely for a train to be a bit busy, but still with plenty of seats available; makes users and potential users feel more comfortable.

Was it really such a great idea to specify most of the 701s as 10 car fixed formations? The old Southern Railway approach of all units being either 4 car or 2 car was so much more flexible, allowing trains to be sized according to demand; units were easier to store in sidings, too. And faults only took up to 4 cars out of service, not the whole 10. Yes, more work for staff but in an AI-dominated future is that a bad thing?

No different to Thameslink or Southeastern with the 700s/707s

That's also a fairly affluent part of London compared to Dartford, Sutton line, Sevenoaks services

 

[MontyP]

When the rollout is complete, is there any reason for the Sheppertons to stay as self-contained diagrams? I think this is only the case as they focused the 707s on this route. But the performance is abysmal due to the very short turnarounds at both ends (obviously the very short turnaround at Shepperton would remain even if the diagrams were integrated)

 

[mansonlo49]

701050. Confirmed by sight.

There's another tomorrow, assume also 701/0

 

[Peter Wilde]

One train that has been badly soiled. I've set similar on 450s and 455s in the past. Let's not overthink the issue.

It's pretty irrelevant anyway because SWR / SWT have long tended to keep formations fixed throughout the day and not split them for the evenings. Plus the guards on 701s are in the saloon rather than in a middle cab oblivious of what may be going on in a part of the train. .

Fair point - except that the issue of one guard trying to look after an almost empty 10 coach unit is exactly the kind of thing that puts off potential users - it’s not likely to deter bad behaviour or be perceived as a safe environment.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fair point - except that the issue of one guard trying to look after an almost empty 10 coach unit is exactly the kind of thing that puts off potential users - it’s not likely to deter bad behaviour or be perceived as a safe environment.

8/10/12 car units have been running around on Thameslink and Greater Anglia for the best part of 4 decades with precisely zero guards, and it doesn’t seem to put off potential users. I am routinely standing on 8/12 car trains in the late evening on Thameslink.

 

[Peter Wilde]

There are pros and cons to this, but extra cabs means extra expense in building them, and less space for passengers when in service.

Coupling and uncoupling in service can be difficult - what if the coupling is frozen solid and refuses to disengage?

Or, converesly, if when coupling up the units refuse to talk to each other? (Remember the problems with the 458s on introduction where, if the stories going round at the time are correct, the units could only be coupled in a depot, on a straight piece of track, and where there was somewhere to but the cover plates. Whether this was a misunderstanding between the TOC and the supplier in the specification, or
something else, (or complete fiction) I don't know.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2025 ==


Looks that way - 2V45 will be its first run in passenger service - 1607 Hounslow rounder (2C55 will be its second)

But we won't know for sure until 1607

The other half of the diagram, this morning, was covered by 701051

Fair point re extra cabs taking up space and creating expense - though they can be useful when cannibalising 2 collision-damaged units to make one usable one.

As for the coupling uncertainties - yes that is a valid argument, but surely this is just an indictment of all modern train builders and in particular, their software. Coupling/ uncoupling used to be a quick and simple matter.

However this is thread drift. Thanks for your comment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2025 ==

8/10/12 car units have been running around on Thameslink and Greater Anglia for the best part of 4 decades with precisely zero guards, and it doesn’t seem to put off potential users. I am routinely standing on 8/12 car trains in the late evening on Thameslink.

With respect - we simply do not know that. Neither railway staff, nor regular users, nor enthusiasts know how many people might like to use the railway, but are prevented from doing so by a perception it is scary - especially for lone travellers or late at night.

 

[Minstral25]

8/10/12 car units have been running around on Thameslink and Greater Anglia for the best part of 4 decades with precisely zero guards, and it doesn’t seem to put off potential users.

Yes, thread drift but I'd dispute not putting people off. Safety on the train is regularly raised by Rail Users

I am routinely standing on 8/12 car trains in the late evening on Thameslink.

Feel for you - the seats are far too small for gentlemen of a certain age like me!

 

[TEW]

When the rollout is complete, is there any reason for the Sheppertons to stay as self-contained diagrams? I think this is only the case as they focused the 707s on this route. But the performance is abysmal due to the very short turnarounds at both ends (obviously the very short turnaround at Shepperton would remain even if the diagrams were integrated)

They have been self contained since long before the 707s, and pre-2020 all the main Suburban turnarounds at Waterloo were short, and there would have been limited opportunity to swap things around to improve them.
Things are a bit different now though, turnarounds for down services via Epsom were improved before Covid, and now the removal of 2tph via Epsom Off Peak also means there is some unused platform capacity at Waterloo too.
It would depend on whether it could be made to work on the Waterloo station throat, but it does feel like changes to the interworking at Waterloo could be made to help improve the reliability of Shepperton services.

 

[Bald Rick]

With respect - we simply do not know that. Neither railway staff, nor regular users, nor enthusiasts know how many people might like to use the railway, but are prevented from doing so by a perception it is scary - especially for lone travellers or late at night.

OK, but the fact that the trains are very well loaded (also, see late night tubes) suggests that many people are not being put off. Obviously some people would be, but i strongly doubt that most passengers even know the arrangements on different lines for having guards on board or not.

 

[mansonlo49]

Just noticed this on rtt now, any info which unit went down to Farnham thanks

 

[cactustwirly]

Fair point re extra cabs taking up space and creating expense - though they can be useful when cannibalising 2 collision-damaged units to make one usable one.

As for the coupling uncertainties - yes that is a valid argument, but surely this is just an indictment of all modern train builders and in particular, their software. Coupling/ uncoupling used to be a quick and simple matter.

However this is thread drift. Thanks for your comment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2025 ==



With respect - we simply do not know that. Neither railway staff, nor regular users, nor enthusiasts know how many people might like to use the railway, but are prevented from doing so by a perception it is scary - especially for lone travellers or late at night.

I've taken many late night trains and buses, very rarely does it feel unsafe
Mostly just like any other service

 

[Flange Squeal]

Personally, the openness of trains like 701s and modern tube stock, with the walk-through gangways rather than doors between coaches, I think actually feels safer in regards to late night travelling. The train becomes more like one long tube where you can see/hear what's going on in neighbouring carriages, rather than having doors and narrower gangways acting as a physical barrier between each coach where you can feel more 'alone'.

 

[Pippy1505]

Just noticed this on rtt now, any info which unit went down to Farnham thanks

701059

 

[Nimbus020]

Unit 031 stuck at Earlsfield due to fault (towards W’loo)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2025 ==

Unit 031 now out of service & blocking the up slow @ Earlsfield

 

[LUYMun]

The train becomes more like one long tube where you can see/hear what's going on in neighbouring carriages

While at the same time any unnecessarily loud noise emitting in an adjacent coach can be heard throughout the train with no means of muting it. I’ve already had large groups of rowdy people in an adjacent 455 coach - having those physical barriers is a lifesaver.

 

[Nimbus020]

Unit 031 stuck at Earlsfield due to fault (towards W’loo)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2025 ==

Unit 031 now out of service & blocking the up slow @ Earlsfield

031 eventually left Earlsfield as ecs

 

[Goldfish62]

Fair point - except that the issue of one guard trying to look after an almost empty 10 coach unit is exactly the kind of thing that puts off potential users - it’s not likely to deter bad behaviour or be perceived as a safe environment.

I assume you don't use SWR in the evenings. The trains are far from empty.

How many guards should there be on the train? Would you be prepared to accept service cuts or higher fares to fund it?

The fact is that soiled trains have always happened on occasions. I remember once an AM Peak Reading service (Class 458/0) where several seats were taped off, some with the cushions missing completely. It happens. It's always happened and always will happen.

 

[MotCO]

I assume you don't use SWR in the evenings. The trains are far from empty.

How many guards should there be on the train? Would you be prepared to accept service cuts or higher fares to fund it?

The fact is that soiled trains have always happened on occasions. I remember once an AM Peak Reading service (Class 458/0) where several seats were taped off, some with the cushions missing completely. It happens. It's always happened and always will happen.

I suppose one of the shortfalls of through carriages is that you can't lock a single carriage out of use due to damage, whilst still operating the rest of the rake. You have to take the whole rake oos.

 

[mansonlo49]

701059

Thanks, I forgotten what’s their purpose for them going down to Farnham? Just stabling or?

 

[GW43125]

2S29 has just failed with 701044, making two failures in service today. Not looking promising for next week!

 

[Goldfish62]

2S29 has just failed with 701044, making two failures in service today. Not looking promising for next week!

What's happening next week?

 

[GW43125]

What's happening next week?

Extra diagram as per #14971

 

[Goldfish62]

Extra diagram as per #14971

Well, hopefully the units will be fixed by then. Maybe the missing 458/5 will reappear by then as well!

 

[Flange Squeal]

Thanks, I forgotten what’s their purpose for them going down to Farnham? Just stabling or?

It has some spare siding capacity in which to store units, with some extra roads opening there a few years ago. There’s now 3 at Farnham, up from a consistent 1 of late but has in the past been up to 6 stored there.