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

[CarrotPie]

Whilst the shortening of names is something thats agreeably odd at this stage it isn't foreign to the network due to the Desiros using that same format.

Desiros have to, because the full names don't fit on the screens, especially the tiny display above the cab. 701s don't have this issue.

As you said if they don't know who to complain to about the PIS system then how is an assessment being made that the PIS system is generally being seen as a bad spec?

Any PIS (Passenger Information System) that arbitrarily abbreviates station names, announces useless connections and so on is objectively "bad" (note: not "bad spec"). I don't know whether the cause of the PIS issues on the 701s is a specification issue on the part of SWR or an implementation issue on the part of Bombardier/Alstom and their possible subcontractors, or perhaps a combination of both. I don't think you know, either, nor anyone else on this forum, which is fair enough.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Desiros have to, because the full names don't fit on the screens, especially the tiny display above the cab. 701s don't have this issue.

Any PIS (Passenger Information System) that arbitrarily abbreviates station names, announces useless connections and so on is objectively "bad" (note: not "bad spec"). I don't know whether the cause of the PIS issues on the 701s is a specification issue on the part of SWR or an implementation issue on the part of Bombardier/Alstom and their possible subcontractors, or perhaps a combination of both. I don't think you know, either, nor anyone else on this forum, which is fair enough.

Its been show with the 345s, 710s and 720s that yes a pretty functional PIS system can be done so its as mentioned above in my previous case more so a element of time running around with actual passengers and being tested and adjusted based on passenger and other relevant feedback for the SWR PIS on the 701s to be further improved. The SWR PIS still hasn't had a proper Version update, only minor patches, biggest clue is the TFL Rail still showing. 2026 is when they'll really start tackling several issues not just PIS related.

 

[Recessio]

Correct. Internally the talk was a new PIS update would begin to be rolled out in the first few months of 2026. I would sincerely hope it is not whatever they've done to 701042, because the version on that unit is inexplicably worse. I understand why the company prioritised getting trains into service as opposed to fixing the PIS, but things need to change fast. I can assure you the guards who sign 701s are absolutely sick of the sheer amount of automated announcements, let alone the passengers...

Good to hear an update is coming - to be fair I completely understand why the priority would be getting units working in service first and minor tweaks later. Hopefully as more units enter service, whoever specs the design for the PIS will take on further feedback and improvements. Also it must be said there is some irony at SWR guards being sick of repetitive announcements

 

[w11_supremecy]

Good to hear an update is coming - to be fair I completely understand why the priority would be getting units working in service first and minor tweaks later. Hopefully as more units enter service, whoever specs the design for the PIS will take on further feedback and improvements. Also it must be said there is some irony at SWR guards being sick of repetitive announcements

It’s very funny you say that. Just today the company sent out an internal brief saying announcements essentially can now be done at the guard’s discretion (aside from the important ones like attachments/detachment details, short platforms etc), and no more ‘principal station announcements.’ There have been countless complaints about the amount of announcements SWR guards make, but until today there was a ‘script’ and a list of standards that must be met. So really one can’t be blaming the guards when they are getting checked and assessed on this very regularly. But from now on, there should/will be much less talk from the guard unless it’s actually essential, or they love the sound of their own voice a bit too much… I’m sure there are many on this forum that will love the sound of this…

 

[DMckduck]

Good to hear an update is coming - to be fair I completely understand why the priority would be getting units working in service first and minor tweaks later. Hopefully as more units enter service, whoever specs the design for the PIS will take on further feedback and improvements. Also it must be said there is some irony at SWR guards being sick of repetitive announcements

I suspect the guards don't want to announce half the stuff they have to either.

Announcement overload is a massive problem nationwide, and for some reason the DFT still aren't doing anything to tackle it.

61016, mind the gap and safety info in ALL coaches is just slop.

 

[w11_supremecy]

I suspect the guards don't want to announce half the stuff they have to either.

Announcement overload is a massive problem nationwide, and for some reason the DFT still aren't doing anything to tackle it.

61016, mind the gap and safety info in ALL coaches is just slop.

I can only speak for myself but even trying to keep it as brief as possible was difficult enough with the ridiculous standards the company had of guard announcements, but thankfully they’ve come to their senses today and it shouldn’t be a common problem anymore. Of course you will get some that will continue to repeat all the automated announcements, but it’s a step in the right direction regardless. Hopefully this PIS update comes sooner rather than later.

 

[WWTownEnth]

Pretty sure someone said that today is the day five new 701 diagrams appear in the LTPS, albeit to be continje to be covered by 450s in the STPs

Anyone know if this happened and what the diagrams are?

 

[Vexed]

Just today the company sent out an internal brief saying announcements essentially can now be done at the guard’s discretion (aside from the important ones like attachments/detachment details, short platforms etc), and no more ‘principal station announcements.’ There have been countless complaints about the amount of announcements SWR guards make, but until today there was a ‘script’ and a list of standards that must be met. So really one can’t be blaming the guards when they are getting checked and assessed on this very regularly. But from now on, there should/will be much less talk from the guard unless it’s actually essential, or they love the sound of their own voice a bit too much… I’m sure there are many on this forum that will love the sound of this…

Indeed. Just to check, does this apply to non-Arterio operated services as well? If so I will look forward a bit more to my next SWR journey next week!

Edit - to avoid going off topic here I've copied the quote to this thread

Are SWR's on board announcements excessive?

I went Waterloo to Portsmouth on a semi-fast with lots of stops recently and didn’t find the announcements excessive, but maybe I tuned most of them out.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[CarrotPie]

Pretty sure someone said that today is the day five new 701 diagrams appear in the LTPS, albeit to be continje to be covered by 450s in the STPs

Anyone know if this happened and what the diagrams are?

Yes, you said posted that exact same message earlier (spelling error included) and nobody seemed to know. Since SWR is now a public company, it should be possible to FOI them and find out; SE at least are very forthcoming with their diagrams, although they've been doing it for years now.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, you said posted that exact same message earlier (spelling error included) and nobody seemed to know. Since SWR is now a public company, it should be possible to FOI them and find out; SE at least are very forthcoming with their diagrams, although they've been doing it for years now.

The diagrams are posted on the SWR website as and when they change.

 

[Stephen42]

true, could be that's why the week just now, 701045 didn't came out

It's unlikely, if there was no desire to get the unit the loco wouldn't have been sent to Long Marston.

The move for this week is now published on RTT for Wednesday running at similar times to normal:

Realtime Trains | 0V70 0851 Leicester L.I.P. to Long Marston Gbrf | 11/02/2026

Real-time train running information for 0V70 0851 departure from Leicester L.I.P. to Long Marston Gbrf on 11/02/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 5Q70 1435 Long Marston Gbrf to Wimbledon Park Depot Sdgs | 11/02/2026

Real-time train running information for 5Q70 1435 departure from Long Marston Gbrf to Wimbledon Park Depot Sdgs on 11/02/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The loco goes back to Leicester on Thursday from Wembley.

Pretty sure someone said that today is the day five new 701 diagrams appear in the LTPS, albeit to be continje to be covered by 450s in the STPs

Anyone know if this happened and what the diagrams are?

The previous ones expired at the end of last week so would be onto the new ones. They are made available to SWR staff in advance of the change and would trust the reliable sources of that info. They are usually published on the diagrams part of SWRs website a bit after coming into effect.

Nothing really looks to have changed diagram wise yet based on RTT. The STPs will be the more interesting part once changes are introduced. With the Monday/Tuesday engineering works on the Kingston loop next week that might discourage adding more diagrams next week with everything else going on.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

That is indeed what the subsequent updates and patches will hopefully tackle, albeit with more passenger input. Whilst the shortening of names is something thats agreeably odd at this stage it isn't foreign to the network due to the Desiro's using that same format. The passenger having headed to the platform often sees the platform based screens, potentially a member of staff before that and either the side destination(which remains the same format as I understand) or the internal screens. At worst the Guard is about.

Desiros have to, because the full names don't fit on the screens, especially the tiny display above the cab. 701s don't have this issue.

And even the desiros say ”London Waterloo” on the side window PIS displays.

 

[NSEWonderer]

And even the desiros say ”London Waterloo” on the side window PIS displays.

Yes like the 701s do just without the sliding calling at stations list or coach number

 

[Feathers44]

This is why things like this need to be tested and challenged by non-software people, because otherwise the spec (however bad it is) and the interpretation of the spec (however loose it is) go unquestioned until it's too late.

Except it's never too late for a software update these days - you just email it to Wimbledon and get Bob to go round and plug a USB stick into each train (other methods of software distribution are available).

If the customer doesn't know what is required, that doesn't excuse a bad system. If the specification was written badly, someone on some side (SWR/Bombardier/Alstom/anyone else who's had a look at these units) should have noticed and got something done about it. The customer is not always right.

How is that relevant? PIS testing can be done independently of safety-critical testing, because as long as the train is built correctly, the software can always be updated before the unit enters service.

How likely? According to what source? Either way, that doesn't excuse advertising Southern trains at Vauxhall and, more importantly, it's really easy to find the correct spelling of station names online!

There’s a lot of nonsense about software development running around this thread with some, frankly, bizarre assumptions about what could, shout or ought to have been done.

Like any engineering project, a specification is presented, a price is agreed and the work is done. If what is delivered doesn’t match what was agreed the developer likely doesn’t get paid and has to do it all again until it matches what was asked for. If what was agreed changes mid stream, the price goes up and the timescale slips.

The thought that anyone in that food chain has license to ‘improve’ the output of the process just because the results are objectively bad puts us into cloud cuckoo land.

Slating the software team because they did what was asked of them is just lazy. You might as well abuse train drivers who continue to pick up passengers when the train is running behind.

The difficult here is common. People in any role tend to ask for what they think they want without an understanding of what they actually need. In this case it looks like someone who’s never worked front line grabbed a list of abbreviated station names, stuck it in a document because they didn’t know better and that’s what we got.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The difficult here is common. People in any role tend to ask for what they think they want without an understanding of what they actually need. In this case it looks like someone who’s never worked front line grabbed a list of abbreviated station names, stuck it in a document because they didn’t know better and that’s what we got.

Indeed - "garbage in, garbage out" applies to product specification as much as to statitical analysis.

Likewise, if you specify something too precisely (eg too many decimal places) the cost will go up because quality control will have to be more rigid and/or there will be more rejects from the manufacturing process. (i.e don't say something has to be 1000mm if it only needs to be "about a metre"

 

[markle]

There’s a lot of nonsense about software development running around this thread with some, frankly, bizarre assumptions about what could, shout or ought to have been done.

Like any engineering project, a specification is presented, a price is agreed and the work is done. If what is delivered doesn’t match what was agreed the developer likely doesn’t get paid and has to do it all again until it matches what was asked for. If what was agreed changes mid stream, the price goes up and the timescale slips.

The thought that anyone in that food chain has license to ‘improve’ the output of the process just because the results are objectively bad puts us into cloud cuckoo land.

That depends entirely on whether you are operating in a 1990s-era V-model for delivery, or operating under a more modern agile delivery model.

The later is far more customer-oriented and usually results in better outcomes.

 

[Feathers44]

And where would you put your money on the rail industry lying on that particular sliding scale?

(I’m not betting because I know the answer)

 

[Peter Sarf]

This is why things like this need to be tested and challenged by non-software people, because otherwise the spec (however bad it is) and the interpretation of the spec (however loose it is) go unquestioned until it's too late.

Except it's never too late for a software update these days - you just email it to Wimbledon and get Bob to go round and plug a USB stick into each train (other methods of software distribution are available).

If the customer doesn't know what is required, that doesn't excuse a bad system. If the specification was written badly, someone on some side (SWR/Bombardier/Alstom/anyone else who's had a look at these units) should have noticed and got something done about it. The customer is not always right.

My bold.
The non software people are the customer. More often than not what they asked for was delivered, when they see it they realise they did not want quite what they got. In my software development experience it could be like getting blood out of a stone getting the customer to spend time carefully thinking through what they really want. At some point a very senior member of the team would get agreement in writing for what we defined as the customers requirement and proceed on that. The customer might not have spent any time checking it (which would become obvious later). There will always be changes of mind BUT sometimes things were very different once the customer really sat down and thought about it or was confronted with the result. If that was after the software had been written and tested the changes could be hopelessly complicated and expensive. Station names is the least of it !.

There’s a lot of nonsense about software development running around this thread with some, frankly, bizarre assumptions about what could, shout or ought to have been done.

Like any engineering project, a specification is presented, a price is agreed and the work is done. If what is delivered doesn’t match what was agreed the developer likely doesn’t get paid and has to do it all again until it matches what was asked for. If what was agreed changes mid stream, the price goes up and the timescale slips.

The thought that anyone in that food chain has license to ‘improve’ the output of the process just because the results are objectively bad puts us into cloud cuckoo land.

Slating the software team because they did what was asked of them is just lazy. You might as well abuse train drivers who continue to pick up passengers when the train is running behind.

The difficult here is common. People in any role tend to ask for what they think they want without an understanding of what they actually need. In this case it looks like someone who’s never worked front line grabbed a list of abbreviated station names, stuck it in a document because they didn’t know better and that’s what we got.

Well put.

It is very very likely the station names on the 701s are exactly what the customer asked for. I can imagine this was quite possibly an existing list got from somewhere by the customer, possibly a list of what Desiros already had on them, possibly an old list of what was originally wanted on trains, possibly an abbreviated list knocked up quickly and never padded out correctly by the customer or possibly not !. I can imagine the customer got exactly what they asked for in the fianl specification before programming work started.

Now lets not forget the list of station names might be realistically viewed as not much more than data so potentially not hard to fix for the 701s. But I can imagine the software might not cope with the services that loop back to Waterloo and this might require quite a big change to the logic in the software making it very different to that used on other Aventras (as in costs money).

Its easy to blame the result but not so easy to consider that the request was poor.

 

[Roylang]

That depends entirely on whether you are operating in a 1990s-era V-model for delivery, or operating under a more modern agile delivery model.

The later is far more customer-oriented and usually results in better outcomes.

Sorry, but that is staight out of the Agile marketing, and is a load of rubbish.

I spent many years managing software development using the V model, and it can be as agile as Agile, if the will is there on both sides.

In fact, look at the Project Management Institutes success rates for Agile projects, and they do both paint a rosy picture.

Roy

 

[Alxxxs]

On a 701 to Weybridge now. Both toilets are out of service. Not very convenient…

 

[Goldfish62]

On a 701 to Weybridge now. Both toilets are out of service. Not very convenient…

I have only come across that once before. Mind you, on the 8-458/4 I was on the other evening all four loos were out of order.

 

[mansonlo49]

I have only come across that once before. Mind you, on the 8-458/4 I was on the other evening all four loos were out of order.

Speaking of toilet, I think the Coradia have this common problem, been on the 334 before and have toilets often broken

 

[swr444]

Speaking of toilet, I think the Corodia have this common problem, been on the 334 before and have toilets often broken

The badly positioned and over sensitive “bowl full” sensor plus the electronic system the toilets use are the main problems

 

[mansonlo49]

Today’s 0V70 showing two locos together, is it mean that there’ll be another drag some point this week?

 

[SeaKing]

Today’s 0V70 showing two locos together, is it mean that there’ll be another drag some point this week?

Left Leicester 38 mins late
On its way left Long Marston 5 late.

 

[Julia]

As a programmer I often queried specifications. At some firms it was welcomed and corrections carefully considered. At other firms my initiative was not welcome, you then quickly learn to do exactly as you are told. In my experience (and from my point of view) the business often does not have a keen interest in the system specification and so it is inevitable that software goes live that is inadequate and then subsequent modifications are requested.

With my cynical software engineer's hat on, I'm sure a lot of firms in this line of work are keenly aware that post-release modifications are a *lot* more profitable than the initial job, when you effectively have the purchaser over a barrel. And therefore they have a perverse incentive to allow a poor spec to make it through unchallenged...

 

[samulih]

Sorry, but that is staight out of the Agile marketing, and is a load of rubbish.

I spent many years managing software development using the V model, and it can be as agile as Agile, if the will is there on both sides.

In fact, look at the Project Management Institutes success rates for Agile projects, and they do both paint a rosy picture.

Roy

And having these debates is quite hard as we do not know what was asked by the receiver of trains or maker of the trains.... Seems here that people talk with their preconceived notions showing thru.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Today’s 0V70 showing two locos together, is it mean that there’ll be another drag some point this week?

To save anyone looking the locos are 57303 & 57306. I was hoping to find one was a 99 or better still both were - but no.

RTT link below.

Realtime Trains | 0V70 0851 Leicester L.I.P. to Long Marston Gbrf | 11/02/2026

Real-time train running information for 0V70 0851 departure from Leicester L.I.P. to Long Marston Gbrf on 11/02/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Nothing to say both locos are for 701 moves, nothing to say where to, nothing to say one loco is chaperoning the other loco after a major repair/fault, could be two locos needed to end up in SWR land so one is hitching a ride.

It has been known for one 701 to leave for Wimbledon and one 701 to leave for Eastleigh. But I think that was one loco for both jobs and both from nearby Marchwood.

Looking at RTT there is only the one actual move today and the timing load is same as last weeks cancelled one.

Realtime Trains | 5Q70 1435 Long Marston Gbrf to Wimbledon Park Depot Sdgs | 11/02/2026

Real-time train running information for 5Q70 1435 departure from Long Marston Gbrf to Wimbledon Park Depot Sdgs on 11/02/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[norbitonflyer]

Speaking of toilet, I think the Corodia have this common problem, been on the 334 before and have toilets often broken

Is "Corodia" a deliberate misspelling, or a freudian slip?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

It is very very likely the station names on the 701s are exactly what the customer asked for. I can imagine this was quite possibly an existing list got from somewhere by the customer, possibly a list of what Desiros already had on them, possibly an old list of what was originally wanted on trains, possibly an abbreviated list knocked up quickly and never padded out correctly by the customer or possibly not !. I can imagine the customer got exactly what they asked for in the fianl specification before programming work started.

Quiet possibly - a data set originally tailored for the constraints of the Desiro re-used willy-nilly without taking advantage of the greater capabity of the new system

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

Indeed. Just to check, does this apply to non-Arterio operated services as well? If so I will look forward a bit more to my next SWR journey next week!

You may be dissappointed. taking a random day - today - all Kingston rounders are Arterios. (Hounslow rounders are peak hour only)

 

[mansonlo49]

Is "Corodia" a deliberate misspelling, or a freudian slip?

What’s Freudian slip?