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

[InOban]

The more rural stations on SWR are not the more problematic ones. It's a combination of the majority of platforms have never been cleared for DCO before, the standards are probably much higher now than 30 years ago, and it's different ASLEF reps involved who may be more resistant.

I'm puzzled. It's up to experts to establish safe procedures. Obviously they will take advice from staff representatives, but they have, surely, no veto unless what is proposed would put their members in danger. Even if they don't like DCO they must use their professional skills to deliver it, and if there are incidents to passengers, then the responsibility lies elsewhere, not with the drivers. After all there have been passenger injuries West of Paddington with the 345s, it's up to others to address the issues.

 

[43066]

I'm puzzled. It's up to experts to establish safe procedures. Obviously they will take advice from staff representatives, but they have, surely, no veto unless what is proposed would put their members in danger. Even if they don't like DCO they must use their professional skills to deliver it, and if there are incidents to passengers, then the responsibility lies elsewhere, not with the drivers. After all there have been passenger injuries West of Paddington with the 345s, it's up to others to address the issues.

The drivers ASLEF represents will be operating the stock, and are potentially criminally liable for trap and drag type incidents, so the suggestion “the responsibility lies elsewhere” couldn’t be further from the truth. So yes ASLEF will absolutely need input into the sign off process. Indeed they will have agreed to the method of working on that basis.

 

[InOban]

I argued that if they are operating the train according to their instructions, then they are not liable. The liability lies with those who authorised those procedures. As is the case west of Paddington

 

[43066]

I argued that if they are operating the train according to their instructions, then they are not liable. The liability lies with those who authorised those procedures. As is the case west of Paddington

Not necessarily the case, as the Martin Zee case demonstrated. It also isn’t as black and white as “operating according to their instructions”, as anyone who has ever actually used DOO dispatch equipment will know. Hence why ASLEF will be involved.

ASLEF will also have been instrumental in signing off the arrangements west of Paddington.

 

[Snow1964]

The more rural stations on SWR are not the more problematic ones. It's a combination of the majority of platforms have never been cleared for DCO before, the standards are probably much higher now than 30 years ago, and it's different ASLEF reps involved who may be more resistant.

Surely it should not be based on reps personal preferences setting resistance levels.

The test should be a binary choice of does the installation at a specific platform meet standards, yes or no, and if no needs modifications so it becomes yes.

I don't really understand why a local rep would be given freedom to invent their own standards, if they were choosing people rather than objects on arbitrary selection basis would be deemed blatant discrimination.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

Can this thread not be a bit of both, there's been a lot of useful information put on this thread that if constantly locked and unlocked probably wouldn't be on here.

Locking this thread will just make way for another one like for like that stays temporarily open. There's no bad blood in here and a good dialogue, heavy handed moderation isn't always necessary on this website.

Agreed

 

[TEW]

Surely it should not be based on reps personal preferences setting resistance levels.

The test should be a binary choice of does the installation at a specific platform meet standards, yes or no, and if no needs modifications so it becomes yes.

I don't really understand why a local rep would be given freedom to invent their own standards, if they were choosing people rather than objects on arbitrary selection basis would be deemed blatant discrimination.

In an ideal world, that should be how it works. But there's always going to be an element of subjectivity when you're judging whether the image presented on a DCO screen is acceptable or not.

 

[Meerkat]

In an ideal world, that should be how it works. But there's always going to be an element of subjectivity when you're judging whether the image presented on a DCO screen is acceptable or not.

Sounds like something that should be done quickly and if there is disagreement between company and drivers then get the ORR to adjudicate.

 

[Stephen42]

They would rather die by their sword and fix all the platform interface issues before introduction I bet! Nevermind increased reliability or performance for paying customers.

In an ideal world a simple solution could be to come out and be transparent and admit they currently have issues with implementing DCO so a temporary fix may see different and signed off methods of operation being used where required. I don't think the customers would be too bothered about that.

I'm pretty sure they can work on fixing PTI whilst also getting these trains into service. Excuses, Excuses etc...

The unions may be bothered about having the methods of working changed on them though. Depending what agreements are already in place and what they cover, it might be the effort/cash required to obtain new ones is more difficult than fixing most of the PTI issues.

It may be slow going, but there are signs of progress. There's a 701 out now stopping at various stations throughout the night with another run in the schedules for tomorrow night which all look PTI related. Being less than two months into driver training that's likely the more significant bottleneck coupled with any constraints enforced by crew agreements rather than PTI on further routes for the time being.

 

[swtrains]

They would rather die by their sword and fix all the platform interface issues before introduction I bet! Nevermind increased reliability or performance for paying customers.

In an ideal world a simple solution could be to come out and be transparent and admit they currently have issues with implementing DCO so a temporary fix may see different and signed off methods of operation being used where required. I don't think the customers would be too bothered about that.

I'm pretty sure they can work on fixing PTI whilst also getting these trains into service. Excuses, Excuses etc...

Could you expand on what PTI is and what the issues are?

 

[59CosG95]

Could you expand on what PTI is and what the issues are?

Platform-Train Interface.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Could you expand on what PTI is and what the issues are?

I'd assume the main issues would be how much sufficient sighting does the DOO cameras give of the PTI, how major are the blindspots or lighting issues if any and risk assessments of passenger movement and how its observed on the DOOs.

I'd also assume part of it covers how competent the degraded methods of operations are if the DOOs are deemed inefficient at said time of departure or have failed for whatever reason.

 

[DMckduck]

The unions may be bothered about having the methods of working changed on them though. Depending what agreements are already in place and what they cover, it might be the effort/cash required to obtain new ones is more difficult than fixing most of the PTI issues.

It may be slow going, but there are signs of progress. There's a 701 out now stopping at various stations throughout the night with another run in the schedules for tomorrow night which all look PTI related. Being less than two months into driver training that's likely the more significant bottleneck coupled with any constraints enforced by crew agreements rather than PTI on further routes for the time being.

I agree with what you're saying but this most recent surbiton to Waterloo crowd buster should have been a 701. It leaves WM Park and Returns there after the 1 passenger working.

There is 8 soft launch drivers who all now sign WM park, and plenty of guards trained. Everyone signs the Waterloo - Woking route in the company.

There was no excuse here, this should have been a 701.

 

[Snow1964]

Could you expand on what PTI is and what the issues are?

platform train interface

2 possible issues, one is unclear image, because too dark (poor lighting etc) but that can be assessed by a light meter, (not individuals opinion) and rectified by stronger bulbs or extra light in dim area. Other is blind spots (cameras are poorly positioned so there are areas that cannot be seen).

In theory it is a binary decision, either bright enough or not, and either blind spots or not. It is not a many months drawn out thinking about it.

 

[43066]

Surely it should not be based on reps personal preferences setting resistance levels.

The test should be a binary choice of does the installation at a specific platform meet standards, yes or no, and if no needs modifications so it becomes yes.

I don't really understand why a local rep would be given freedom to invent their own standards, if they were choosing people rather than objects on arbitrary selection basis would be deemed blatant discrimination.

I’ve explained above why ASLEF are involved in the process. Whether you and others on here understand/like/agree with that isn’t really relevant. The suggestion that reps are inventing their own standards is something you’ve just made up.

The test should be a binary choice of does the installation at a specific platform meet standards, yes or no, and if no needs modifications so it becomes yes.

It isn’t that simple. There is *a lot* of concern in the industry these days about PTI incidents, hence why this introduction will inevitably be more complex than previous. Add in the comments above about the numbers of locations and the fact no DOO has taken place on the network before etc.

As usual people with no understanding of the issues are making up reasons to attack ASLEF.

platform train interface

2 possible issues, one is unclear image, because too dark (poor lighting etc) but that can be assessed by a light meter, (not individuals opinion) and rectified by stronger bulbs or extra light in dim area. Other is blind spots (cameras are poorly positioned so there are areas that cannot be seen).

In theory it is a binary decision, either bright enough or not, and either blind spots or not. It is not a many months drawn out thinking about it.

How do you know what the issues are, and how they might be solved? Unless you‘re involved with the process this is just your own uninformed speculation.

 

[swtrains]

701036 cancelled due to an issue with the doors according to RTT
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L62005/2024-09-10/detailed

 

[eh_oh]

Saw this 701 pulled by a 66 on its way to Derby today:
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K19025/2024-09-10/detailed

 

[800001]

Saw this 701 pulled by a 66 on its way to Derby today:
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K19025/2024-09-10/detailed

701006

 

[Snow1964]

I’ve explained above why ASLEF are involved in the process. Whether you and others on here understand/like/agree with that isn’t really relevant. The suggestion that reps are inventing their own standards is something you’ve just made up.

You have twisted what I said, I said check if meet standards (as in ones already agreed elsewhere), clearly if no standard already exists anywhere then chances are reps will invent one.

As usual people with no understanding of the issues are making up reasons to attack ASLEF.

Not sure anyone is attacking ASLEF, more a case of frustration this wasn't agreed and any deficiencies rectified by the original planned start date of Autumn 2019. The fact the reps didn't get this sorted, and are still faffing about with this 5 years later is what is being attacked, so any attack (your words, not mine) is about the timescale not against ASLEF as a entity.

How do you know what the issues are, and how they might be solved? Unless you‘re involved with the process this is just your own uninformed speculation.

No one has commented on detailed issues, platform by platform, and thus the fix for each individual site. But there have been multiple posts that mention these two problem areas, and no one has commented on any other physical reason, so seems to me to be more case of multiple sources ratifying or explaining, rather than wild uninformed speculation.


Actually your choice of phrasing feels to me, you are trying to justify having a further delay, or cover the back of someone who has let this drag on until now, rather than being proactive and getting this dealt with and fixed years ago.

 

[norbitonflyer]

701036 cancelled due to an issue with the doors according to RTT
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L62005/2024-09-10/detailed

Whatever the problem was seems to have been fixed as it is operating 2R53 this evening.

 

[Dan G]

Perhaps the mods could lock this thread until there is a genuine update? It’s getting really tedious and tiresome reading the same old moan and groans. Yes it is poor they’re not in widespread use yet, yes there is only 1 daily diagram, yes there is issues with the method of operation, but all these things have been covered to death and quite frankly it’s boring.

Pleeeaaaassse!

 

[Deepgreen]

Whatever the details of this saga are, the railway has come out of it very badly indeed. I can't recall any stock introduction that has seen such a farcical and tortuous route and with no real proper conclusion in sight still. 'Arterio' accompanied by sclerosis - not allowing a free passage of blood/passengers!

 

[OneTrackMinded]

To add to the good news pile (sarcasm): The 701 which was running in service today broke down

 

[Goldfish62]

To add to the good news pile (sarcasm): The 701 which was running in service today broke down

See posts 10126 and 10130.

 

[MotCO]

Have just noticed that there have been well over 10,000 posts in this thread.
a. Has any thread, excluding quizes etc had so many posts?
b. What does that say about the mismanagement of the introduction of the 701s?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

a. Has any thread, excluding quizes etc had so many posts?

Yes, I remember thinking about this (maybe it was discussed?) a couple hundred posts ago.

The Non-urgent TOPS requests thread is at 31k (urgent is at 18k),
A career as a signaller has 19k,
First Greater Glasgow (buses) is at 14k,
Lothian Group (buses) is at 13k,
The general discussion thread on football has 33k.
The long lasting "Northern Unit Refurbishments" thread has 10.5k, but this will likely overtake soon enough.

Only scrolled through threads posted today/late yesterday, there's probably some higher numbers around.
Plenty of rolling stock threads have large amounts of posts, the 755 thread has just over 8k

 

[Recessio]

See posts 10126 and 10130.

I genuinely thought those were carriage numbers at first, I can't believe how long this thread has got!

 

[boiledbeans2]

Perhaps the mods could lock this thread until there is a genuine update? It’s getting really tedious and tiresome reading the same old moan and groans. Yes it is poor they’re not in widespread use yet, yes there is only 1 daily diagram, yes there is issues with the method of operation, but all these things have been covered to death and quite frankly it’s boring.

Pleeeaaaassse!

I don't understand the requests to lock the thread, and that it's "really tedious and tiresome reading the same old moan and groans."

If the thread is so unpleasant to read, then don't read it? "Unwatch" button?

I think this thread is useful to anyone else who wants to understand the progress of the 701s (as well as the occasional where-are-the-701 jokes ).

 

[SWT_USER]

701 diagram cancelled this morning. Issue with train crew so presumably not enough people trained to cover short notice unavailability.

 

[deepeetw]

701 diagram cancelled this morning. Issue with train crew so presumably not enough people trained to cover short notice unavailability.

Unit got delivered to Waterloo, so assume no guard to take it on from there.