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

[DennisM]

But surely it's ASLEF who are representing drivers that drive other Aventras with the same issues? Does this mean that TfL Rail LOROL and GA crews are being let down by their union?

There’s probably a higher standard for these units to meet, being a replacement for the 707’s, compared to at TOCs replacing 40 year old trains.
Union representatives who’s job it is to scrutinise them before acceptance have experienced a high quality modern train, and it will be much more obvious to them where these fall short in comparison.

 

[fgwrich]

Rubbish like that is the reason why the push to driverless trains will come in sooner rather than later.

How can a wiper obstruct signal sightings when they drive gangway stock with a windscreen about a quarter of the size of a 701.

Loud fans give me a break.

Because they also drive stock with larger windscreens such as the 456s and even larger windscreens like the 707 too.

The fan issue I can fully understand too - if it’s as bad and as noisy / whining as the fans above the First Class end of the 166s, that was bad enough to give me a headache after 15 minutes. You don’t want a distracting, noisy fan in your cab if your going to be spending most of your safety critical shift in them.

Regarding the wiper issue though - that is an odd one. The 707 design does stop in part of the windscreen but appears to be a thinner design to that used on the 701s. Both stop on the right hand side though - Perhaps any 707 and 700 drivers could give an opinion of this?

 

[Bald Rick]

There’s probably a higher standard for these units to meet, being a replacement for the 707’s, compared to at TOCs replacing 40 year old trains.

They are also a replacement for 40 year old trains (455s)

And the 345s / 710s / 720s were replacements for 35-45 year old trains.

 

[alf]

I wonder if local ASLEF are not keen on the DOO they will have to do when the 700’s enter service.

I believe the very substantial pay rise for working DOO with the 700s, & then with other modified stock, was paid six months ago.
The other side of the bargain was to work the 700s.

 

[TRAX]

Just because some people are willing to work in crap conditions, doesn’t mean everyone should have to. We’ll done ASLEF

But it’s the same people… what @theking means is that it’s … "interesting"… that drivers who run Class 450s and Class 458s appear to be finding the Class 701s somewhat worse as far as forward visibility goes.

To be honest I don’t understand how the wiper positioning on the Class 701 can disturb signal vision that much, there’s trains on which the wiper is in a much more obstructive position yet drivers work them everyday - in the UK and abroad.
There’s nothing exotic or new about the position of the wiper on the 701, especizlly with the bent arm.

But it wouldn’t be the first time drivers delay the introduction of a new train for minor reasons like this, only for them to accept the trains without a modification of some of these small issues.

And no, I’m not saying all driver protests over new trains are rubbish.
Also, save yourself some time, don’t hit me with the "but are you a driver to be saying things like this, how could you know ?" line - maybe I, too, know what I am talking about.

 

[northernbelle]

But it’s the same people… what @theking means is that it’s … "interesting"… that drivers who run Class 450s and Class 458s appear to be finding the Class 701s somewhat worse as far as forward visibility goes.

To be honest I don’t understand how the wiper positioning on the Class 701 can disturb signal vision that much, there’s trains on which the wiper is in a much more obstructive position yet drivers work them everyday - in the UK and abroad.
There’s nothing exotic or new about the position of the wiper on the 701, especizlly with the bent arm.

But it wouldn’t be the first time drivers delay the introduction of a new train for minor reasons like this, only for them to accept the trains without a modification of some of these small issues.

And no, I’m not saying all driver protests over new trains are rubbish.
Also, save yourself some time, don’t hit me with the "but are you a driver to be saying things like this, how could you know ?" line - maybe I, too, know what I am talking about.

Other new stock such as the 80x has a function that allows the driver to 'park' the wiper on either the right or the left, allowing a completely clear view of a signal or platform on whichever side they prefer.

Can't imagine it'd be a lot of work to put a similar switch in a 701 if the drivers really wanted it.

 

[Goldfish62]

Just because some people are willing to work in crap conditions, doesn’t mean everyone should have to. We’ll done ASLEF

If it's so crap perhaps they should leave and be lorry or bus drivers instead.

 

[theking]

But it’s the same people… what @theking means is that it’s … "interesting"… that drivers who run Class 450s and Class 458s appear to be finding the Class 701s somewhat worse as far as forward visibility goes.

Exactly this, also add to the fact the class 450 has the wiper stood towards the gangway and the 458 has it towards the edge of the train.

It's just bluster no way can that wiper be obscuring signals on the 701, when you have units they drive that have a gangway. If you stopped a 701 and 450 in the same position you wouldn't even see the signal in the 450.

The fans in aventres are considerably quieter than the drone you get in electrostar cabs and the interlock light looked the same to me.

Now unless Alstom have designed a completely different unit just to upset the aslef reps at swr I can't say but one thing you can be pretty sure about is that they would have spent the least amount of money to change anything from a class 710/20.

 

[the sniper]

Union representatives who’s job it is to scrutinise them before acceptance have experienced a high quality modern train, and it will be much more obvious to them where these fall short in comparison.

Plus, if the fans are too loud, interlock light too bright or whatever else, those on the union who agreed to let them go unaltered will forever be named and shamed in any inevitable messroom rants "who the f*** accepted that", "that was [insert name here]..."

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Rightly or wrongly the drivers have always been part of the acceptance process for cab layouts and SWR know this so how did they hard wire ASLEF into the process for sign off? Also what were Bombardiers responsibilities in providing cab mock ups for approval before full production was launched?
This is costing somebody a fortune I just hope its not the taxpayer.

 

[444045]

U.701031 was moved from Eastleigh Depot to Bournemouth Depot today as 5Z30 to finish the mods as not all were done as planned.

 

[Socanxdis]

Was the cost of leasing 707s considerably higher than the cost of leasing 701s?

 

[TEW]

Rightly or wrongly the drivers have always been part of the acceptance process for cab layouts and SWR know this so how did they hard wire ASLEF into the process for sign off? Also what were Bombardiers responsibilities in providing cab mock ups for approval before full production was launched?
This is costing somebody a fortune I just hope its not the taxpayer.

It would appear ASLEF were involved far too late in the cab design process, hence the first lot of units having to have modifications as it was too late to change the design before they were built.

 

[adc82140]

I still can't understand why they are trying to reinvent the cabs compared to 710/720/345 design. The 710s and 345s are high density inner suburban units. What did SWR want that's different and why? All this could have been avoided with a follow on order of DC 710s.

 

[Bald Rick]

I still can't understand why they are trying to reinvent the cabs compared to 710/720/345 design. The 710s and 345s are high density inner suburban units. What did SWR want that's different and why? All this could have been avoided with a follow on order of DC 710s.

You’re assuming ‘they’ tried to reinvent the cabs....

 

[Fincra5]

Rubbish like that is the reason why the push to driverless trains will come in sooner rather than later.

How can a wiper obstruct signal sightings when they drive gangway stock with a windscreen about a quarter of the size of a 701.

Loud fans give me a break.

Can tell you aren't a driver...

 

[Goldfish62]

I still can't understand why they are trying to reinvent the cabs compared to 710/720/345 design. The 710s and 345s are high density inner suburban units. What did SWR want that's different and why? All this could have been avoided with a follow on order of DC 710s.

This has been explained before. In summary SWR needed the passenger doors to stop in the same locations whether a 10 car unit or 2 x 5 car units, thus required units where all coaches are the same length.

The 710s have 20m intermediate cars and 21.5m driving cars. Therefore Bombardier offered a unit with 20m driving cars. Not surprising they were keen to redesign the cabs in order to win what is a massive order.

 

[Nogoohwell]

Well this does not seem to be the critical list of issues that will condemn a complete fleet to the bin. Worst case scenario is replacing the entire cab (entirely unlikely) or more likely a negotiation of which issues are a priority to be resolved.

One thing that I always look at in disputes is the parties intentions. Did SWR purposely request a smaller cab for any other reason than to help passengers and station staff with consistent door positions or was there another motive? DOO? Despite SWT showing it sows down dispatch?

What is ASLEF looking for? Can they demonstrate that units they have accepted are not running with these issues? If so whats changed here?

Finally who else has an influence here? RMT for starters, 701's are the beginning of the end for guards. Government interest in DOO to reduce costs?

I suggest the RMT and the Government get together and sort out their issues. There has to be a role for guards in this solution for the long term, not on a operator/train specific agreement, but nationally.

On a train carrying 800 people, each paying about £5 for a trip into London, you cant justify removing them on cost grounds, especially as SWT/R was the biggest contributor to the treasury. In fact you could argue SWR should have a gold plated service above every other region as it can afford it. But thats another thread and that could be the bane of RMT's issues

 

[adc82140]

This has been explained before. In summary SWR needed the passenger doors to stop in the same locations whether a 10 car unit or 2 x 5 car units, thus required units where all coaches are the same length.

The 710s have 20m intermediate cars and 21.5m driving cars. Therefore Bombardier offered a unit with 20m driving cars. Not surprising they were keen to redesign the cabs in order to win what is a massive order.

I feel at this point SWR may be regretting over complicating things. Doors is the same place is a nice thing to have, but is it really that vital?

 

[Nogoohwell]

I feel at this point SWR may be regretting over complicating things. Doors is the same place is a nice thing to have, but is it really that vital?

If you've got staff at a station with a ramp to help a disabled person disembark, then yes.

The funny thing is, this entire problem is about the 701/5's, which are yet to be delivered and probably should never have been ordered in the first place. Apart from the odd Sunday service, how often are single units used?

 

[fgwrich]

This has been explained before. In summary SWR needed the passenger doors to stop in the same locations whether a 10 car unit or 2 x 5 car units, thus required units where all coaches are the same length.

The 710s have 20m intermediate cars and 21.5m driving cars. Therefore Bombardier offered a unit with 20m driving cars. Not surprising they were keen to redesign the cabs in order to win what is a massive order.

Wasn't there also the issue of SWR increasing seat numbers, which pushed some of the space behind the cab back further?

 

[Goldfish62]

I feel at this point SWR may be regretting over complicating things. Doors is the same place is a nice thing to have, but is it really that vital?

Yes, if you're running an intensive Metro service with minimal dwell times, as was the requirement in the ITT. I have no doubt it was MTR who provided advice on this.

Wasn't there also the issue of SWR increasing seat numbers, which pushed some of the space behind the cab back further?

That's been proven to be nonsense. If anything the space is reduced because that's where much of the equipment that was relocated from the nose has been put. There's only one four seat bay each side behind the cab.

 

[fgwrich]

Yes, if you're running an intensive Metro service with minimal dwell times, as was the requirement in the ITT. I have no doubt it was MTR who provided advice on this.


That's been proven to be nonsense. If anything the space is reduced because that's where much of the equipment that was relocated from the nose has been put. There's only one four seat bay each side behind the cab.

Thanks, I wasn't sure if it was or not.

 

[hwl]

Yes, if you're running an intensive Metro service with minimal dwell times, as was the requirement in the ITT. I have no doubt it was MTR who provided advice on this.


That's been proven to be nonsense. If anything the space is reduced because that's where much of the equipment that was relocated from the nose has been put. There's only one four seat bay each side behind the cab.

It also works well on LU where they have platform markings.
The cab front is flatter and the back wall is further into the passenger compartment compared to earlier Aventras but the cab is not completely reinvented. Some of the equipment has also been moved underfloor.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If you've got staff at a station with a ramp to help a disabled person disembark, then yes.

The funny thing is, this entire problem is about the 701/5's, which are yet to be delivered and probably should never have been ordered in the first place. Apart from the odd Sunday service, how often are single units used?

GA have switched all there order to 5 cars and have plenty running around in traffic. With modern automatic couplers it should make sense to split trains down after the peak and cycle some of them through routine mtce. Saves on energy and spreads the burden on the depot teams across the day rather than being compressed into short overnight windows. The economics with 455/6's aren't so good as you need to have shunters and extra access platforms wherever you do it to access the pipes and jumper cables but on these drivers just have to push a button to uncouple.

 

[Goldfish62]

It also works well on LU where they have platform markings.
The cab front is flatter and the back wall is further into the passenger compartment compared to earlier Aventras but the cab is not completely reinvented. Some of the equipment has also been moved underfloor.

Exactly. Looking at photos it's difficult to tell the 701 cabs from other Aventras, where of course some of the same problems as on the 701s exist I am told.

 

[theking]

Can tell you aren't a driver...

Lol Why's that?

And while you're at it care to explain how this is acceptable to the Lords at ASLEF....

But this wiper is so dangerous they're instructing their members to not train on new units.


Oh and also how hundreds or if not thousands of drivers have massive diesel locos behind them but swr drivers can't concentrate with a fan on.

 

[Goldfish62]

Lol Why's that?

And while you're at it care to explain how this is acceptable to the Lords at ASLEF....View attachment 104446

But this wiper is so dangerous they're instructing their members to not train on new units.
View attachment 104447

Oh and also how hundreds or if not thousands of drivers have massive diesel locos behind them but swr drivers can't concentrate with a fan on.

I certainly remember all the complaints from drivers when the 458s were first introduced and those complaints haven't really let up!

There was one notable complaint from ASLEF at the time that they were made it into the mass media that the dots in the bonded windscreen border would interfere with signal sighting.

 

[KC1]

Rubbish like that is the reason why the push to driverless trains will come in sooner rather than later.

How can a wiper obstruct signal sightings when they drive gangway stock with a windscreen about a quarter of the size of a 701.

Loud fans give me a break.

Agreed x1000.

Well said.

Lol Why's that?

And while you're at it care to explain how this is acceptable to the Lords at ASLEF....View attachment 104446

But this wiper is so dangerous they're instructing their members to not train on new units.
View attachment 104447

Oh and also how hundreds or if not thousands of drivers have massive diesel locos behind them but swr drivers can't concentrate with a fan on.

I’m finding myself agreeing with you again and the exact same thing about ‘loud fans’ was going through my mind.

Of course the response “can tell you’re not a driver” but not yet had anyone able to answer a reasonable question.

 

[deltic]

What role does ORR have in authorising the acceptance of new rolling stock in relation to safety and staff welfare?