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

[willontrains]

I suppose if the fixed 10 car units need to be dispatched from midpoint then they might need a location to dispatch from - is that what’s meant by “guards office”? Perhaps @Monty or someone else could confirm.

Yes the suburban side can -certainly the suburban platforms have been able to accommodate 10 coach trains for a number of years as you said to accommodate the 455 ×2, 456 x1 formations.

Whilst yes on the Wimbledon side most if not all platforms would take 455/456 combinations; due to the differencing placement of the 701 rear cab doors, they overhang the platform at certain stations.

This brings into question operations during peak hours; where the guard may not even be able to move throughout the train; meaning they could be confined to the rear cab, severely limiting the stations these new trains can safely stop at.

 

[reddragon]

Also, discussions with Guards suggest that they may be planning to have a guard office onboard 701s. Absolutely unbelievable to me.

Maybe attaching a guards van to the back of the train with an open fire. Are they still stuck in the days of steam?

 

[43066]

I wonder if it's worth going back to proper DCO now and to the previously agreed training course. Trying to agree a shorter course has clearly made things worse.

The problem, as always, is that facts are thin on the ground. We’ve been told the training has halted due to a further disagreement with ASLEF, but seemingly nobody is in a position to give any details on this. Now there are suggestions of guards offices and potential issues around using back/intermediate cabs to dispatch (that’s more RMT’s remit).

Is it possible that a train that is unsuitable for DOO/DCO is also unsuitable for guarded operation!?

My initial reaction is, "oh dear, what an absolute mess".

Although, that said, I think the bolded text above is one absolutely cast iron fact!

Whilst yes on the Wimbledon side most if not all platforms would take 455/456 combinations; due to the differencing placement of the 701 rear cab doors, they overhang the platform at certain stations.

This brings into question operations during peak hours; where the guard may not even be able to move throughout the train; meaning they could be confined to the rear cab, severely limiting the stations these new trains can safely stop at.

Thanks - that makes sense. Albeit yet another issue that should surely have been known about and dealt with long ago. I guess the decision to switch away from DCO back to guarded operation may have brought it back into focus.

Even so, the lack of a refuge for guards on the ten cars has been an issue since the original decision to retain guards at all (years ago now!), and it has always been intended that they’d dispatch in degraded conditions, so why is it only now being discussed?

 

[waterboo]

I would suggest that a tensa barrier around a vestibule, situated towards the centre of the train (where it is most optimum for dispatch), could be a temporary mitigation? Not ideal as you are restricting capacity and the ability for people to move throughout the train. But surely this must be better than the complete retrograde step of missed calls?

Are the guard operating panels situated on each door, or is it alternate for LHS and RHS on each carriage?

 

[SWT_USER]

The problem, as always, is that facts are thin on the ground. We’ve been told the training has halted due to a further disagreement with ASLEF, but seemingly nobody is in a position to give any details on this. Now there are suggestions of guards offices and potential issues around using back/intermediate cabs to dispatch (that’s more RMT’s remit).

Is it possible that a train that is unsuitable for DOO/DCO is also unsuitable for guarded operation!?



Although, that said, I think the bolded text above is one absolutely cast iron fact!



Thanks - that makes sense. Albeit yet another issue that should surely have been known about and dealt with long ago. I guess the decision to switch away from DCO back to guarded operation may have brought it back into focus.

Even so, the lack of a refuge for guards on the ten cars has been an issue since the original decision to retain guards at all (years ago now!), and it has always been intended that they’d dispatch in degraded conditions, so why is it only now being discussed?

I guess if it's been badly designed then yes - which these clearly have, compounded by awful management at SWR.

I would suggest that a tensa barrier around a vestibule, situated towards the centre of the train (where it is most optimum for dispatch), could be a temporary mitigation? Not ideal as you are restricting capacity and the ability for people to move throughout the train. But surely this must be better than the complete retrograde step of missed calls?

Are the guard operating panels situated on each door, or is it alternate for LHS and RHS on each carriage?

Absolutely no chance of anyone agreeing to that.

 

[Goldfish62]

These trains were clearly designed and specified for DOO from the outset.

I got told off last time I suggested they might be better off being moved elsewhere where such operations have been established for decades and where replacements for existing trains are being sought, so I'm keeping quiet this time.

 

[willontrains]

Is it possible that a train that is unsuitable for DOO/DCO is also unsuitable for guarded operation!?

At certain stations, I would say yes. Take Ewell West for example, my local. During peak times it is full and standing. Guard is always in the middle cab of 455s/450s.

Due to the station design with the bridge, and lack of visibility it is very unsafe for dispatch.

Similarly, Motspur park (short station) and Stoneleigh; both island platforms; Guards have to make use of CCTV to check the platform. How an earth will this work in the rear cab?

The lack of a refuge for guards on the ten cars has been an issue since the original decision to retain guards at all (years ago now!), and it has always been intended that they’d dispatch in degraded conditions, so why is it only now being discussed?

They pushed and failed for DOO?

I got told off last time I suggested they might be better off being moved elsewhere where such operations have been established for decades and where replacements for existing trains are being sought, so I'm keeping quiet this time.

Completely agree with you. They are not built for purpose.

 

[waterboo]

These trains were clearly designed and specified for DOO from the outset.

I got told off last time I suggested they might be better off being moved elsewhere where such operations have been established for decades and where replacements for existing trains are being sought, so I'm keeping quiet this time.

Now that you mention it.....

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Would it make a difference if everything came to a head and there was a crisis? Or given that SWR have one foot out the door they just don't care anymore and nothing will change

You raise a good point

 

[dingdinger]

Whilst yes on the Wimbledon side most if not all platforms would take 455/456 combinations; due to the differencing placement of the 701 rear cab doors, they overhang the platform at certain stations.

This brings into question operations during peak hours; where the guard may not even be able to move throughout the train; meaning they could be confined to the rear cab, severely limiting the stations these new trains can safely stop at.

I see what you mean. A big mess

 

[willontrains]

I've spent considerable time speaking to a Senior Manager and Guard Manager at SWR. They both have extremely contrasting views on the 701 introductions.

It seems that the Senior Management Team have created a façade for the introduction. The new 701 and Metro Guard Training Documents are frankly practically irrelevant. Unrealistic expectations for lower passenger numbers to allow the guard to "walk throughout the train during peak times"

Also, it is worth adding Metro Guards are now expected to check tickets while walking through the train with a new mini tablet without any bonuses in pay - the cheek of it! - (in comparison to commercial guards)

According to the Guard Manager, Metro Guards are actively avoiding signing 701s - this is very telling..

 

[SWT_USER]

I've spent considerable time speaking to a Senior Manager and Guard Manager at SWR. They both have extremely contrasting views on the 701 introductions.

It seems that the Senior Management Team have created a façade for the introduction. The new 701 and Metro Guard Training Documents are frankly practically irrelevant. Unrealistic expectations for lower passenger numbers to allow the guard to "walk throughout the train during peak times"

Also, it is worth adding Metro Guards are now expected to check tickets while walking through the train with a new mini tablet without any bonuses in pay - the cheek of it! - (in comparison to commercial guards)

According to the Guard Manager, Metro Guards are actively avoiding signing 701s - this is very telling..

there speaks a manager who never travels on their company's services.

Would a push for full DOO get these in service quicker? IIRC SWR drivers already have this in their contracts? I wouldn't be surprised if they tried this next, lurching from one undeliverable plan to another...

 

[Goldfish62]

Surely a guards office would do nothing to solve the problem. When 450s had offices they were unusable on packed trains because the guard struggled to reach and operate the door panel. Instead the guard had to locate themselves in one of the cabs.

 

[43066]

Or they should all have been built as 5-cars in the first place as that would avoid the problem? Whatever, the entire project is an utter fiasco from start to finish (assuming there is a finish…).

Probably.

It’s impressive that they’ve ended with a ten car fixed formation that’s longer than 2*4+2 car formation. Usually intermediate cabs/couplers mean the opposite is the issue.

At certain stations, I would say yes. Take Ewell West for example, my local. During peak times it is full and standing. Guard is always in the middle cab of 455s/450s.

Due to the station design with the bridge, and lack of visibility it is very unsafe for dispatch.

Similarly, Motspur park (short station) and Stoneleigh; both island platforms; Guards have to make use of CCTV to check the platform. How an earth will this work in the rear cab?

Yep, that’s a big issue with no easy solution. Unless they can somehow get the CCTV to work from the rear cab. But then how could the guard check the train was correctly platformed etc., and you’re back to lighting issues.

What a monumental cock up!

Also, it is worth adding Metro Guards are now expected to check tickets while walking through the train with a new mini tablet without any bonuses in pay - the cheek of it! - (in comparison to commercial guards)

I had understood that all the Metro Guards were being upgraded to commercial as part of the agreement to introduce DCO (sorry may have lost track)?

Surely a guards office would do nothing to solve the problem. When 450s had offices they were unusable on packed trains because the guard struggled to reach and operate the door panel. Instead the guard had to locate themselves in one of the cabs.

It would have to be located near a midpoint door, and presumably reverse engineered as no other Aventra stock has such a thing? Or a barrier around a door as noted above, but that isn’t exactly a refuge. A toilet cubicle without a toilet for the guard to stand in?

What an absolute fiasco!

Thanks to @willontrains for raising this because I don’t think it’s been mentioned before.

 

[Goldfish62]

It would have to be located near a midpoint door, and presumably reverse engineered as no other Aventra stock has such a thing? Or a barrier around a door as noted above, but that isn’t exactly a refuge. A toilet cubicle without a toilet for the guard to stand in?

Yes, but that was the location of the erstwhile office on the 450s and the Windsor side suburban services would often be so packed that even from there it wouldn't have been possible to operate the doors. I saw a guard try it at Clapham Junction once, but he ended up beating a hasty retreat to the nearest cab and dispatched from there.

 

[Mainsideman]

there speaks a manager who never travels on their company's services.

Would a push for full DOO get these in service quicker? IIRC SWR drivers already have this in their contracts? I wouldn't be surprised if they tried this next, lurching from one undeliverable plan to another...

Swr drivers now have dco in their contracts with a guranteed guard.

 

[Goldfish62]

Would a push for full DOO get these in service quicker? IIRC SWR drivers already have this in their contracts? I wouldn't be surprised if they tried this next, lurching from one undeliverable plan to another...

No! Please no! Although I don't rely on SWR quite as much as I used to I really don't want to be faced with the inevitable years more of strike action that would result!

 

[Siemens Staines]

As a short-term solution, would it not be better to prioritise getting the 701/5 in service? They would at least have a cab in the middle of a 10-car set as per 450/455/458. I have always wondered how a guard would close the doors from a crush loaded 10-car at stations with short platforms when the rear cab is off the platform. Most of those stations on the Windsor lines have usually emptied out a bit by the time those stations are reached, but this does not apply on days when there are events at Twickenham/Ascot or when Reading to Paddington is closed at short notice due to problems with GWML infrastructure.

 

[SWT_USER]

As a short-term solution, would it not be better to prioritise getting the 701/5 in service? They would at least have a cab in the middle of a 10-car set as per 450/455/458. I have always wondered how a guard would close the doors from a crush loaded 10-car at stations with short platforms when the rear cab is off the platform. Most of those stations on the Windsor lines have usually emptied out a bit by the time those stations are reached, but this does not apply on days when there are events at Twickenham/Ascot or when Reading to Paddington is closed at short notice due to problems with GWML infrastructure.

Don't give them ideas. SWR would probably decide to remove a coach and run them as 4/ 8 coach trains and present it as a capacity increase.

 

[alanc]

Can anyone please ID the unit towed by 47739 on 5q87 from Eastleigh to long marston today please?
TIA
Alan

 

[DMckduck]

The 5 cars will have to be used on the Windsor side mostly due to the short platforms and curvature of quite a few platforms.

The not to stop order from back cab may not be used frequently but come a time when wales are playing england at twickenham and it leaves reading rammed, it could be hours before Earley, Winnersh Triangle and Winnersh see a service.

 

[Goldfish62]

The not to stop order from back cab may not be used frequently but come a time when wales are playing england at twickenham and it leaves reading rammed, it could be hours before Earley, Winnersh Triangle and Winnersh see a service.

Only solution I can think of there is to run 450s on the stoppers and confine the 701s to the extras, which don't stop at any of these stations. Same with Royal Ascot week.

 

[3973EXL]

Can anyone please ID the unit towed by 47739 on 5q87 from Eastleigh to long marston today please?
TIA
Alan

701010

 

[alanc]

701010

Many thanks

 

[MotCO]

Would a guards office be located on one side of the train, or across the whole width? If the former, would the guard be able to access the other side on a rammed train to despatch a train where the platforms are on the 'offside'?

 

[43066]

Swr drivers now have dco in their contracts with a guranteed guard.

No! Please no! Although I don't rely on SWR quite as much as I used to I really don't want to be faced with the inevitable years more of strike action that would result!

And - quite apart from the IR issues - you’d run into the same issues around lighting/sighting etc. which caused the DCO plan to be abandoned in the first place.

 

[DelW]

No! Please no! Although I don't rely on SWR quite as much as I used to I really don't want to be faced with the inevitable years more of strike action that would result!

I wonder at what point it becomes inevitable that south-western metro services will completely collapse sometime next year?

There must come a point in time when:

1. There's insufficient time to get enough staff trained on 701s to roll out the minimum necessary fleet by next year
2. There's insufficient time to get the various faults on the 701s sorted out to roll out the minimum necessary fleet by next year
3. There's insufficient time to carry out overhauls of the 455s to keep them in service beyond next year (even if such were to be authorised or even possible)

If such a point is reached without solutions to those issues, service collapse will be almost inevitable as the 455s will run out of hours or miles and have to be withdrawn. Even possibly drafting in the 350/2s would need work doing to them, approvals, route proving, and no doubt more staff training needing union agreements.

All the while SWR management and unions are bickering with each other and fighting their internal battles, that day draws nearer. I doubt that we've reached it yet, but how far away is it? I hope that someone is keeping track of it, but I suspect that SWR management's plan is just to walk away and blame the oncoming disaster on GBR.

 

[43066]

There must come a point in time when:

1. There's insufficient time to get enough staff trained on 701s to roll out the minimum necessary fleet by next year
2. There's insufficient time to get the various faults on the 701s sorted out to roll out the minimum necessary fleet by next year
3. There's insufficient time to carry out overhauls of the 455s to keep them in service beyond next year (even if such were to be authorised or even possible)

Most likely the 455s will be made to soldier on for as long as necessary. They aren’t needed elsewhere, and can simply be run into the ground (accepting that expensive overhauls may be required).

 

[cactustwirly]

I would suggest that a tensa barrier around a vestibule, situated towards the centre of the train (where it is most optimum for dispatch), could be a temporary mitigation? Not ideal as you are restricting capacity and the ability for people to move throughout the train. But surely this must be better than the complete retrograde step of missed calls?

Are the guard operating panels situated on each door, or is it alternate for LHS and RHS on each carriage?

That would surely impede an evacuation of there was a fire

 

[Goldfish62]

Most likely the 455s will be made to soldier on for as long as necessary. They aren’t needed elsewhere, and can simply be run into the ground (accepting that expensive overhauls may be required).

Some other potential ideas:
1. Get the rest of the 458/4s into service ASAP and get clearance for all potential routes.
2. Retain and overhaul all 8 remaining 458/5s (Inc those in store).
3. Several mainline services were strengthened in December using displaced 450s made surplus due to 458/4 introduction. Reduce at least some these back to previous length to release some 450s back to suburban services.

All the above would allow the worst of the 455s to go, with robbing of parts and possible reforming to keep the remainder soldiering on.

And - quite apart from the IR issues - you’d run into the same issues around lighting/sighting etc. which caused the DCO plan to be abandoned in the first place.

Although I'm assuming that's down to incompetence on SWR's part by not sufficiently preparing the platforms for such operation, despite having years to do so.