Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[FOCTOC]

Eastleigh looked full up with 701's yesterday.

Another one coming on Thursday.

 

[spark001uk]

Another one coming on Thursday.

One was supposed to come last Friday but was cancelled last minute.

 

[physics34]

I just cant understand why lessons have not been learnt from other orders, and why software can't be tested in advance..ie installed on a 455 test train for example. it stinks

 

[43096]

I just cant understand why lessons have not been learnt from other orders, and why software can't be tested in advance..ie installed on a 455 test train for example. it stinks

How would you test software on a 455? It’s an almost 40 years old design with no train management system.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I just cant understand why lessons have not been learnt from other orders, and why software can't be tested in advance..ie installed on a 455 test train for example. it stinks

I'd agree it stinks that they still haven't got them working, but at the same time I don't think you could test the software on a different class from what it is written for - it'll usually be created for the specific characteristics of that class.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'd agree it stinks that they still haven't got them working, but at the same time I don't think you could test the software on a different class from what it is written for - it'll usually be created for the specific characteristics of that class.

The traction system is bog standard MITRAC, braking bog standard, safety systems bog standard - thats why they have a certificate to run on the main line. The only software change they may have needed was for the ABDO system but even that must just be a subset of whats on the 345's. It remains a mystery as to how Bombardier managed to screw this up so effectively.

 

[Feathers44]

I just cant understand why lessons have not been learnt from other orders, and why software can't be tested in advance..ie installed on a 455 test train for example. it stinks

How could you do that? A 455 doesn’t have any of the bits and pieces the software needs to talk to. As a test bed it would be useless unless you fitted all the hardware of a 701 to it at which point you’d have a test bed that looked like the real thing to the software but performed completely differently which would probably be just as completely useless. It would also cost an arm and a leg. And you’d still then need to integrate the software on the real thing.

 

[physics34]

I actually think some software could be tested using older stock ie 455s, but yes probably a LO class 710 or something wouldve been better

 

[Feathers44]

I actually think some software could be tested using older stock ie 455s, but yes probably a LO class 710 or something wouldve been better

Clearly, if you break it down into its component parts then different subsystems may be able to be developed and tested on testbed vehicles with the relevant hardware fitted. That would only work for some of the bits, though, those that didn’t depend too much on the equipment and software in the rest of the vehicle. The problem is that that only takes you so far down the test route. Full integration test and development still needs the full vehicle at the end of the process.

Regardless of what they run it on, I doubt that would change the fact that it hasn’t been done yet which means we’d still be waiting for it to happen regardless.

(I’ve just got a job in London so need these to be running ASAP now that I will actually be relying on the railway to get me in every day.)

 

[samuelmorris]

You don't need them to be running. The existing stock will suffice, especially in winter when you don't need the A/C. New stock, even with less delayed introductions than 701s, is less reliable than the stock it replaces for at least the first year, sometimes several years.

 

[Feathers44]

Yes and no. I see your point and I realise that I don’t actually know what the maximum service capabilities are with the current stock.

I’m assuming a need for additional units in the hope that we can get back to something like the service we used to have. The 66% peak reduction we’ve had here means issues for the family members who have no choice but to travel. If it’s just a timetable limit rather than stock limit then I agree that this isn’t the solution.

 

[Roast Veg]

I actually think some software could be tested using older stock ie 455s

That's a bit like suggesting microwave software can be tested on a toaster

 

[jopsuk]

I actually think some software could be tested using older stock ie 455s, but yes probably a LO class 710 or something wouldve been better

the software needs to be tested on the actual hardware. It will have been tested on a virtual machine, but deploying it to the correct hardware configuration (which is the class 701, and nothing else) can highlight issues that the VM cannot. I work with complex computerised heavy equipment and have to test new software versions, I can't stick it on a vacuum cleaner and test it there

 

[samuelmorris]

Yes and no. I see your point and I realise that I don’t actually know what the maximum service capabilities are with the current stock.

I’m assuming a need for additional units in the hope that we can get back to something like the service we used to have. The 66% peak reduction we’ve had here means issues for the family members who have no choice but to travel. If it’s just a timetable limit rather than stock limit then I agree that this isn’t the solution.

It'll be a staff limit, not a stock limit. Granted, some of the 707s having left will cause a degree of reduction but nothing like what's happened in practice. Reduced demand (and therefore revenue) and staff availability will be why the timetable is suffering, not so much the lack of 701s.

 

[hwl]

The traction system is bog standard MITRAC, braking bog standard, safety systems bog standard - thats why they have a certificate to run on the main line. The only software change they may have needed was for the ABDO system but even that must just be a subset of whats on the 345's. It remains a mystery as to how Bombardier managed to screw this up so effectively.

Bombardier opening the Bangalore software office a decade ago has been an unmitigated disaster. (quality and workload)

701 is a small evolution of 710/720/730 (effectively second generation Aventra) rather than 345 (first generation Aventra) which is where the copy from 345 may be coming a cropper. In reality ABDO uses ETCS functionality with few cleaver tricks added and is rather simpler than what the 345s do.

 

[59CosG95]

Bombardier opening the Bangalore software office a decade ago has been an unmitigated disaster. (quality and workload)

701 is a small evolution of 710/720/730 (effectively second generation Aventra) rather than 345 (first generation Aventra) which is where the copy from 345 may be coming a cropper. In reality ABDO uses ETCS functionality with few cleaver tricks added and is rather simpler than what the 345s do.

Has it been the case where all the 2nd Gen Aventra software has been copied from the 345s?
It seems we wouldn't be in nearly so much of a bind if 701/720/730 were all copied from 710 now that that's seemingly fixed. (That being said I'm no software engineer!)

 

[theking]

All this could have been avoided if they just went for a variant of the 345/710/720 rather than design a whole new bespoke cab and unit when it's not needed (gangway or emergency exit)

This is where the dft should be looking in future making sure toc's spec interworkable base stock and let the toc spec the interiors

 

[XAM2175]

rather than design a whole new bespoke cab and unit when it's not needed (gangway or emergency exit)

The new cab was needed though, due to length restrictions.

 

[fgwrich]

Bombardier opening the Bangalore software office a decade ago has been an unmitigated disaster. (quality and workload)

701 is a small evolution of 710/720/730 (effectively second generation Aventra) rather than 345 (first generation Aventra) which is where the copy from 345 may be coming a cropper. In reality ABDO uses ETCS functionality with few cleaver tricks added and is rather simpler than what the 345s do.

I thought that, at least until recently, the 345s were running on a heavily modified version of the Electrostar software just to effectively get them into service until the main 345 / Aventra software was ready to take them into the core?

 

[Goldfish62]

The new cab was needed though, due to length restrictions.

Yes, we have been through this so many times on this thread.

 

[theking]

The new cab was needed though, due to length restrictions.

Yes isn't that because swr wanted the doors of a 5 and 10 car in the same place?

which is hardly important when they could have just used platform graphics to show where the specialist doors were going to open

 

[Meerkat]

I'd agree it stinks that they still haven't got them working, but at the same time I don't think you could test the software on a different class from what it is written for - it'll usually be created for the specific characteristics of that class.

Do the railways do the equivalent of iron birds? Get all the electric and mechanical bits in a hangar, wire them together, and make sure it all works in a place where it is easier to see what is and isnt working and why? I read that the modular signalling is done that way by at least one company, with the installation put together in a warehouse and tested before it goes out to the worksite.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes isn't that because swr wanted the doors of a 5 and 10 car in the same place?

which is hardly important when they could have just used platform graphics to show where the specialist doors were going to open

Yes, it was very important in the context of meeting the dwell times in the specification but I really can't be bothered to explain why yet again. If you do a search it's buried in the thread.

All this could have been avoided if they just went for a variant of the 345/710/720 rather than design a whole new bespoke cab and unit when it's not needed (gangway or emergency exit)

Hardly a bespoke cab when according the illustrations the same cab design will be used on the hydrogen units.

 

[Domh245]

Hardly a bespoke cab when according the illustrations the same cab design will be used on the hydrogen units.

At the time, back in 2017, it was bespoke though!

It did seem to be the basis of the gangwayed cab as later rolled out (the first time around!) on the 730s

 

[Goldfish62]

At the time, back in 2017, it was bespoke though!

It did seem to be the basis of the gangwayed cab as later rolled out (the first time around!) on the 730s

And from what I've read they also have plenty of problems!

 

[Snow1964]

the software needs to be tested on the actual hardware. It will have been tested on a virtual machine, but deploying it to the correct hardware configuration (which is the class 701, and nothing else) can highlight issues that the VM cannot. I work with complex computerised heavy equipment and have to test new software versions, I can't stick it on a vacuum cleaner and test it there

It rather depends on what the virtual machine is.

If it is a set of production wiring looms with the parts plugged in (but sitting on the floor of the test hall, instead of being in the physical train bodyshell), then ought to be able to test majority of it.

Software is a set of tasks, usually worked through in sequence (many times a second), controlling different parts. So if don’t actually test it driving / connected to modules then you won’t know until too late if it works.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It rather depends on what the virtual machine is.

If it is a set of production wiring looms with the parts plugged in (but sitting on the floor of the test hall, instead of being in the physical train bodyshell), then ought to be able to test majority of it.

Software is a set of tasks, usually worked through in sequence (many times a second), controlling different parts. So if don’t actually test it driving / connected to modules then you won’t know until too late if it works.

These trains wouldn't be running up and down the SWML in traffic if they hadn't already been through this stage. This core software running traction, braking and safety systems must be standard Aventra to have got a certificate to run so its whatever they've written for SWR needs that is causing problems in the way it interfaces with it perhaps.

The cab redesign shouldn't have impacted software as at the end of the day it needs to contain all the same kit as a 710/720 its a matter of how that kit has been reassembled that is causing the issue through the ergonomics of working in the cab perhaps.

Ultimately i feel behind this is that ASLEF and RMT have got back into bed together about what they consider to be appropriate staffing levels on passenger trains and if todays arrangements were being retained there would be movement to more collaboration. Im not saying there aren't other underlying issues that Alstom need to sort as well.

 

[Goldfish62]

These trains wouldn't be running up and down the SWML in traffic if they hadn't already been through this stage. This core software running traction, braking and safety systems must be standard Aventra to have got a certificate to run so its whatever they've written for SWR needs that is causing problems in the way it interfaces with it perhaps.

Yes, we should remind ourselves that the ORR granted authorisation in October 2020 for them to be used in passenger service.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, we should remind ourselves that the ORR granted authorisation in October 2020 for them to be used in passenger service.

They aren't concerned with reliability though or whether the train crew think the cab is workable only compliance to relevant group standards. However, given reports of doors opening whilst on the move you would have to question the integrity of this authorisation.

 

[Goldfish62]

They aren't concerned with reliability though or whether the train crew think the cab is workable only compliance to relevant group standards. However, given reports of doors opening whilst on the move you would have to question the integrity of this authorisation.

ORR have a reputation for being ultra-cautious in matters of safety.

Anyway, my point was how long ago they were actually authorised. Given testing was started in June 2020 it would have been by no means unrealistic to assume introduction from the Dec 2020 timetable.