Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[Busman]

I'm

Clandon is indeed max 8-car. Leatherhead is where the crossover is rather than Ashtead although AFAIK the restriction there is that trains reversing on the up line must have a through gangway, a 10-car gangwayed unit shouldn't be a problem.
Wimbledon No 1 UCS which is used to reverse Sunday morning Guildford via Cobham services is 8-car max. Anything longer would have to use the depot proper which is signed by less crews.

I'm still trying to work out why any train in this day and age is not built for interconnecting gangways between two sets. Can anyone explain why?

Surely with ongoing crime being committed on trains and especially with SWR having on board supervisors/guards, if something serious is happening in the front 5 carriages, how will a guard be able to help if they are in the back 5 carriages if there is no gangways between stock?

Also, to cut through the ongoing nonsense, what is the issue with the new SWR stock being continuously delayed into service?

 

[Warrior2852]

Surely with ongoing crime being committed on trains and especially with SWR having on board supervisors/guards, if something serious is happening in the front 5 carriages, how will a guard be able to help if they are in the back 5 carriages if there is no gangways between stock?

On trains without gangways (or inaccessible ones) there's usually a rule that you have to have a member of staff in each portion - up in EMR-land this is one of the reasons you get so many 5 coach Intercity services even though there's so many passengers.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'm


I'm still trying to work out why any train in this day and age is not built for interconnecting gangways between two sets. Can anyone explain why?

Surely with ongoing crime being committed on trains and especially with SWR having on board supervisors/guards, if something serious is happening in the front 5 carriages, how will a guard be able to help if they are in the back 5 carriages if there is no gangways between stock?

Also, to cut through the ongoing nonsense, what is the issue with the new SWR stock being continuously delayed into service?

There is a bunch of reasons, in no particular order:
- If the trains are maximum length anyway (eg thameslink), there is no point as they can't run in multiple anyway
- If shorter trains aren't expected to work in multiple
- If the train has a maximum speed over 110 mph, it's not possible
- Gangways cost money
- Gangways make the cab smaller

 

[norbitonflyer]

The trains on Saturday afternoon/evenings are frequently crowded enough that there are still groups wandering down the train looking for seats when we stop at Clapham Junction and another load of people want to get on.

On inner suburban services, it doesn't count as crowded if you can wander down the train!

There is a bunch of reasons, in no particular order:
- If the trains are maximum length anyway (eg thameslink), there is no point as they can't run in multiple anyway
- If shorter trains aren't expected to work in multiple
- If the train has a maximum speed over 110 mph, it's not possible
- Gangways cost money
- Gangways make the cab smaller

Gangways make the cab draughtier

On trains without gangways (or inaccessible ones) there's usually a rule that you have to have a member of staff in each portion - up in EMR-land this is one of the reasons you get so many 5 coach Intercity services even though there's so many passengers.

How did that work when SWR were running 455+455+456? As I recall, the guard rode in the middle unit, so the non-gangwayed 456 was only staffed when it was leading.

 

[LUYMun]

Clandon is indeed max 8-car. Leatherhead is where the crossover is rather than Ashtead although AFAIK the restriction there is that trains reversing on the up line must have a through gangway, a 10-car gangwayed unit shouldn't be a problem.
Wimbledon No 1 UCS which is used to reverse Sunday morning Guildford via Cobham services is 8-car max. Anything longer would have to use the depot proper which is signed by less crews.

Stations-wise, I do believe the 701s will have SDO? Which should make short platforms not much of a problem.

 

[pompeyfan]

Stations-wise, I do believe the 701s will have SDO? Which should make short platforms not much of a problem.

It’s not the short platforms, it’s fitting a 10 car behind various shunt / dummy / ground position signals using existing infrastructure that is provided for weekend engineering works. Using Clandon as an example, when Guildford is shut services will terminate and restart from the same platform, but a 10 car would overhang the point work. Theoretically you could draw forward before starting back, but that becomes messy, and may involve passing a “protecting signal”

 

[Goldfish62]

How did that work when SWR were running 455+455+456? As I recall, the guard rode in the middle unit, so the non-gangwayed 456 was only staffed when it was leading.

That's correct. Also on the 455+456+456 formations. One unit was always unstaffed.

 

[Bald Rick]

On trains without gangways (or inaccessible ones) there's usually a rule that you have to have a member of staff in each portion - up in EMR-land this is one of the reasons you get so many 5 coach Intercity services even though there's so many passengers.

That’s not generally a rule.

 

[PG]

If the train has a maximum speed over 110 mph, it's not possible

What difference does the extra 15mph cause which renders unit to unit gateways impossible? Do they (somehow) become unsafe for use at speeds in excess of 110mph?

Also, to cut through the ongoing nonsense, what is the issue with the new SWR stock being continuously delayed into service?

At this point, 4+ years late, I'm inclined to blame those well known laws - Sod's and Murphy's

 

[hwl]

On trains without gangways (or inaccessible ones) there's usually a rule that you have to have a member of staff in each portion - up in EMR-land this is one of the reasons you get so many 5 coach Intercity services even though there's so many passengers.

That isn't a rule on most operators including SWR. EMR much more of an exception due to the operator caving into the RMT previously.

What difference does the extra 15mph cause which renders unit to unit gateways impossible? Do they (somehow) become unsafe for use at speeds in excess of 110mph?

The crash regs have a change in frontal impact requirements at >115mph that effectively make it nigh on impossible.

Gangways at that higher speeds would also be bad for aerodynamic drag.

 

[PG]

The crash regs have a change in frontal impact requirements at >115mph that effective make it nigh on impossible.

Good point. I'm not going to argue against measures which, should the worst happen, increase driver safety.

 

[Bald Rick]

Good point. I'm not going to argue against measures which, should the worst happen, increase driver safety.

not forgetting passenger safety

 

[AM9]

Good point. I'm not going to argue against measures which, should the worst happen, increase driver safety.

ISTR when the plan to increase the maximum speed of class 350s was published, a maximum speed for a non-extended body was 190Km/h which is just under 118mph.

 

[Warrior2852]

That’s not generally a rule.

Not sure where I heard that then, interesting.

 

[MCR247]

Not sure where I heard that then, interesting.

It might be the agreed method of working for certain TOCs, but not necessarily a ‘rule”

 

[jackot]

It might be the agreed method of working for certain TOCs, but not necessarily a ‘rule”

Not sure where I heard that then, interesting.

Yes. I know for example Cross Country will lock out a set in a double voyager formation if they can't staff both units, but as I say that is Cross Country.
For many TOCs it is a non-issue, especially seeing as many commuter trains run DOO.

 

[Wokingham]

Could they install the bumper car like cab ends seen in Denmark?

 

[XAM2175]

Could they install the bumper car like cab ends seen in Denmark?

Well, not now! And in any case, it's something that hasn't been done in Britain before so obviously it won't work

More seriously, I suspect it might be difficult to make that design work with the new TSIs for collision protection, and there would be concerns about the amount of the cab environment that's exposed to the public even while the gangway is in use.

It also remains the case that gangways aren't really necessary for these trains, as already mentioned.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The fact that on the previous 100 posts that anything new about the point of this thread has be written about sums up the apathy in the industry and the DfT to the ongoing failure to progress this nigh on Billion pound investment.

 

[Carlisle]

The fact that on the previous 100 posts that anything new about the point of this thread has be written about sums up the apathy in the industry and the DfT to the ongoing failure to progress this nigh on Billion pound investment.

Indeed, slightly concerning some of more informed posters seem to suggest we’ll be in mid summer & still have no idea when they’ll enter service.

 

[Goldfish62]

Indeed, slightly concerning some of more informed posters seem to suggest we’ll be in mid summer & still have no idea when they’ll enter service.

Well yes. All we ever hear by way of updates is that there's been absolutely no progress.

It feels like scandalous inertia from the industry and DfT. Nearly a billion pounds of public money is being spent on these trains, but all we get is silence.

Meanwhile things are getting tighter and tighter with passenger loadings, resulting in some tweaks to diagrams from Monday to get the few 10 car trains in the fleet onto the busiest journeys to relieve overcrowding.

 

[Domh245]

Nearly a billion pounds of public money is being spent on these trains, but all we get is silence.

As Rock Rail are a private entity who've funded these trains, no public money has been spent on them surely? Eventually it'll be recouped in leasing costs but at the time being they're no particular drain on the public beyond the life-extension works to the 455s and the comparatively costs associated with storing & managing them?

 

[Goldfish62]

As Rock Rail are a private entity who've funded these trains, no public money has been spent on them surely? Eventually it'll be recouped in leasing costs but at the time being they're no particular drain on the public beyond the life-extension works to the 455s and the comparatively costs associated with storing & managing them?

SWR has accepted a number of these trains. I doubt if Rock Rail have given them to SWR for free.

The whole thing stinks. Trains are getting more and more overcrowded due to lack of rolling stock yet no one from the DfT or the industry can be bothered to let us know when if ever these trains might enter service.

 

[GeoffS]

On the Elecrostar it's a very good design. I doubt if many passengers actually realise they're passing between units. A bit different from on the Desiros where it's obvious.

Also on Southern many trains divide en route, meaning passengers often need to walk through in order to make sure they're in the right section.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Also on Southern many trains divide en route, meaning passengers often need to walk through in order to make sure they're in the right section.

In practice it's often quicker and easier, especially if encumbered with luggage and/or a long way down the train from the division point, to switch between units via the platform at the station where the train divides, rather than negotiate narrow gangways, possibly with people coming the other way.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

SWR has accepted a number of these trains. I doubt if Rock Rail have given them to SWR for free.

Its possible that as Rock Rail have received some pretty hefty compensation payments from Bombardier as was that they are certainly not going to be in breach of the lending terms as they can cash trap the money within the loans to cover current interest payments which has allowed them to stay solvent during the delays. Mind you if i were them i certainly wouldn't be accepting the trains unless there was a back to back agreement with FSWR that they were going to lease them.

The whole thing stinks. Trains are getting more and more overcrowded due to lack of rolling stock yet no one from the DfT or the industry can be bothered to let us know when if ever these trains might enter service.

It is difficult here with so many moving parts of train design, train faults and the industrial relations issues with the train crew union representatives to really know what the state of play is but its about time the 30+ politicians representing constituencies across the proposed 701 operating area started putting pressure on the DfT. I also continue to find it bizarre not one of the railway journalists or magazine editors has really undertaken investigative journalism to highlight what a fiasco this is from whatever cause.

 

[Goldfish62]

I also continue to find it bizarre not one of the railway journalists or magazine editors has really undertaken investigative journalism to highlight what a fiasco this is from whatever cause.

Yes, agreed. It's almost as if the trains don't exist.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

.

 

[GeoffS]

In practice it's often quicker and easier, especially if encumbered with luggage and/or a long way down the train from the division point, to switch between units via the platform at the station where the train divides, rather than negotiate narrow gangways, possibly with people coming the other way.

Yes, that may well be quicker and easier, but people still don't often do it! Also the announcements are for ever encouraging folk to make sure they're in the correct part of train!

 

[Peter Sarf]

In practice it's often quicker and easier, especially if encumbered with luggage and/or a long way down the train from the division point, to switch between units via the platform at the station where the train divides, rather than negotiate narrow gangways, possibly with people coming the other way.

I think commuters (who are lightly loaded) will walk a significant length of the train if needed to get in the right portion. They will get on any where they can for a seat at Victoria and make their move to the correct portion further down the line nearer to the trains dividing station. On a twelve car leaving Victoria many, who have just made it to the train at Victoria can be seen walking forwards through the train straight away and before Clapham Junction boarders take seats. I for one do that off peak in both directions. Twelve coaches is a long way to walk so inevitably leads to watching your train leave if you try to do too much on the platform !. The exits at East Croydon is a the country end btw.

The above capability, ie inter unit connections, are probably not so badly needed on a pair of 701s as the services they run on are maybe more like all stations suburban working with no splitting/joining rather than reaching the coast. Certainly less important than loos......