Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[norbitonflyer]

there were so many services converging by that point, no one would have to wait more than a few minutes for the next train (a bit like LU would advertise first and last tube services by exact timings, but everything in between was just advertised as every xx minutes), and in that way (the thinking was) it would help to keep arrival/departures as close to right time as possible at Waterloo, where any late running would have a far greater negative impact overall.

That may be the thinking of the planners, but during disruption the automated announcements at Vauxhall continue to churn out apologies for late running of each Waterloo-bound service as it approaches, even though there is still a train every four minutes, and they are all going to the same place.

(And of course this makes it harder to hear the rather more important announcements about the late running and or changed stopping patterns - i.e cancellations as far as Vauxhall is concerned - of the down services on the opposite side of the platform).

 

[Ian Hardy]

That may be the thinking of the planners, but during disruption the automated announcements at Vauxhall continue to churn out apologies for late running of each Waterloo-bound service as it approaches, even though there is still a train every four minutes, and they are all going to the same place.

(And of course this makes it harder to hear the rather more important announcements about the late running and or changed stopping patterns - i.e cancellations as far as Vauxhall is concerned - of the down services on the opposite side of the platform).

The CIS displays from Raynes Park / Putney towards London all have the time of the train service hidden so they just have:
"BLANK London Waterloo 2 mins"
instead of
"08:06 London Waterloo 2 mins"

 

[Goldfish62]

The CIS displays from Raynes Park / Putney towards London all have the time of the train service hidden so they just have:
"BLANK London Waterloo 2 mins"
instead of
"08:06 London Waterloo 2 mins"

Yes, it's been like that for a very long time.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Yes, it's been like that for a very long time.

Indeed. I am talking about the audible announcements, not the screens. (it may have improved recently - my commuting days are behind me now)

 

[Geogregor]

Some class 701 parked at Clapham Junction:


P1740719 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1740720 by Geogregor*, on Flickr


P1740722 by Geogregor*, on Flickr

I really hope to see them properly in service, replacing some of the current SWR junk.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Diagram seems tpo be running today, but RTT is being secretive about which unit is being used.

 

[800001]

Diagram seems tpo be running today, but RTT is being secretive about which unit is being used.

701039

 

[WarrenTManager]

701039

701028 is prepped spare so hopefully not too long before that makes a debut.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I really hope to see them properly in service, replacing some of the current SWR junk.

Same here, it's not fun to see so many parked up and then get on a rancid 455.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

then get on a rancid 455.

The only thing rancid about a 455 is some of those who travel on them, especially at certain hours - but don't get me started. I well recall some of the European stock I travelled on (behind the Iron curtain as was), truly awful, and that was main line trains. People in this country (UK) sometimes forget how lucky they are (train comfort/frequency etc) compared to some other parts of the globe - end of rant.

 

[norbitonflyer]

701028 is prepped spare so hopefully not too long before that makes a debut.

I was beginning to wonder when we'd see another one. Only three have been used so far, and only one in the past week.
701028 February 6th, 7th, 9th
701037 January 9th, 11th, 18th, Feb 15th, 20th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, Mar 1st, 4th, 5th
701036 March 7th
701039 January 10th, 12th, 17th, 23rd, 26th, 31st, Feb (1st), 2nd, 5th
701043 January 16th, 19th, 22nd, 24th, 25th, 29th, Feb 8th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, Mar 6th

Did not run on strike day (Jan 30th). Feb 1st cancelled because of service disruption at Wraysbury.

[EDIT - updated]

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I was beginning to wonder when we'd see another one

For reasons I won't bore you with, of the units theoretically available for public service, some will be allocated to training scenarios (crew and fitters etc), and for the benefit of all concerned, it may be easier for units thus allocated to be used specifically for those purposes alone, certainly in the early weeks/months of the roll out. To give one simple example, it may be that unit 701xxx allocated to static training, is sitting on siding X at where ever, and to extricate said unit (for public service) and replace same (for training) later the same day, would simply involve too much interference and interruption to the training schedule, and so that particular unit may not see public service until much later in the roll out.

 

[Mikey C]

The only thing rancid about a 455 is some of those who travel on them, especially at certain hours - but don't get me started. I well recall some of the European stock I travelled on (behind the Iron curtain as was), truly awful, and that was main line trains. People in this country (UK) sometimes forget how lucky they are (train comfort/frequency etc) compared to some other parts of the globe - end of rant.

And the 455s are massively nicer than when they had their original BR interiors.

 

[D365]

For reasons I won't bore you with, of the units theoretically available for public service, some will be allocated to training scenarios (crew and fitters etc), and for the benefit of all concerned, it may be easier for units thus allocated to be used specifically for those purposes alone, certainly in the early weeks/months of the roll out. To give one simple example, it may be that unit 701xxx allocated to static training, is sitting on siding X at where ever, and to extricate said unit (for public service) and replace same (for training) later the same day, would simply involve too much interference and interruption to the training schedule, and so that particular unit may not see public service until much later in the roll out.

Good summary.

 

[norbitonflyer]

And the 455s are massively nicer than when they had their original BR interiors.

I disagree. Although the upholstery was rather faded and tatty by the time the old seats were replaced, the old design was better.

• 30% more seats (316 per unit instead of 244). PIXC limits were impossible to meet with the new layout - the original rule was no-one having to stand for more than 30 minutes, but after the changes trains on most lines were already full and standing more than 30 minutes before reaching waterloo, which never happened before. The arrival of the 456s merely restored the seating capacity of a train back to pre-refurb levels.
• almost as much standing space (the aisles in the new layout are not wide enough to stand two abreast)
• clever perches at the end of each row of seats for those passengers who did have to stand,
• more open (less claustrophobic) environment because of the low seat backs,
• more legroom because most seating was in bays rather than cramped face-to-back seats apparently, from the seat spacing, designed for (and possibly by) 12 year olds
• garish design of upholstery

Even if new layout has more standing room, which is debatable, the standees are more crowded as each carriage has 18 more of them because of the reduced seating capacity.

I am only average height, but in the airline seats my knees are pressed against the seat in front, which is so close and so tall that I cannot hold a newspaper or book far enough away to read comfortably, and if I am in a gangway seat the window side passenger cannot get out. In face to face seating the seats may have been further apart, but the legroom can be shared by two passengers facing each other.

Southern's refurbishment was much less drastic, and much better thought out.

 

[Goldfish62]

I disagree. Although the upholstery was rather faded and tatty by the time the old seats were replaced, the old design was better.

• 30% more seats (316 per unit instead of 244). PIXC limits were impossible to meet with the new layout - the original rule was no-one having to stand for more than 30 minutes, but after the changes trains on most lines were already full and standing more than 30 minutes before reaching waterloo, which never happened before. The arrival of the 456s merely restored the seating capacity of a train back to pre-refurb levels.
• almost as much standing space (the aisles in the new layout are not wide enough to stand two abreast)
• clever perches at the end of each row of seats for those passengers who did have to stand,
• more open (less claustrophobic) environment because of the low seat backs,
• more legroom because most seating was in bays rather than cramped face-to-back seats apparently, from the seat spacing, designed for (and possibly by) 12 year olds
• garish design of upholstery

Even if new layout has more standing room, which is debatable, the standees are more crowded as each carriage has 18 more of them because of the reduced seating capacity.

I am only average height, but in the airline seats my knees are pressed against the seat in front, which is so close and so tall that I cannot hold a newspaper or book far enough away to read comfortably, and if I am in a gangway seat the window side passenger cannot get out. In face to face seating the seats may have been further apart, but the legroom can be shared by two passengers facing each other.

Southern's refurbishment was much less drastic, and much better thought out.

Oh, interesting opinion.

Personally I disagree with all that, especially the bit about the airline seats. They allow vastly more legroom as you can stretch your legs out in front. I'm 5'10" and always choose airline seats on any train for this reason. I'm particularly glad the 701s have predominantly airline seats.

 

[800001]

Oh, interesting opinion.

Personally I disagree with all that, especially the bit about the airline seats. They allow vastly more legroom as you can stretch your legs out in front. I'm 5'10" and always choose airline seats on any train for this reason. I'm particularly glad the 701s have predominantly airline seats.

I’m 6ft 4 and my legs were touching seat in front on airline seat. Not comfortable.

On return journey managed to get a set of 4 seats which obviously with none else sat there was comfortable.

 

[Goldfish62]

On return journey managed to get a set of 4 seats which obviously with none else sat there was comfortable.

But would undoubtedly be an issue for you if the other seats were occupied.

Like one of my friends I dare say you find issues with your height in many circumstances (flying must be unbearable), but not in any way wanting to sound dismissive, public transport is generally designed with people in the median height range in mind.

The bigger issue (in more ways than one) is that people are getting wider, which is why 2+3 seating is no longer appropriate. Unfortunately the DfT interior spec requiring maximum gangway width by eliminating seats spacers partly cancels out the efforts to address this, but a perfect solution within Britain's "shrunk in the wash" loading gauge is virtually impossible unless you opt for transverse or 2+1 seating.

 

[800001]

But would undoubtedly be an issue for you if the other seats were occupied.

Like one of my friends I dare say you find issues with your height in many circumstances (flying must be unbearable), but not in any way wanting to sound dismissive, public transport is generally designed with people in the median height range in mind.

The bigger issue (in more ways than one) is that people are getting wider, which is why 2+3 seating is no longer appropriate. Unfortunately the DfT interior spec requiring maximum gangway width by eliminating seats spacers partly cancels out the efforts to address this, but a perfect solution within Britain's "shrunk in the wash" loading gauge is virtually impossible unless you opt for transverse or 2+1 seating.

Oh definitely if other people had been there it would be just as uncomfortable.

 

[WarrenTManager]

701028 today red pens at the ready

 

[norbitonflyer]

public transport is generally designed with people in the median height range in mind.

Thereby, by definition, making it too cramped for 50% of the population.

I'm 5'9 and find most "airline" seats uncomfortable. As well as thge limited kneeroom, the seat backs are so close to the seat behind that it is impossible to stand up straight when getting out of the seat. I can only use the gangway seats, and then only by letting my legs encroach on the aisle, reducing the area available for standees

Oh, interesting opinion.

Personally I disagree with all that, especially the bit about the airline seats. They allow vastly more legroom as you can stretch your legs out in front.

Thew problem is not where to put your feet. It's the knees.
In face to face seats there is no problem with feet, as the floor space is shared.

 

[73128]

701028 out today on 1025 with very pleasant and friendly driver.

Shame though about the member of SWR staff at Waterloo who told me i needed a permit from NR to take pictures.

 

[Snow1964]

Oh, interesting opinion.

Personally I disagree with all that, especially the bit about the airline seats. They allow vastly more legroom as you can stretch your legs out in front. I'm 5'10" and always choose airline seats on any train for this reason. I'm particularly glad the 701s have predominantly airline seats.

I am 5'10" too and always preferred the old 455 layout, as I too struggle with knees bashing airline seat in front. Maybe I am out of proportion and have long upper legs (although I doubt it as only take short-medium leg length trousers). I always found it easier to get comfortable in the 10 seat bays, even in middle seat which was often all that was available on my commute.

 

[455Commuter]

701028 out today on 1025 with very pleasant and friendly driver.

Shame though about the member of SWR staff at Waterloo who told me i needed a permit from NR to take pictures.

I believe at Network Rail owned stations (and maybe other TOCs if asked), you have to sign in for safety purposes or whatever reason. If it's just a quick few photos on a phone, that can be quite annoying, whereas if it's a prolonged shooting session (especially with a professional camera) I think staff on the platform would prefer peace of mind that the person shooting has been signed in and briefed.

 

[MotCO]

I am 5'10" too and always preferred the old 455 layout, as I too struggle with knees bashing airline seat in front. Maybe I am out of proportion and have long upper legs (although I doubt it as only take short-medium leg length trousers). I always found it easier to get comfortable in the 10 seat bays, even in middle seat which was often all that was available on my commute.

I'm 6'5", so I really suffer on public transport . On buses, I prefer the inward facing 'over the wheels' seats, and on trains, the facing seats without trying to play footsie!

 

[GW43125]

Going well for 2U93, just spent 25 minutes sat at Wraysbury as Datchet crossing is broken. Will be interesting to see how much time it makes up on the return.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

the facing seats without trying to play footsie!

In my 450 days, whilst most people acted in a 'give and take' way, there were always one or two individuals using facing seats, who had joined the train earlier and sat facing an empty seat, feet planted in such a way that suited them, but somehow managed to occupy a majority of the associated floor space, so anyone joining later and sitting opposite found their seated position a tad difficult due to a lack of floor space to align their own feet in a natural manner (if you get me?).
As said most people were ok, but I do remember one or two who stubbornly refused to move their feet even by a few inches. I did find (on one or two occasions) my workworn steel toe capped boots did become quite persuasive, in a subtle way - perhaps I shouldn't admit that....

 

[Invincible]

Going well for 2U93, just spent 25 minutes sat at Wraysbury as Datchet crossing is broken. Will be interesting to see how much time it makes up on the return.

A level crossing near me also had timing problems, could be the recent upgrades did not cope well with the problems caused by a broken down train at Clapham today.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

In my 450 days, whilst most people acted in a 'give and take' way, there were always one or two individuals using facing seats, who had joined the train earlier and sat facing an empty seat, feet planted in such a way that suited them, but somehow managed to occupy a majority of the associated floor space, so anyone joining later and sitting opposite found their seated position a tad difficult due to a lack of floor space to align their own feet in a natural manner (if you get me?).
As said most people were ok, but I do remember one or two who stubbornly refused to move their feet even by a few inches. I did find (on one or two occasions) my workworn steel toe capped boots did become quite persuasive, in a subtle way - perhaps I shouldn't admit that....

I've sat opposite people like that in Virgin (always had it to myself since it was Avanti) 390 First Class. If they're pushing their legs under your seat from the facing seat opposite even with THAT much legroom, it's rather obnoxious.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Going well for 2U93, just spent 25 minutes sat at Wraysbury as Datchet crossing is broken. Will be interesting to see how much time it makes up on the return.

Got to Windsor 42 minutes down, made upo 3 minutes on the turnround but was still 39 late backl at Waterloo