Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[Nogoohwell]

Surely the cab on the 701 cannot be as cramped as a 456. Now there is a cab design that the fat controller would disapprove of!

I mean, there's no way his hat would fit in that cab

 

[Bigfoot]

Surely the cab on the 701 cannot be as cramped as a 456. Now there is a cab design that the fat controller would disapprove of!

I mean, there's no way his hat would fit in that cabView attachment 94933

456 cabs are an abomination. Probably what Aslef are trying to prevent happening again.

 

[Goldfish62]

Modern Railways reports that the build programme is now more than halfway through.

Also, for the first time I've seen it mentioned outside social media Today's Railways has reported on the cab issue. Aslef have stated that the trains are "not fit for purpose" due to the cab and other unspecified issues.

It may sound far-fetched, but might these trains never actually enter service? Nothing would surprise me!

 

[spark001uk]

Could it be that 005 was sent up to Widnes to have the cab issue investigated for possible remedies?
Or is that far-fetched also!?
(more likely a fault that needed fixing I'd have thought).

 

[Snow1964]

The first 2x 10 car units should be accepted into use by 15/09/2019, the last 6x 5 car units by 8/12/2020 (pg 434)

What fun it it to read the old franchise agreement,
now 4 months after last one was due to be in service

Modern Railways reports that the build programme is now more than halfway through.

Also, for the first time I've seen it mentioned outside social media Today's Railways has reported on the cab issue. Aslef have stated that the trains are "not fit for purpose" due to the cab and other unspecified issues.

From previously reported build rates, bringing the Modern Railways report forward three weeks would mean about 400 of 750 vehicles are now built.

Realistically 13 months of Covid can probably be estimated at 4 months no production and 9 months half speed production, so running about 8-9 months late. In other words if only allow for Covid (and not other delays) last train should be accepted in September 2021

 

[Goldfish62]

What fun it it to read the old franchise agreement,
now 4 months after last one was due to be in service




From previously reported build rates, bringing the Modern Railways report forward three weeks would mean about 400 of 750 vehicles are now built.

Realistically 13 months of Covid can probably be estimated at 4 months no production and 9 months half speed production, so running about 8-9 months late. In other words if only allow for Covid (and not other delays) last train should be accepted in September 2021

I'm just wondering if there's enough storage space around the network for 750 unusable new coaches!

 

[davews]

When I took a photo of 701005 at my local shack last August I thought it wouldn't be long until we saw them doing the training runs. Wrong! As far as I know not a single one has been on the Reading line, its final home, since. December 2019, then December 2020, will they even make December 2021, looks like a rerun of Crossrail.

(just joined though been on wnxx or a while)

 

[Goldfish62]

When I took a photo of 701005 at my local shack last August I thought it wouldn't be long until we saw them doing the training runs. Wrong! As far as I know not a single one has been on the Reading line, its final home, since. December 2019, then December 2020, will they even make December 2021, looks like a rerun of Crossrail.

(just joined though been on wnxx or a while)

Yes, when I photographed the first run on the Reading line way back in the Summer I was certain I'd be travelling on them by the end of the year.

Oh well.

 

[Snow1964]

I'm just wondering if there's enough storage space around the network for 750 unusable new coaches!

probably not on SWR anymore

the days when there were long sidings at Micheldever which could hold 200+ coaches, or Oatlands cutting (Walton on Thames) which used to store the summer weekends extra stock are long gone.

I think you would need about 9.5 miles (15.3 Km) of sidings to store them

 

[spark001uk]

There is Feltham to store a few, but not until units are officially handed over to swr (should be soon now surely?), then after that it's whatever space becomes available by displaced stock I guess. Incidentally the 3rd pair of 707s went to SE a couple of weeks ago.

 

[43096]

There is Feltham to store a few, but not until units are officially handed over to swr (should be soon now surely?)

If there is a problem with them that prevents them entering service, then SWR aren't going to accept them - apart from anything else that will likely trigger the start of lease payments.

 

[5920]

Surely neither of those would hold up testing.

The cab doors are powered rather than slam. There were at least three cab doors open on delivery casing delays and at least one door open on a test run, apparently.

 

[D7666]

probably not on SWR anymore

the days when there were long sidings at Micheldever which could hold 200+ coaches, or Oatlands cutting (Walton on Thames) which used to store the summer weekends extra stock are long gone.

I think you would need about 9.5 miles (15.3 Km) of sidings to store them

Fill up the Crossrail tubes with them ?

 

[Goldfish62]

There is Feltham to store a few, but not until units are officially handed over to swr (should be soon now surely?), then after that it's whatever space becomes available by displaced stock I guess. Incidentally the 3rd pair of 707s went to SE a couple of weeks ago.

My point was based on them not being handed over to SWR anytime soon, if ever, due to the issues with them!

 

[southern442]

My point was based on them not being handed over to SWR anytime soon, if ever, due to the issues with them!

Well the 385s had cab issues, and they all got fixed even if it meant they were quite delayed. I appreciate that this isn't the same issue but my point is that it's surely something that can be fixed even if the 455s need to stay on for a while longer.

At this rate it's entirely possible that the Southern 455s could get replaced first!

 

[Snow1964]

My point was based on them not being handed over to SWR anytime soon, if ever, due to the issues with them!

Presumably there is a contractual specification, and if they meet that then they get handed over and paid for. Not the builders fault if customer no longer likes part of them (but that was what was specified)

However I have no idea what the contract says, or if any issues are the train builders problem or will be the customers problem.

Ultimately SWR is going to be short of rolling stock as soon as it is required to run a full timetable per franchise, it has lost the 90 class 442 vehicle, is in process of losing 150 class 707s, and about to lose 68 class 458 vehicles. Without the 701s it will be 300+ vehicles down (even more if any 455s or 456s leave before their replacement 701s arrive). 300+ makes Northern‘s shortfall due to faulty brackets look tiny, in fact 300+ coaches is more than entire fleet of some franchises

 

[43096]

Won't the 458 cascade effectively offset the 442 loss?
Without wanting to veer too much into speculation, could it be possible that SWR gain some extra units in the short-term? For example, the Southern 455s as I mentioned are due a replacement soon, assuming that is done through an electrostar cascade or similar, could SWR gain those 455s so that the 707s or the 458s can be freed up before the 701s come in?

Given that SWR are not using their full suburban fleet (455/456/458/707) currently - only need to look at Clapham Yard during the peak to see that - and that the May timetable changes sees them running fewer, not more, services then they are a long way from needing stock to cover the 701s. If they needed cover then presumably the 450s are not fully utilised either so could be used on Windsor line services.

 

[Roger B]

If there is a problem with them that prevents them entering service, then SWR aren't going to accept them - apart from anything else that will likely trigger the start of lease payments.

If they've been delivered to the specifications in the SWR contract, then it's difficult to see on what grounds SWR could refuse to accept them - even if, as has been suggested, ASLEF aren't happy with them.

 

[spark001uk]

If they needed cover then presumably the 450s are not fully utilised either so could be used on Windsor line services.

I see the May timetable for the PDL is more or less the same 3tph (although times re-arranged), ie 1 fast, 1 slow, 1 Haslemere, so there's still presumably those spare units for ongoing cover.

 

[Goldfish62]

Presumably there is a contractual specification, and if they meet that then they get handed over and paid for. Not the builders fault if customer no longer likes part of them (but that was what was specified)

However I have no idea what the contract says, or if any issues are the train builders problem or will be the customers problem.

Ultimately SWR is going to be short of rolling stock as soon as it is required to run a full timetable per franchise, it has lost the 90 class 442 vehicle, is in process of losing 150 class 707s, and about to lose 68 class 458 vehicles. Without the 701s it will be 300+ vehicles down (even more if any 455s or 456s leave before their replacement 701s arrive). 300+ makes Northern‘s shortfall due to faulty brackets look tiny, in fact 300+ coaches is more than entire fleet of some franchises

I suppose it depends on the nature of the issues. If, as has been suggested on this thread, the cabs are below the minimum prescribed size allowable, and that signal sighting and windscreen reflections are real issues, then it must surely be down to the manufacturer and they will have to carry out modification and then find potential buyers. If however all these issues are within required specification then Alstom is going want its invoice paying and it'll be up to the leasing company/SWR/DfT to find the units alternative homes.

The Class 701 order, plus the 442s, was based on the enhanced timetable in the franchise specification. We're unlikely to see that for a very long time, if at all. It's potentially unlikely we'll even see the full Dec 2019 timetable return, I would think. Therefore it seems likely to me that SWR is not actually to require the amount of rolling stock originally envisaged at the time of the franchise award.

So, potential short to medium term plan without the 701s (note - pure pie-in-the-sky speculation on my part!):

-707s to stay with SWR (it's not as if SE actually require them - they were thrown up as a convenient replacement for some networkers)
-455/456s to stay (they've probably got another 5+ years life left in them)
-450s to move (back) to Windsor lines (they have a similar seating capacity to the 458/5s and it's very unlikely large amounts of standing space will be required any time soon).
-458s to Portsmouth line as currently planned.

As for the 701s, if it is the case that they are actually fit for use and it's just SWR that doesn't want them a potential home could be SE, where the stillborn new franchise was expected to dump networkers anyway.

 

[southern442]

I very much doubt that we are anywhere near the territory of them being dumped permanently by SWR. That would just be totally bonkers. It's one thing ordering 30 new units and then the next franchise not wanting them, but an entire suburban fleet replacement then being ditched by the same TOC that ordered them in the first place would be totally unheard of, and bonkers. As far as we know this is a fixable issue, so I'd suggest that it's just a case of being a period of time before they eventually get accepted. The 456s are around 30 years old, the 455s closer to 40, but they have upgraded traction packages so they'll last another 5 years or so as Goldfish62 said. If SWR decide to ditch the 701s and then order another full fleet replacement when the 455s/456s become life expired then that would surely be a scandal that shakes the railway to it's core.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Late to the party but what is "wrong" with the 701 cab?

Remember the 456's were all parked up at Fratton back in the early 1990s prior to introduction to the South Central Division section of Network SouthEast due to issues with driver's seats etc, so is history repeating itself?

 

[Goldfish62]

I very much doubt that we are anywhere near the territory of them being dumped permanently by SWR. That would just be totally bonkers. It's one thing ordering 30 new units and then the next franchise not wanting them, but an entire suburban fleet replacement then being ditched by the same TOC that ordered them in the first place would be totally unheard of, and bonkers. As far as we know this is a fixable issue, so I'd suggest that it's just a case of being a period of time before they eventually get accepted. The 456s are around 30 years old, the 455s closer to 40, but they have upgraded traction packages so they'll last another 5 years or so as Goldfish62 said. If SWR decide to ditch the 701s and then order another full fleet replacement when the 455s/456s become life expired then that would surely be a scandal that shakes the railway to it's core.

Yes, it would be a huge scandal, but nothing would surprise me with the railways.

Presumably Aslef only have to sit it out and refuse to commence training on the units and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The added benefit for their members is no DCO.

First/MTR have paid their termination fee for the franchise, but have not yet agreed terms for the new contract. They could simply walk away and leave the DfT/Operator of Last Resort to pick up the pieces.

 

[D7666]

I suppose it depends on the nature of the issues. If, as has been suggested on this thread, the cabs are below the minimum prescribed size allowable, and that signal sighting and windscreen reflections are real issues, then it must surely be down to the manufacturer and they will have to carry out modification and then find potential buyers. If however all these issues are within required specification then Alstom is going want its invoice paying and it'll be up to the leasing company/SWR/DfT to find the units alternative homes.

The Class 701 order, plus the 442s, was based on the enhanced timetable in the franchise specification. We're unlikely to see that for a very long time, if at all. It's potentially unlikely we'll even see the full Dec 2019 timetable return, I would think. Therefore it seems likely to me that SWR is not actually to require the amount of rolling stock originally envisaged at the time of the franchise award.

So, potential short to medium term plan without the 701s (note - pure pie-in-the-sky speculation on my part!):

-707s to stay with SWR (it's not as if SE actually require them - they were thrown up as a convenient replacement for some networkers)
-455/456s to stay (they've probably got another 5+ years life left in them)
-450s to move (back) to Windsor lines (they have a similar seating capacity to the 458/5s and it's very unlikely large amounts of standing space will be required any time soon).
-458s to Portsmouth line as currently planned.

As for the 701s, if it is the case that they are actually fit for use and it's just SWR that doesn't want them a potential home could be SE, where the stillborn new franchise was expected to dump networkers anyway.

The fatal flaw is if 701s not fit for use (to use your wording) on SWR then how do you figure they are fit for use elesewhere ? It is the same units with the same cabs with the same problem. Moving them to a different TOC won't make that problem go away.

 

[Goldfish62]

The fatal flaw is if 701s not fit for use (to use your wording) on SWR then how do you figure they are fit for use elesewhere ? It is the same units with the same cabs with the same problem. Moving them to a different TOC won't make that problem go away.

If you (re-) read my post again you'll see I did outline two potential scenarios, one of which addresses this.

 

[D7666]

If you (re-) read my post again you'll see I did outline two potential scenarios, one of which addresses this.

ehhh ? WHERE have you stated the 701s cab issue is fixed by moving them to SET ? And HOW ?

You have said it is down to the makers to fix (which is not necessarily right if the makers worked to TOC requirements) BUT if that is carried, there is no need to move them as they are "fit".

So repeat, if "unfit" how does moving them address this ?

 

[samuelmorris]

Yes, it would be a huge scandal, but nothing would surprise me with the railways.

Presumably Aslef only have to sit it out and refuse to commence training on the units and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The added benefit for their members is no DCO.

First/MTR have paid their termination fee for the franchise, but have not yet agreed terms for the new contract. They could simply walk away and leave the DfT/Operator of Last Resort to pick up the pieces.

I'd be very surprised if this happens. They may be absurdly late, but 701s will see service at SWR eventually, one way or the other.

 

[Wyrleybart]

ehhh ? WHERE have you stated the 701s cab issue is fixed by moving them to SET ? And HOW ?

You have said it is down to the makers to fix (which is not necessarily right if the makers worked to TOC requirements) BUT if that is carried, there is no need to move them as they are "fit".

So repeat, if "unfit" how does moving them address this ?

Seems to be a lot of sensationalist doom-mongering going on in this thread

We understand that ASLEF claim the class 701 cabs are too cramped and are not fit for purpose. Well they either are, or aren't. If they are, then they will go back to a works have surgery to put them right. The franchise, the Rosco and the manufacturer simply don't offer them on to another party at a knock down price.

If they aren't then an agreement will be struck between the DfT and the supplier.

 

[Goldfish62]

Seems to be a lot of sensationalist doom-mongering going on in this thread

We understand that ASLEF claim the class 701 cabs are too cramped and are not fit for purpose. Well they either are, or aren't. If they are, then they will go back to a works have surgery to put them right. The franchise, the Rosco and the manufacturer simply don't offer them on to another party at a knock down price.

If they aren't then an agreement will be struck between the DfT and the supplier.

That's more or less what I was getting at.

However, further back in the thread it was stated that it was for local reps to determine if the cab was suitable for their use, so logically this suggests that if the cab is built within industry standards local reps at another TOC *might* consider that it is suitable for their purposes.

ehhh ? WHERE have you stated the 701s cab issue is fixed by moving them to SET ? And HOW ?

You have said it is down to the makers to fix (which is not necessarily right if the makers worked to TOC requirements) BUT if that is carried, there is no need to move them as they are "fit".

So repeat, if "unfit" how does moving them address this ?

You seem to be getting very worked up. I shall kindly decline to respond further.

 

[adc82140]

This nonsensical situation where stock can be rejected based upon the whim of a local union rep has to be brought to an end. Surely it'd be better if ASLEF had a specialist body at national level that decides whether a train class is safe for their staff or not. In my (non rail) industry this already happens. New equipment is signed off by the national council. The local rep is simply a conduit for feedback to HQ.