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

[Nicholas Lewis]

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.

No doubt this explained in one of the 2580 posts above but why has the 701 got a different cab design from the 345/720 Aventras? For once in a long time we had a big production run of the same basic design (interior is down to customer like a new car) yet somewhere a shed load of risk has been imported into this class. ASLEF reps would have been involved in the cab design from early days so either they were ignored or they've changed the goalposts someone needs to fess up as to whats going on.

 

[Ethano92]

No doubt this explained in one of the 2580 posts above but why has the 701 got a different cab design from the 345/720 Aventras? For once in a long time we had a big production run of the same basic design (interior is down to customer like a new car) yet somewhere a shed load of risk has been imported into this class. ASLEF reps would have been involved in the cab design from early days so either they were ignored or they've changed the goalposts someone needs to fess up as to whats going on.

The cabs are different so the doors will always line up in the same place whether the train is a 1x10 car or 2x5 car which is important for the assistance boarding points which SWR want to install on platformsI think there was a lot of discussion about it being to fit in an extra row of seats but others have said that isn't the case.

As a question, if the problem is the cab being too small, would an option be to push the interior cab wall back into the passenger space? How feasible actually is this?

Do I remember correctly there being rumours of the cab not being too cramped early on in production. Shame things weren't sorted then.

 

[Goldfish62]

The cabs are different so the doors will always line up in the same place whether the train is a 1x10 car or 2x5 car which is important for the assistance boarding points which SWR want to install on platformsI think there was a lot of discussion about it being to fit in an extra row of seats but others have said that isn't the case.

As a question, if the problem is the cab being too small, would an option be to push the interior cab wall back into the passenger space? How feasible actually is this?

Do I remember correctly there being rumours of the cab not being too cramped early on in production. Shame things weren't sorted then.

Yes, the claim that the short cab was to fit extra seats in is clearly not correct. There's one bay of four between the cab and the doors. On the 720s there's one bay of four plus an inward facing single seat squeezed in.

 

[Nogoohwell]

Lets face it, ASLEF realise that with the guard being kicked out, that they are the ones that now hold the negotiating power here. As the railways comeback under DfT control (at arms length) and under a Tory government, there is a great opportunity to embarrass, score points and possibly negotiate a pay rise and less hours for their members. You could even argue that is the one big opportunity that they will have in a generation to negotiate new terms for their members.

Perhaps I am cynical....

 

[spark001uk]

5Q10 Litchurch to Eastleigh in system as STP today, believe this is the 3rd attempt now at whatever it is (all I know is it's not running under the usual 6X24, wild guess is 701002 coming back).

 

[Fincra5]

Lets face it, ASLEF realise that with the guard being kicked out, that they are the ones that now hold the negotiating power here. As the railways comeback under DfT control (at arms length) and under a Tory government, there is a great opportunity to embarrass, score points and possibly negotiate a pay rise and less hours for their members. You could even argue that is the one big opportunity that they will have in a generation to negotiate new terms for their members.

Perhaps I am cynical....

Classic [Insert Union Bash Here]. If the cabs really are cramped and uncomfortable why should a Driver have to be forced to use it. ASLEF will be looking at whats best for members, who actually sit in there for hours a day...

ASLEF don't just make a fuss about a train "Just Cos", there has to be something wrong! Look at the 385 Fiasco...

 

[Peter Sarf]

Classic [Insert Union Bash Here]. If the cabs really are cramped and uncomfortable why should a Driver have to be forced to use it. ASLEF will be looking at whats best for members, who actually sit in there for hours a day...

ASLEF don't just make a fuss about a train "Just Cos", there has to be something wrong! Look at the 385 Fiasco...

Besides the driver needs to stay alert while in the cab so comfort and well being are important. Driver cannot just get out and go stretch their legs when they feel like it.

 

[spark001uk]

Well 5Q10 is on the go, 47727 with 701028, and no barriers (the 47 is dellner fitted). That must be reason for different headcode.
Currently 39 late.

 

[Nogoohwell]

Besides the driver needs to stay alert while in the cab so comfort and well being are important. Driver cannot just get out and go stretch their legs when they feel like it.

All very true.

The fact that these things are still rolling off the production line and are being delivered southwards suggests that neither manufacture, ROSCO or SWR think this will be resolved with an engineering solution.

Kaizen has been in use for decades now, if there was a potential need to redesign the cab, you would switch focus to build the trailers, then apply fix and build the driving cars. Regardless of contracts, no numpty would continue to build something that they would knowingly need to change. It appears on the surface (as I've not seen the specific points on contention) that the parties are looking at a negotiated settlement, such as working less hours.

Dont forget, the guards got a nice new settlement from SWR with less hours so why not the drivers.

 

[Goldfish62]

Dont forget, the guards got a nice new settlement from SWR with less hours so why not the drivers.

As I recall the drivers got a multi-year deal last year including a pay rise which is not subject to the two year pay freeze.

 

[DennisM]

It appears on the surface (as I've not seen the specific points on contention) that the parties are looking at a negotiated settlement, such as working less hours.

Dont forget, the guards got a nice new settlement from SWR with less hours so why not the drivers.

Sounds like a win win situation for drivers at outer depots that won’t go near the 701s

 

[Goldfish62]

Wouldn't it have been so much more straightforward if Bombardier had gone for the UIC international standard driver's desk as fitted to the 700 and 707? Instead they seemed to start from the S stock as the basis and heavily adapt that.

 

[adc82140]

Classic [Insert Union Bash Here]. If the cabs really are cramped and uncomfortable why should a Driver have to be forced to use it. ASLEF will be looking at whats best for members, who actually sit in there for hours a day...

ASLEF don't just make a fuss about a train "Just Cos", there has to be something wrong! Look at the 385 Fiasco...

I'd really hope that the unions would be deeply involved at the design stage. If they weren't, then SWR are in cloud cuckoo land. If they were, then ASLEF need to explain their position, pronto.

 

[ComUtoR]

Wouldn't it have been so much more straightforward if Bombardier had gone for the UIC international standard driver's desk as fitted to the 700 and 707?

Possibly because the 700 desk/chair also had design and safety issues that were raised by ASLEF.

 

[Mikey C]

Classic [Insert Union Bash Here]. If the cabs really are cramped and uncomfortable why should a Driver have to be forced to use it. ASLEF will be looking at whats best for members, who actually sit in there for hours a day...

ASLEF don't just make a fuss about a train "Just Cos", there has to be something wrong! Look at the 385 Fiasco...

On the other hand we also need an "objective" test as to whether the cab is unsuitable

Yes the unions and members might want a more spacious and comfy cab with better visibility, but that doesn't mean in itself that the 701 cab is unacceptable. Especially when you compare it to the gangwayed stock it is replacing, like the 455s and 458s.

 

[Nogoohwell]

Another factor at play is that this gives ASLEF a negotiating position without having to impact the customer or formally going into dispute and go on strike. Certainly avoids bad press.

This is not a union bash, just simple opportunism. You play the game with the cards you have been dealt and the hand ASLEF have is pretty good. They would not be doing their job if they did take capitalise on it.

 

[Fincra5]

On the other hand we also need an "objective" test as to whether the cab is unsuitable

Yes the unions and members might want a more spacious and comfy cab with better visibility, but that doesn't mean in itself that the 701 cab is unacceptable. Especially when you compare it to the gangwayed stock it is replacing, like the 455s and 458s.

Maybe but I'm more inclined to believe a 701 has been assessed and the local REPs, of various rolls, might have found it unsuitable for the requirements of a new Train. In my experience your local ASLEF Reps (etc) don't just pick a issue for the sake of it. As you say, the cab of a 701 should be better, with A/C for example... but doesn't mean it actually conforms to agreed requirements. As the 385 shows...

 

[Roger B]

I've seen a report that 47739 hauled a 701 (019?) and some barriers (with 56081 bringing up the rear) from Worksop Down Yard to Derby Litchurch Lane, working as 6X12, today. Is anyone able to confirm? Would this be for preparation / checks prior to delivery, or something else?

Space must becoming a premium at Litchurch Lane and Worksop - I reckon the ability to use Feltham, once complete, can't come soon enough. I've seen it suggested that acceptance by SWR be a prerequisite for using Feltham, but I'd be surprised if some contractual arrangement couldn't be put in place to allow storage of completed units there prior to acceptance by SWR. Could save some big headaches - especially if there's no speedy resolution of the issue(s) raised by ASLEF.

 

[444045]

This week they've started running Ecs moves every afternoon 5Z09 17+12 Clapham Yard to Feltham Depot with 8 450 for tests at the depot, returning as 5Z10 23+10 Feltham Depot to Clapham Yard.

 

[davews]

Interesting. When I passed the new Feltham yard this afternoon there were still men working but it now looks more or less complete. 5Z10 doesn't leave Feltham until 2310 according to RTT and suggests today is the last day.

 

[TEW]

There are 3 workings booked in and out of Feltham Depot from the new May timetable, and it is apparently very close to being ready now.

 

[olilee2]

Out of interest about the issues around the size of the cabs... the short end of the class 153s are tiny. Am I right in thinking that such decisions about can size/comfort/visibility aren’t retrospectively applied?

 

[Fincra5]

Out of interest about the issues around the size of the cabs... the short end of the class 153s are tiny. Am I right in thinking that such decisions about can size/comfort/visibility aren’t retrospectively applied?

Indeed. Most BR era Cabs wouldn't even come close to modern requirements etc...

Grandfather rights and so on...

 

[Bigfoot]

Photo of one of the test trains into Feltham

 

[Bayum]

Photo of one of the test trains into Feltham
View attachment 95291

Test train?

 

[southern442]

Photo of one of the test trains into Feltham

Is this a testing of the functionality of the depot?

 

[spark001uk]

Another delivery this morning, 47749 is in charge of 701029, currently 50L through Leicester.
I would say the flow is stepping up a notch, but it's probably just the fact the previous delivery was cancelled a couple of times.

Edit 1045: Train has come to a stand at Desborough now, southbound emr services are being routed wrong road around it.

Edit 1330: 1Z99 now en route from Leicester. It's been routed to approach from the rear so assume the unit will be going back north.

OK, so now there's another 1Z99 heading down. They're not having a good day!

Finally at around 1745, 47739 with the 701 heading back north, followed by 47749 (0Q10), then the ROG 37 (1Z99). What a show.

 

[HstFan33]

Another delivery this morning, 47749 is in charge of 701029, currently 50L through Leicester.
I would say the flow is stepping up a notch, but it's probably just the fact the previous delivery was cancelled a couple of times.

Edit 1045: Train has come to a stand at Desborough now, southbound emr services are being routed wrong road around it.

Edit 1330: 1Z99 now en route from Leicester. It's been routed to approach from the rear so assume the unit will be going back north.

OK, so now there's another 1Z99 heading down. They're not having a good day!

Yeah apparently the 47 and 701 classed as failure with Brake Problems,

 

[spark001uk]

I thought as much. Must still be playing up as it's been dropped off in Humberstone Rd sidings. All locos back on depot.

 

[Bigfoot]

Test train?

Is this a testing of the functionality of the depot?

Depot testing yes.