Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[Sebastian O]

Does the union have to sign off that its members are prepared to work on the trains? At a collective level, there is still the opportunity to object to a new and unsuitable workplace.

Whatever the union says, is trumped by the fact they cannot get out of fault free running.

Bleating on about how the union is stopping progress is pointless, when the trains simply haven’t even been accepted by the TOC or the ORR!

 

[norbitonflyer]

I've been wondering if it's something like that. Perhaps because of the fitment of DCO equipment?

I mean, there's nothing wrong with the units. In class 345 form they're happily whizzing back and forth on the Elizabeth Line.

The cabs were redesigned for class 701 - much less steeply raked windscreen, apparently to get a bit more passenger space. (the 730s also have a more uprighht cab, and gangway doors as well). New cab designs have caused problems on otherwise well-sorted designs before - remember the 385s? Plenty of Hitachi A-trains already in service, but those were the first with an end gangway.

 

[Bayum]

How long until we are at an Ansaldo Breda V250 type situation?

 

[Samzino]

How long until we are at an Ansaldo Breda V250 type situation?

Most of the 701 issues are system issues rather than mainly structural issues. Plus I assume SWR will claim covid period of roughly 2 years slowing things down

 

[Trainbike46]

Are RRBs ever that busy? The ones I see usually have a only a dozen or so passnegers on board

yes, absolutely. Sometimes, particularly if the use of RRBs wasn't planned in advance, the waiting times for RRBs can be quite significant

 

[Dan G]

The 345 units still have issues. Not in far reaching like the 701s. You'll regularly see Alstom technicians at Old Oak and Abbeywood especially, making sure certain trains get fault checked and any system snags fixed and this is expected to go on with updates etc till the apparent May attempt of full service(24trains an hour running which is look very unlikely to be met anyway). The Alstom guys I know have had their temp contracts extended severally at Abbey-wood for example.

Trains never enter service fault-free; the Class 345s seem par for the course if not better (I've not heard of many/any in-service unit failures?).

The 701s will have snags and faults too but there is surely more to their delay in entry into service than that.

Whatever the union says, is trumped by the fact they cannot get out of fault free running.

Bleating on about how the union is stopping progress is pointless, when the trains simply haven’t even been accepted by the TOC or the ORR!

The ORR gave the Class 701 full authorisation in 2021.

 

[3973EXL]

47749 dep 0711 701030

Realtime Trains | 5Q64 0709 Eastleigh Trsmd to Willesden S.W.S. | 05/04/2023

Real-time train running information for 5Q64 0709 departure from Eastleigh Trsmd to Willesden S.W.S. on 05/04/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 5Q66 1000 Willesden S.W.S. to Long Marston Gbrf | 05/04/2023

Real-time train running information for 5Q66 1000 departure from Willesden S.W.S. to Long Marston Gbrf on 05/04/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

47749 dep 0807 701048

Realtime Trains | 5Q64 0709 Eastleigh Trsmd to Willesden S.W.S. | 06/04/2023

Real-time train running information for 5Q64 0709 departure from Eastleigh Trsmd to Willesden S.W.S. on 06/04/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 5Q66 1000 Willesden S.W.S. to Long Marston Gbrf | 06/04/2023

Real-time train running information for 5Q66 1000 departure from Willesden S.W.S. to Long Marston Gbrf on 06/04/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[WarrenTManager]

It can be no other reason simply because SWR have taken delivery of some units, and they wouldn't have if they were not fit for purpose.

Not quite. Contractually the units might have met a minimum standard and still carry a large snagging list that needs to be worked through or have agreed mods packages still to be applied.

 

[Goldfish62]

Bleating on about how the union is stopping progress is pointless, when the trains simply haven’t even been accepted by the TOC or the ORR!

As stated above the ORR approved the units years ago. Plus, I don't know how it can be claimed that SWR haven't accepted any units when the fact is that they have.

My take, and just an educated guess, is that SWR started accepting the units last year on the basis that training wouldn't start until some final software updates were successfully completed, but that these updates have not yet happened.

Trains never enter service fault-free; the Class 345s seem par for the course if not better (I've not heard of many/any in-service unit failures?).

I know from a driver manager that the 345s still have a pile of faults outstanding resolution, and new ones still being found. As you say though it doesn't stop them providing high frequency services through central London day in, day out.

 

[Snow1964]

I know from a driver manager that the 345s still have a pile of faults outstanding resolution, and new ones still being found. As you say though it doesn't stop them providing high frequency services through central London day in, day out.

We know from TfL Board reports that 228 changes and modifications are being made to 345s and Elizabeth line over Easter.

4.4 The Elizabeth line’s central operating section between Paddington and Abbey Wood will be closed from Friday 7 April to Monday 10 April 2023. The blockade will be used to rollout both the ELR 400 Software upgrade and the CMS 33.X upgrade to the communications system over the Easter weekend. This upgrade will remove 21 Operational Restrictions, close 194 minor issues with the software and deliver 13 further functional improvements.

As the 701s use the same basic platform, there is good chance that they were also delivered with same 194 software faults, and need multiple functional improvements

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s19818/board-20230329-item06-elizabeth-line-update.pdf

If Bombardiers advertising from about 5 years ago was correct, the Adventra platform is scaleable, so the fact that 701s have extra vehicle, but fewer doors should be no problem for software (in theory). But the fact they are still writing software 4 years after first 701 rolled out for testing, suggests 701 software writing was started 4 years late.

It is over 6 years since first 345 hit the test track, so why software is still being changed, and wasn't done 2000+ days ago suggests that some serious planning failures happened with its design.

 

[Domh245]

As I remember it, the 345s use the same software base as the 'Gen 2' Electrostars (378 onwards) as it was a more mature platform from which to deliver the more complicated requirements around interfacing to 3 different signalling systems and the performance risks to delivering service in the crossrail core. LO's 710s and subsequent Aventras have used newly developed software, so it's the 710s that should be read over as the relevant comparison for software issues

 

[Dan G]

One wonders if Alstom's software development team has been concentrating on the Class 345s over the 701s, which wouldn't be unreasonable. South Western Rail is presumably receiving compensation from Alstom for these delays - which would be cheaper for Alstom to pay than trying to upsize a specialist team temporarily.

 

[Trainbike46]

Bombardier has had longstanding problems with software across many of their products, worldwide, so it's not super surprising they're having issues here, is it?

 

[Snow1964]

One wonders if Alstom's software development team has been concentrating on the Class 345s over the 701s, which wouldn't be unreasonable. South Western Rail is presumably receiving compensation from Alstom for these delays - which would be cheaper for Alstom to pay than trying to upsize a specialist team temporarily.

A lot will be revealed in next few weeks when Rock Rail South West file their annual accounts to 31/12/22. The interesting stuff will be in the notes on contingent liabilities, leases, compensation income and any payouts to SWR or offsets of lease income etc.

Last year they filed them mid May, and as a plc have to file by end of June.

I don't think SWR have a direct relationship with Alstom, so they would compensate the lease Co for late deliveries or non performance, and Rock Rail would pass part on to compensate SWR, majority of compensation will cover the funding loan from Deutche Bank Luxembourg. It's possible SWR are getting no compensation if lease cost is being reduced by what they are paying out for 455s, 707s etc.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Assuming the heat death of the universe hasn't occurred by then, is there any expectation as to which service will be the first to run 701s? Possibly one of the short branches such as the Chessington or Hampton Court services?

From a purely enthusiast and occasional user of SWR view, I'm quite happy about the delay as it means I get to enjoy 455s a bit longer!

 

[Invincible]

Assuming the heat death of the universe hasn't occurred by then, is there any expectation as to which service will be the first to run 701s? Possibly one of the short branches such as the Chessington or Hampton Court services?

From a purely enthusiast and occasional user of SWR view, I'm quite happy about the delay as it means I get to enjoy 455s a bit longer!

The tests are Waterloo to Reading return and Waterloo to Staines (Feltham?) Via Poole, and looks like Windsor and Reading will be first for when the 701 takes passengers.
SWR have no news updates?.

For some 455s will not be good for longer journeys in Summer with no air con or toilets, but from reading above the 701 software updates may not be ready and tested (for training) by the Summer?

 

[Goldfish62]

As I remember it, the 345s use the same software base as the 'Gen 2' Electrostars (378 onwards) as it was a more mature platform from which to deliver the more complicated requirements around interfacing to 3 different signalling systems and the performance risks to delivering service in the crossrail core. LO's 710s and subsequent Aventras have used newly developed software, so it's the 710s that should be read over as the relevant comparison for software issues

Yes. The 345s also have got a lot of in-built redundancy because it was realised at an early stage that even a single relatively minor train failure in the central section could cause chaos throughout the line. TfL were obviously prepared to pay for this. I very much doubt a bidder for a franchise, trying to keep costs as low as possible, would do likewise.

 

[3973EXL]

56098 701021 50049

Realtime Trains | 5Q68 1050 Worksop Down Yard to Derby Litchurch Lane | 05/04/2023

Real-time train running information for 5Q68 1050 departure from Worksop Down Yard to Derby Litchurch Lane on 05/04/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Dan G]

A lot will be revealed in next few weeks when Rock Rail South West file their annual accounts to 31/12/22. The interesting stuff will be in the notes on contingent liabilities, leases, compensation income and any payouts to SWR or offsets of lease income etc.

Last year they filed them mid May, and as a plc have to file by end of June.

I don't think SWR have a direct relationship with Alstom, so they would compensate the lease Co for late deliveries or non performance, and Rock Rail would pass part on to compensate SWR, majority of compensation will cover the funding loan from Deutche Bank Luxembourg. It's possible SWR are getting no compensation if lease cost is being reduced by what they are paying out for 455s, 707s etc.

Right! Embarrassingly I wasn't sure if there was ROSCO involved. Those accounts will indeed be interesting. Rock Rail must be taking a heck of a hit and Alstom must be on the hook for it.

 

[Samzino]

One wonders if Alstom's software development team has been concentrating on the Class 345s over the 701s, which wouldn't be unreasonable. South Western Rail is presumably receiving compensation from Alstom for these delays - which would be cheaper for Alstom to pay than trying to upsize a specialist team temporarily.

I mean at Abbey Wood we have a ton of Alstom technicians on over extended temp contracts working on testing and fixes ahead of the may schedule. The 345s still have issues like the more obvious Headcode errors you see roaming which causes some issues with operations here and there. You'll see 9Rs which are reading bounds heading to ABX which should be 9Us. Usually they'd change headcodes at the destination station.

A lot of work is going into preparing the units for the may schedule but if I'm being honest not a lot of staff and drivers are optimistic about the fairing of the may schedule.

 

[Goldfish62]

I mean at Abbey Wood we have a ton of Alstom technicians on over extended temp contracts working on testing and fixes ahead of the may schedule. The 345s still have issues like the more obvious Headcorn errors you see roaming which causes some issues with operations here and there. You'll see 9Rs which are reading bounds heading to ABX which should be 9Us. Usually they'd change headcodes at the destination station.

A lot of work is going into preparing the units for the may schedule but if I'm being honest not a lot of staff and drivers are optimistic about the fairing of the may schedule.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Deepgreen]

With some 701s now going to from Eastleigh to Long Marston for what I assume will be medium term storage at best, this is becoming more farcical by the day. It is a symptom of trains becoming more and more complex with therefore more and more things to get/go wrong. One wonders how much worse it will get - how much more technology can be squuezed into trains, with the attendant even greater likelihood of things being wrong? It must be a huge challenge to design/specify them in the first place, to ensure the technology can work and interract properly with everything else (within and outside the train), and just as challenging to build them. Specialists the builders may be, but these are now hugely intricate and delicate travelling computers that happen to have space for people too! The class 769s were a disaster but that was a re-engineering project - new builds like this should not be the problem they have turned out to be.

 

[Snow1964]

With some 701s now going to from Eastleigh to Long Marston for what I assume will be medium term storage at best, this is becoming more farcical by the day. It is a symptom of trains becoming more and more complex with therefore more and more things to get/go wrong. One wonders how much worse it will get - how much more technology can be squuezed into trains, with the attendant even greater likelihood of things being wrong? It must be a huge challenge to design/specify them in the first place, to ensure the technology can work and interract properly with everything else (within and outside the train), and just as challenging to build them. Specialists the builders may be, but these are now hugely intricate and delicate travelling computers that happen to have space for people too! The class 769s were a disaster but that was a re-engineering project - new builds like this should not be the problem they have turned out to be.

To some extent there has been some reinventing the wheel going on. The basic fact that a 10car Adventra platform train (class 720) is in service, but the 10car 701 doesn't work makes me question why it had to be so different.

Ok, the 701 doesn't have a pantograph and transformer, but does have third rail pick up shoes (which have worked on other trains for 110 years). It runs on same railway network with same signalling protection system etc.

Yes the 701s have provision for an auto system for the busy sections around Clapham Junction, but there is no sign the service is planned to be ramped up to need it anytime in next few years, so this could be left on back burner for now.

I'm aware they redesigned the cabs to save a few mm in length, even though bodyshell length was being changed. But I tend to think some changes from something that works, were made without thinking very hard. If the cab needed to be that size on a 720 to fit in driver and equipment, how did someone suddenly think a smaller size would work instead on 701s

So I am at a loss of how they bolted together the 720s and got them into service, but varied the design so much the same commissioning process for 701s doesn't work. Am I just naive that it you vary a design, you only vary it if will still work with the variation, otherwise leave it as the version that works.

 

[47444]

To some extent there has been some reinventing the wheel going on. The basic fact that a 10car Adventra platform train (class 720) is in service, but the 10car 701 doesn't work makes me question why it had to be so different.

Ok, the 701 doesn't have a pantograph and transformer, but does have third rail pick up shoes (which have worked on other trains for 110 years). It runs on same railway network with same signalling protection system etc.

Yes the 701s have provision for an auto system for the busy sections around Clapham Junction, but there is no sign the service is planned to be ramped up to need it anytime in next few years, so this could be left on back burner for now.

I'm aware they redesigned the cabs to save a few mm in length, even though bodyshell length was being changed. But I tend to think some changes from something that works, were made without thinking very hard. If the cab needed to be that size on a 720 to fit in driver and equipment, how did someone suddenly think a smaller size would work instead on 701s

So I am at a loss of how they bolted together the 720s and got them into service, but varied the design so much the same commissioning process for 701s doesn't work. Am I just naive that it you vary a design, you only vary it if will still work with the variation, otherwise leave it as the version that works.

Don't forget that the 720s have 23m long vehicles, whereas the 701s have 20m ones.

 

[jackot]

Don't forget that the 720s have 23m long vehicles, whereas the 701s have 20m ones.

Even so, it shouldn't cause the 701s to be so ludicrously delayed compared to the 720s.

To some extent there has been some reinventing the wheel going on. The basic fact that a 10car Adventra platform train (class 720) is in service, but the 10car 701 doesn't work makes me question why it had to be so different.

Ok, the 701 doesn't have a pantograph and transformer, but does have third rail pick up shoes (which have worked on other trains for 110 years). It runs on same railway network with same signalling protection system etc.

Yes the 701s have provision for an auto system for the busy sections around Clapham Junction, but there is no sign the service is planned to be ramped up to need it anytime in next few years, so this could be left on back burner for now.

I'm aware they redesigned the cabs to save a few mm in length, even though bodyshell length was being changed. But I tend to think some changes from something that works, were made without thinking very hard. If the cab needed to be that size on a 720 to fit in driver and equipment, how did someone suddenly think a smaller size would work instead on 701s

So I am at a loss of how they bolted together the 720s and got them into service, but varied the design so much the same commissioning process for 701s doesn't work. Am I just naive that it you vary a design, you only vary it if will still work with the variation, otherwise leave it as the version that works.

I have a feeling Bombardier/Alstom moving their software department to Bangalore a few years back has caused some issues with software development recently. It still baffles me that it can be this difficult to design software for these units when other Aventras are operating across the country with a similar version. It is not exactly rocket science, and the software fitted to these trains is likely primitive compared to other areas in tech.

The differences between the 701s and other Aventras are minimal in the grand scheme of things and should be nothing that a large and experienced manufacturer like Bombardier/Alstom cannot contend with. I refuse to believe there is anything but an underlying issue at SWR/Alstom at this point, it really is abysmal it is taking this long.

 

[Invincible]

I have a feeling Bombardier/Alstom moving their software department to Bangalore a few years back has caused some issues with software development recently.

An executive puts a case for saving money for outsourcing, the executive gets a bonus for saving money, they then move to another company to suggest the same to get another bonus.

But then issues happen and the outsource deal is cancelled to bring the function back in house, but all the previous good "in house" developers are no longer available as they have moved on.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Even so, it shouldn't cause the 701s to be so ludicrously delayed compared to the 720s.


I have a feeling Bombardier/Alstom moving their software department to Bangalore a few years back has caused some issues with software development recently. It still baffles me that it can be this difficult to design software for these units when other Aventras are operating across the country with a similar version. It is not exactly rocket science, and the software fitted to these trains is likely primitive compared to other areas in tech.

The differences between the 701s and other Aventras are minimal in the grand scheme of things and should be nothing that a large and experienced manufacturer like Bombardier/Alstom cannot contend with. I refuse to believe there is anything but an underlying issue at SWR/Alstom at this point, it really is abysmal it is taking this long.

The fact they are allowed out on the infrastructure without any restrictions for test running tells you the basics are there of traction, braking and safety systems which is probably the standard part of the Aventra platform so it would be great to know what the underlying issues are.

 

[Peter Sarf]

With some 701s now going to from Eastleigh to Long Marston for what I assume will be medium term storage at best, this is becoming more farcical by the day. It is a symptom of trains becoming more and more complex with therefore more and more things to get/go wrong. One wonders how much worse it will get - how much more technology can be squuezed into trains, with the attendant even greater likelihood of things being wrong? It must be a huge challenge to design/specify them in the first place, to ensure the technology can work and interract properly with everything else (within and outside the train), and just as challenging to build them. Specialists the builders may be, but these are now hugely intricate and delicate travelling computers that happen to have space for people too! The class 769s were a disaster but that was a re-engineering project - new builds like this should not be the problem they have turned out to be.

To me there is the risk of further problems. Modern trains do not like spending months on end in sidings unheated - indeed cars suffer as well. I wonder how many problems are waiting to bite merely due to lack of use ?.

 

[Bald Rick]

so it would be great to know what the underlying issues are.

various things keep going wrong!

 

[XAM2175]

Ok, the 701 doesn't have a pantograph and transformer, but does have third rail pick up shoes (which have worked on other trains for 110 years). It runs on same railway network with same signalling protection system etc.

On a very pedantic note: three 701s actually do have AC kit, but your point stands all the same

I have a feeling Bombardier/Alstom moving their software department to Bangalore a few years back has caused some issues with software development recently. It still baffles me that it can be this difficult to design software for these units when other Aventras are operating across the country with a similar version. It is not exactly rocket science, and the software fitted to these trains is likely primitive compared to other areas in tech.

Yes, there are a fair number of fingers being discretely pointed in that direction. I seem to recall that the earlier Aventras use an older software platform which has been beaten into some semblance of reliable performance, but unsurprisingly Alstom are keeping tight-lipped on the exact state of things.