Class 701 'Aventra' trains for South Western Railway

[Robin Procter]

701 003 on 5Q51 Waterloo-Staines as Test Train only, 13th March 2024. Both power cars were displaying 003.

ARTERIO 003 by Robin Procter, on Flickr

Realtime Trains | 5Q51 1115 London Waterloo to Staines Up Loop | 13/03/2024

Real-time train running information for 5Q51 1115 departure from London Waterloo to Staines Up Loop on 13/03/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Sun Chariot]

701 003 on 5Q51 Waterloo-Staines as Test Train only, 13th March 2024. Both power cars were displaying 003.

ARTERIO 003 by Robin Procter, on Flickr

Realtime Trains | 5Q51 1115 London Waterloo to Staines Up Loop | 13/03/2024

Real-time train running information for 5Q51 1115 departure from London Waterloo to Staines Up Loop on 13/03/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Cracking shot as always, Robin. Nice catch.

 

[brad465]

I think it's visible in this video from November last year (not mine):

The 10 car unit second in from the left in the opening shot (parked outside, along the side of the shed) is unbranded and appears to have the remnants of mounting points in the pantograph wells, which would point to it being 701001. You can also see 005, 007, 010, 501 and 502 here, plus another (unidentified) unit poking out of the shed.

Assuming they're in warm storage, how do you power units in storage which do not have the power source form available (i.e. third rail or OHLE)? I'm guessing it must be "plugged in" somewhere.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

how do you power units in storage which do not have the power source form available (i.e. third rail or OHLE)?

It's known as a shore supply, which is just that, plugged in. Most EMU depots will have something along those lines, in order that units can be moved without the hazard that OHLE or 3rd rail would present within a depot building. That said, some OHLE depots, Willesden for one springs to mind in the days of the AL locos, the string did in fact run through the shed, there being cut outs in the doors at either end for that purpose. Can only presume the fitters were not permitted on top of any loco in the shed, on those roads concerned.

 

[Carlisle]

So SWR now can’t even manage to run the tiny preview service going by RTT today .

 

[Class15]

So SWR now can’t even manage to run the tiny preview service going by RTT today .

The second round trip is running.

 

[norbitonflyer]

So SWR now can’t even manage to run the tiny preview service going by RTT today .

Although it seemed to be running the 1153 (2U93) later on. That seems to be the first failure in service, and explains why I saw 043 at Waterloo at about 11:00, but it seems to have managed the second round trip.

 

[Carlisle]

Ok, thanks for the update.

 

[norbitonflyer]

701 003 on 5Q51 Waterloo-Staines as Test Train only, 13th March 2024. Both power cars were displaying 003.

A ten-car class 701 has eight power cars. (The third one from each end is unpowered)

 

[Robin Procter]

A ten-car class 701 has eight power cars. (The third one from each end is unpowered)

.... Aha. In ignorance I was assuming that only power cars had driving cabs. In the case of this train, one at each end.

I suppose displaying the same number, 003 in this case, at each end of the set means that they are always paired to run on the same train and don't have more independent flexibility like Class43 power cars do for example.

 

[Trainman40083]

That's very strange, what's the point in reinforcing the power system if you can't use the benefits from it on the train family you have the most of?


Looks very fast though, interesting to know it can go faster than that.. and also a bit confusing since I did compare a few videos of other units like the 458, 455, and 707 and it beats them there as well so I guess the case is those units accelerate even slower on average than that. Or, and no offence to you or anything, I'm sure you're right, the calculations could be wrong. The GPS data is the most reliable though.
I never understand why drivers use reduced power a lot of the time in places where the speed limit would allow for full power for a decent amount of time. Hopefully in the training programme they're told to use more power when they can as to use the benefits of the new train.

I remember a signalling technician I know, going to Waterloo to understand why issues were happening affecting the signalling. Can't quite recall his exact words, but if you engaged full power, the amps?? blew something. Maybe they tried to draw more power.

 

[Class15]

.... Aha. In ignorance I was assuming that only power cars had driving cabs. In the case of this train, one at each end.

I suppose displaying the same number, 003 in this case, at each end of the set means that they are always paired to run on the same train and don't have more independent flexibility like Class43 power cars do for example.

Yes, the 701s are multiple units so are fixed formations. Very occasionally the carriages might get swapped but they’re fixed normally.

 

[43096]

.... Aha. In ignorance I was assuming that only power cars had driving cabs. In the case of this train, one at each end.

I suppose displaying the same number, 003 in this case, at each end of the set means that they are always paired to run on the same train and don't have more independent flexibility like Class43 power cars do for example.

The 003 number is the set number, so of course it is the same each end, like it is the same both ends on a 450 or a 444 (for example), or any other fixed formation multiple unit.

 

[DelW]

.... Aha. In ignorance I was assuming that only power cars had driving cabs. In the case of this train, one at each end.

I suppose displaying the same number, 003 in this case, at each end of the set means that they are always paired to run on the same train and don't have more independent flexibility like Class43 power cars do for example.

SWR's EMUs (and I think DMUs) are always* kept together as complete permanently-coupled sets, and always* have the same set number at each end.

* although it's possible that mixed sets might occasionally be made up from e.g. vehicles from two units which have suffered accident damage.

 

[deepeetw]

.... Aha. In ignorance I was assuming that only power cars had driving cabs. In the case of this train, one at each end.

I suppose displaying the same number, 003 in this case, at each end of the set means that they are always paired to run on the same train and don't have more independent flexibility like Class43 power cars do for example.

These are fixed formation units, is unlikely that they will ever be remarshalled into a unit with any other number.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

SWR's EMUs (and I think DMUs) are always* kept together as complete permanently-coupled sets, and always* have the same set number at each end.

* although it's possible that mixed sets might occasionally be made up from e.g. vehicles from two units which have suffered accident damage.

That's pretty much the case of every Multiple Unit train.
The only real exception is GWR's 158s, as they've converted them to/from 3 car a bit

 

[Robin Procter]

That's pretty much the case of every Multiple Unit train.
The only real exception is GWR's 158s, as they've converted them to/from 3 car a bit

.... GWR 158 & 159s are the units I am more familiar with although I very rarely travel by train, even on Heritage railways. Also I am not an avid fan of most units, hence my lack of knowledge about them in any detail.

The RailUK forum and this thread have taught me a lot and I like the exterior styling of the 701s, hence why I bother to photograph them. And also it gives me an opportunity to contribute something to this thread.

 

[DelW]

That's pretty much the case of every Multiple Unit train.
The only real exception is GWR's 158s, as they've converted them to/from 3 car a bit

In general yes, though I think some operators have shuffled 150s around a bit too.

But I'm always reluctant to make too general an assertion on here, in case someone immediately pops up with a counter example that proves me wrong .

 

[12LDA28C]

That's pretty much the case of every Multiple Unit train.
The only real exception is GWR's 158s, as they've converted them to/from 3 car a bit

Indeed although as @DelW mentioned, from time to time 'hybrid' units which feature driving vehicles from different units of the same class can sometimes appear, due to operational requirements. I've seen Class 165s formed from two different units with different unit numbers at each end, for example.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

though I think some operators have shuffled 150s around a bit too.

Yep, 150003-006 are 150/1s with a /2 carriage in the middle
and in the past 153999 existed of a single 150 carriage + a 153.

 

[swt_passenger]

.... Aha. In ignorance I was assuming that only power cars had driving cabs. In the case of this train, one at each end.

I suppose displaying the same number, 003 in this case, at each end of the set means that they are always paired to run on the same train and don't have more independent flexibility like Class43 power cars do for example.

The term “power car” isn’t really used for modern EMUs or DEMUs. I think Eurostars 373s are about the only class where you’d use that terminology now.

Individual cars all along the typical modern unit are either motor or trailer. The end cars with the driving controls are either driving motor DMxx or driving trailer DTxx, depending on the location of the motored bogies.

 

[norbitonflyer]

.... Aha. In ignorance I was assuming that only power cars had driving cabs. In the case of this train, one at each end.

I suppose displaying the same number, 003 in this case, at each end of the set means that they are always paired to run on the same train and don't have more independent flexibility like Class43 power cars do for example.

Yes. The whole set is 701003. The individual carriages have their own numbers, displayed on the sides of the vehicles. 48x0yy, where x is the position in the unit (from 0 to 9) and yy is the last two digits of the unit number. So the two end cars of that unit are 480003 and 489003.

(The five car units have a 1 as the fourth digit and of course the third digit (x) only runs from 0 to 4.

(and yes, some of the car numbers duplicate the set numbers of the Isle of Wight units, 484001-484005)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Stating the bleeding obvious but it is absolutely shameful that millions of pounds worth of 'brand new' trains are idling around doing nothing! 001 if it doesn't head south in the next couple of months has spent TWO years at Worksop!! I was going to say words fail me but they don't any more..

Not much change from One Billion pounds but thats small change for the government so probably doesn't register as an issue.

 

[Goldfish62]

Not much change from One Billion pounds but thats small change for the government so probably doesn't register as an issue.

And the DfT will be more than satisfied given that it's saving on the higher leasing costs compared to the 455s. In the context of course that reducing overcrowding and increasing services isn't on the agenda.

 

[Peter Sarf]

.... Aha. In ignorance I was assuming that only power cars had driving cabs. In the case of this train, one at each end.

I suppose displaying the same number, 003 in this case, at each end of the set means that they are always paired to run on the same train and don't have more independent flexibility like Class43 power cars do for example.

It is best not to think of modern multiple units having "power cars". They have "distributed traction", its spread through most of the vehicles.

See my comments on Class 43 HSTs further down my post.

Units 701001 to 7010060 are TEN car units.
So Unit 701003 is a ten car unit and should have matching unit numbers at each end as will always be running as a ten car train.

Units 701501 to 701530 are FIVE car units.
So you will often see them running in pairs so a different number at each end of the ten car train.

In general yes, though I think some operators have shuffled 150s around a bit too.

But I'm always reluctant to make too general an assertion on here, in case someone immediately pops up with a counter example that proves me wrong .

I remember the HSTs first started life as whole multiple units of classes 253 and 254 back in the mid 1970s. With a definite power car at each end, I might add. They very quickly got mis-formed. Then the unit numbers disappeared !.

From 1974 I always felt electric multiple units were less likely to get re-formed. Indeed most diesel multiple units never had unit numbers. The advent of Sprinters (150-159) brought more stability but as we know some two car 150/0s became three car by having a driving coach from a 150/1 inserted. We could argue that the reforms of sprinters were/are semi permanent.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I remember the HSTs first started life as whole multiple units of classes 253 and 254 back in the mid 1970s. With a definite power car at each end, I might add. They very quickly got mis-formed. Then the unit numbers disappeared !.

Not before two power cars sporting the same set number were seen next to each other at Paddington. (Can't find the photo now though!)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

And the DfT will be more than satisfied given that it's saving on the higher leasing costs compared to the 455s. In the context of course that reducing overcrowding and increasing services isn't on the agenda.

Whatever SWR have accepted is now potentially accruing a leasing charge although one would expect that if the units still have underlying issues they aren't paying the full charge.

 

[coppercapped]

Not much change from One Billion pounds but thats small change for the government so probably doesn't register as an issue.

For the avoidance of doubt, I should like to point out that the capital (some £895 million) has been provided by the leasing company Rock Rail and its partners SL Capital and GLIL Infrastructure and not by the state.

The loss of income affects the leasing company, not the Treasury.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

For the avoidance of doubt, I should like to point out that the capital (some £895 million) has been provided by the leasing company Rock Rail and its partners SL Capital and GLIL Infrastructure and not by the state.

The loss of income affects the leasing company, not the Treasury.

Yes thats correct the up front capital costs are on Rock Rail but the leasing charges are on the taxpayer and it wont take many years for the taxpayer to have paid out that 895m. The state could have provided the finance much cheaper but then nobody else makes any margin.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

Just something I was thinking of, a shower thought if you will, since the 701s are going to bring complete consistency to the suburban network in terms of fleet, and loads of stations will only serve the Arterios, would it at all be feasible to adjust platform heights to make them level with the trains? I assume it would cost a lot of money and would likely never be looked into because of that, but just in this theoretical situation, how much, and is it even possible?