Should SWR’s class 701 Aventra order be cancelled?'

[Dan15812]

Is it possible that the 701 program could Inevitably become cancelled. I’m not trying to speculate here, but from my point of view this would probably be the resolving solution. After all, the units are not up to standard with no timescale or deadline in sight.

 

[Class360/1]

Is it possible that the 701 program could Inevitably become cancelled. I’m not trying to speculate here, but from my point of view this would probably be the resolving solution. After all, the units are not up to standard with no timescale or deadline in sight.

But you have the ageing, clapped out 455’s that are low on miles and 707’s going to SE

 

[Goldfish62]

But you have the ageing, clapped out 455’s that are low on miles and 707’s going to SE

Yes, but obviously such a significant event couldn't happen in isolation. There would have to be significant contingency plans involving other rolling stock, eg overhauling the 455s, returning the 707s to SWR and bringing stored Networkers back into service.

 

[Chiltern006]

how many have been built now?

 

[3rd rail land]

Is it possible that the 701 program could Inevitably become cancelled. I’m not trying to speculate here, but from my point of view this would probably be the resolving solution. After all, the units are not up to standard with no timescale or deadline in sight.

I can't imagine that would ever happen. If the 701s never run in passenger service what rolling stock would replace the 455/6/707s?

But you have the ageing, clapped out 455’s that are low on miles and 707’s going to SE

Exactly. Whilst you could give the 455/6s overhauls/major exams to keep them going for a while longer they would only ever be a stop gap solution at best. Once they really become end of life what rolling stock would replace them if the 701s are abandoned? Even if SWR had kept all 30 707s it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to make up for the loss of the 701s if they were cancelled.

 

[D365]

Is it possible that the 701 program could Inevitably become cancelled.

No.

 

[Trainz_r_us]

I can't imagine that would ever happen. If the 701s never run in passenger service what rolling stock would replace the 455/6/707s?


Exactly. Whilst you could give the 455/6s overhauls/major exams to keep them going for a while longer they would only ever be a stop gap solution at best. Once they really become end of life what rolling stock would replace them if the 701s are abandoned? Even if SWR had kept all 30 707s it wouldn't be anywhere near enough to make up for the loss of the 701s if they were cancelled.

Mabey transfer the class 376s over
And retain the remaining 707s and put the 465/466 that went to storage back in service to cover the missing 707s and 376s

If any stock number problems I may be missing
I would suggest placing some 375s on 376 services

 

[D365]

Mabey transfer the class 376s over
And retain the remaining 707s and put the 465/466 that went to storage back in service to cover the missing 707s and 376s

If any stock number problems I may be missing
I would suggest placing some 375s on 376 services

So Southeastern would lose out once again?

 

[WarrenTManager]

To set up an overhaul project and prepare the materials needed would be too long in time. This sort of thing takes months to mobilise.
The overhaul mileage ceiling could be extended but the amount actually extended by would be not that high, unlike the cost of the independent approving body you would need to sign to say they were fit for another 30,000 miles or so for every unit which might give 12-16 weeks top whack, this would also create an extended inspection regime for the depot which would be very onerous.

 

[43096]

To set up an overhaul project and prepare the materials needed would be too long in time. This sort of thing takes months to mobilise.
The overhaul mileage ceiling could be extended but the amount actually extended by would be not that high, unlike the cost of the independent approving body you would need to sign to say they were fit for another 30,000 miles or so for every unit which might give 12-16 weeks top whack, this would also create an extended inspection regime for the depot which would be very onerous.

You've managed for the last 2 years whilst waiting for Derby to get its act together.

Personally, I'd take a leaf out of OBB's book and cancel and then let a contract to another manufacturer (again OBB show the way: go to Siemens). That sends a message to manufacturers that the sort of shoddy dross that Derby knock out, years late is not going to be tolerated.

 

[bramling]

Is it possible that the 701 program could Inevitably become cancelled. I’m not trying to speculate here, but from my point of view this would probably be the resolving solution. After all, the units are not up to standard with no timescale or deadline in sight.

I don’t think it’s really viable given the 455/456 fleet has been run down.

The whole thing is a farce though, and another outcome of the industry’s injudicious glut of new train ordering.

If the 455/456 fleet could be life extended, could any shortfall be made up by utilising 350/2s to bolster the 450 fleet? When do the 350/2s become available?

 

[WarrenTManager]

I don’t think it’s really viable given the 455/456 fleet has been run down.

The whole thing is a farce though, and another outcome of the industry’s injudicious glut of new train ordering.

If the 455/456 fleet could be life extended, could any shortfall be made up by utilising 350/2s to bolster the 450 fleet? When do the 350/2s become available?

350/2s are released when the 730s are all delivered. And the 730s after the 701s in the production list. And they’d need a lot of work converting to third rail. And there’s no room at Northam. Basically I can’t see it happening.

 

[Trainz_r_us]

350/2s are released when the 730s are all delivered. And the 730s after the 701s in the production list. And they’d need a lot of work converting to third rail. And there’s no room at Northam. Basically I can’t see it happening.

Is there a specific reason as to why the 350/2s are going out of all the 350z
If not
why not let the /1s go because of their dual voltage capability would allow them to have third rail shoes put back in at a smaller price
For use with SWR

 

[507020]

Is there a specific reason as to why the 350/2s are going out of all the 350z
If not
why not let the /1s go because of their dual voltage capability would allow them to have third rail shoes put back in at a smaller price
For use with SWR

It’s because they have 3+2 seats and LNWR can’t be bothered refurbishing them to match the other 350s

 

[Elecman]

8j

Is there a specific reason as to why the 350/2s are going out of all the 350z
If not
why not let the /1s go because of their dual voltage capability would allow them to have third rail shoes put back in at a smaller price
For use with SWR

They have very high lease charges compared with the other sub classes

 

[D365]

They have very high lease charges compared with the other sub classes

This is correct, as far as we know.

 

[Neptune]

It’s because they have 3+2 seats and LNWR can’t be bothered refurbishing them to match the other 350s

Nothing to do with seat layout whatsoever. It’s to do with the fact these Porterbrook owned units have much higher leasing charges (the /1, /3 & /4’s have different owners) and LNWR have called them out and ordered new replacement trains.

 

[WarrenTManager]

You've managed for the last 2 years whilst waiting for Derby to get its act together.

Personally, I'd take a leaf out of OBB's book and cancel and then let a contract to another manufacturer (again OBB show the way: go to Siemens). That sends a message to manufacturers that the sort of shoddy dross that Derby knock out, years late is not going to be tolerated.

I don’t think it’s down to me personally referring to your use of you’ve…..

There was a small batch of 455 C4s in 2020/2021 it was probably thought that was enough to take the fleet through.

I’m no expert in contract law but cancelling would be a lengthy and perhaps expensive process? Also tantamount to crapping on Alstom would make the support needed for soldiering on with Class 458s very difficult seeing as they supply many of the spares and overhaul them at Widnes or their sites in France.

 

[DanNCL]

If it were up to me, I'd be putting the contract in the "last chance" saloon - Alstom would be given 28 days to come up with an acceptable revised schedule and rectification plan for all of the faults, and demonstrate they had capability to deliver the plan. If Alstom were to fail to do so, then the best thing for SWR to do would be to instruct their legal team to begin proceedings to exit from the contract.

A word of warning would however be that Alstom are known to be incredibly difficult towards operators who dare stand up to them. After OBB cancelled their Talent 3 order, Alstom went trawling through every single other contract that OBB had signed with other companies looking for the slightest issue, and managed to get a court to void a seperate contract OBB had with Stadler (which Alstom had bid for and lost) over a technicality with a digital signiture, despite Alstom not having the slightest bit of an issue with using that exact same type of digital signitures with contracts awarded to them! The potential for Alstom to cause issues afterwards would definitely need to be considred by SWR, in particular with any contract with a different manufacturer for a different fleet of units, but also with the maintenance and refurbishment contracts Alstom have with the 458s - whilst Alstom would have no legal grounds to do so, they could easily start being difficult over the 458 contracts if SWR were to cancel the 701s.

Alstom do however need to make an urgent attempt to sort out their reputation. Already in addition to losing the Talent 3 order from OBB they've also almost certainly lost themselves an order for Hydrogen iLints that OBB were set to award thanks to the fallout, but I think Alstom have bigger issues to worry about. They're in the doghouse with SNCF after they tried walking away from a joint bid with CAF they'd inherited from Bombardier for Line B of the Paris RER as they had wanted their own independent bid to win instead (read that as Alstom were moaning about winning a contract because the "wrong" one of their bids was selected as the winner) - SNCF and RATP threatening legal action swiftly got Alstom to change course on that though, likely because Alstom know that without SNCF orders they'd go bust. They're also in a situation where they may have NS walking away from their order for 99 EMUs (as NS did with the V250 order from Ansaldo for the same issues), which as per OBB's (now cancelled) Talent 3s and SWR's Aventras are running in excess of 18 months late because of software and build quality issues, and unlike the Talent 3 and Aventra issues Alstom can't blame Bombardier for that one! Losing the OBB order cost Alstom 46 firm orders (and an additional 254 options) - losing NS and SWR would bring their total of lost orders for software and build quality issues up to 235 firm orders and 254 options lost, not an insignificant amount of money to lose and it would force Alstom to get their act together if they wanted to survive as a business.

I’m no expert in contract law but cancelling would be a lengthy and perhaps expensive process? Also tantamount to crapping on Alstom would make the support needed for soldiering on with Class 458s very difficult seeing as they supply many of the spares and overhaul them at Widnes or their sites in France.

It's certainly not an easy process, as OBB discovered earlier this year! Not sure about lengthy though, OBB managed to get out of the Talent 3 contract within a few months of announcing they intended to do so.

Alstom wouldn't have any legal grounds to be difficult with SWR over the 458s if the 701 order were to be cancelled as they're completely seperate, unrelated contracts. If Alstom were to start being difficult with the 458s as a result SWR would be able to take them to court. That said, as mentioned above Alstom do have a track record of being incredibly difficult towards companies that dare to take legal action against them, so it's a valid concern.

 

[Towers]

A word of warning would however be that Alstom are known to be incredibly difficult towards operators who dare stand up to them. After OBB cancelled their Talent 3 order, Alstom went trawling through every single other contract that OBB had signed with other companies looking for the slightest issue, and managed to get a court to void a seperate contract OBB had with Stadler (which Alstom had bid for and lost) over a technicality with a digital signiture, despite Alstom not having the slightest bit of an issue with using that exact same type of digital signitures with contracts awarded to them! The potential for Alstom to cause issues afterwards would definitely need to be considred by SWR, in particular with any contract with a different manufacturer for a different fleet of units, but also with the maintenance and refurbishment contracts Alstom have with the 458s - whilst Alstom would have no legal grounds to do so, they could easily start being difficult over the 458 contracts if SWR were to cancel the 701s.

Alstom do however need to make an urgent attempt to sort out their reputation


...as mentioned above Alstom do have a track record of being incredibly difficult towards companies that dare to take legal action against them, so it's a valid concern.

All of which begs the question, WTF is anybody doing still giving them contracts? If the above is true (*said for legal reasons, not to question what you've said!), nobody ought to be going anywhere near them.

Contract & tendering laws surely must allow a potential customer to consider a supplier's reputation when decicing whether to accept a bid? Might have been a sensible point to consider here, on several levels!

 

[AlexNL]

They're also in a situation where they may have NS walking away from their order for 99 EMUs (as NS did with the V250 order from Ansaldo for the same issues), which as per OBB's (now cancelled) Talent 3s and SWR's Aventras are running in excess of 18 months late because of software and build quality issues, and unlike the Talent 3 and Aventra issues Alstom can't blame Bombardier for that one!

The most important reason for delay to the ICNG contract is covid-19, the impact this has had on the ICNG project is significant. Covid-19 disrupted the international supply chain, it also threw a huge spanner in the works when it comes to delivery, testing and fixing. The trains are built in Poland and a lot of the software engineering is done in India - due to covid related border closures for a very long time it hasn't been possible to get engineers to where they were needed, and local covid restrictions made test runs more difficult than they were in the past.

The ICNG trains have recently finished the type certification testing, the entire file is now with the regulator for final approval. NS are gearing up to start their own acceptance and staff training programme, and the trains will gradually enter service during 2022.

A big timetable recast, which depends on the availability of sufficient ICNG units, has been delayed as a result of the rolling stock delays. But there's definitely no grounds for cancellation of the entire order.

 

[D365]

If it were up to me, I'd be putting the contract in the "last chance" saloon - Alstom would be given 28 days to come up with an acceptable revised schedule and rectification plan for all of the faults, and demonstrate they had capability to deliver the plan.

What’s to say that this isn’t happening already?

 

[DanNCL]

The most important reason for delay to the ICNG contract is covid-19, the impact this has had on the ICNG project is significant. Covid-19 disrupted the international supply chain, it also threw a huge spanner in the works when it comes to delivery, testing and fixing. The trains are built in Poland and a lot of the software engineering is done in India - due to covid related border closures for a very long time it hasn't been possible to get engineers to where they were needed, and local covid restrictions made test runs more difficult than they were in the past.

The ICNG trains have recently finished the type certification testing, the entire file is now with the regulator for final approval. NS are gearing up to start their own acceptance and staff training programme, and the trains will gradually enter service during 2022.

A big timetable recast, which depends on the availability of sufficient ICNG units, has been delayed as a result of the rolling stock delays. But there's definitely no grounds for cancellation of the entire order.

That’s good to hear, and indeed that’s much more progress made with them than I thought, I stand corrected!

What’s to say that this isn’t happening already?

Indeed it could be for all any of us know. Though when OBB were at that stage they made it publicly known, one would have thought it’d be the same for SWR, but who knows with First.

 

[Energy]

This was FirstGroup's first order to Bombardier (387s were ordered by Southern/DfT and a speculative order by Porterbrook, the 377s came from/ordered by Southern) and I think its fair to say it will probably be the last Bombardier order from First.

 

[dgl]

I'm surprised somewhat that give FG's issues with Alstom and them not wanting to be burned again they would go for a company that they have little experience in and whose products have been having problems (just ask LU!) when they have good experience with Siemens at TPE, inheriting a frachise that is mainly Siemens stock and know that Siemens do a quality product.
I'm guessing there was a lot of political pressure to get contracts for UK train manufacturers at any cost, throwing all sense out of the window.

 

[DanNCL]

This was FirstGroup's first order to Bombardier (387s were ordered by Southern/DfT and a speculative order by Porterbrook, the 377s came from/ordered by Southern) and I think its fair to say it will probably be the last Bombardier order from First.

Technically their second as they ordered 4 222s for Hull Trains, but I agree it’ll likely be their last!

I'm surprised somewhat that give FG's issues with Alstom and them not wanting to be burned again they would go for a company that they have little experience in and whose products have been having problems (just ask LU!) when they have good experience with Siemens at TPE, inheriting a frachise that is mainly Siemens stock and know that Siemens do a quality product.
I'm guessing there was a lot of political pressure to get contracts for UK train manufacturers at any cost, throwing all sense out of the window.

The order was placed with Bombardier, Alstom inherited the order when they acquired Bombardier earlier this year. No doubt First wouldn’t have ordered 701s if Alstom had owned them all along, after their experience with the 175s and 180s.

They were mad not to go with more 707s instead of the 701s, I thought that the day the order with Bombardier was announced.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They were mad not to go with more 707s instead of the 701s, I thought that the day the order with Bombardier was announced.

That was the DfT specifying that 707s were not for the South West franchise wasn't it? Which left them with little choice...

 

[Domh245]

That was the DfT specifying that 707s were not for the South West franchise wasn't it? Which left them with little choice...

Strictly speaking it was the requirement to meet a certain crush loading standing capacity on certain sections of the SWR metro routes, which a Desiro City (with it's inability to fit overhead grab handles & poles) wasn't assessed to meet, forcing the procurement of 701s. Of course, this requirement seems unlikely to be required in anger any time soon, but nobody would have foreseen that in 2016/7 when these were being procured.

 

[Mikey C]

Strictly speaking it was the requirement to meet a certain crush loading standing capacity on certain sections of the SWR metro routes, which a Desiro City (with it's inability to fit overhead grab handles & poles) wasn't assessed to meet, forcing the procurement of 701s. Of course, this requirement seems unlikely to be required in anger any time soon, but nobody would have foreseen that in 2016/7 when these were being procured.

It is a flaw of the Des City design, not being able to fit overhead grab handles. It's pointless having vast standing areas, without something to hold onto

Curious though that it only became an issue for the DfT (or whoever) only after all the 700s, 707s and 717s had all been ordered.

 

[popeter45]

I believe the reason they went for 701's rather than 707's was leasing costs?, I heard from somewhere but can't remember that the lease cost of des city's was way higher than that of aventras