Why are South Western Railway Class 701’s taking so long into getting into service.

[TravisM]

With Greater Anglia, C2C and Crossrail ‘Aventra’ EMU’s having entered service, I have to ask why South Western Trains units are taking so long?  It can’t be down to crew training or route familiarisation as they’ve had some them a considerable time, some must be at least 2 years old now.

[KeithMacdonald]

https://www.southwesternrailway.com/travelling-with-us/our-trains/arterio

 

[andyman7]

9 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

https://www.southwesternrailway.com/travelling-with-us/our-trains/arterio

 

Unfortunately the official SWR page whitewashed what has been a particularly painful and drawn out process. A major issue has been the rejection of the original cab seat position and layout by ASLEF reps meaning that this area had to be redesigned and the trains retrofitted before any driver familiarisation could start. The Pandemic hasn't helped and there have been major software issues too. More details in the lengthy thread on another forum here:

 

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-701-aventra-trains-for-south-western-railway.148717/page-171#post-6140491

Edited April 6, 2023 by andyman7

[DY444]

I gather that SWR have accepted a number of them which suggests any technical issues have been resolved to their satisfaction.  Reports elsewhere say the issue now is ASLEF refusing to co-operate over driver training until the present industrial disputes are resolved to its satisfaction. 

 

If true then it's not the first time recently that substantial investment has been made in new stock only for it to sit idle for industrial relations reasons - see also Class 777.  As an outsider I'm not convinced that this is very wise in the present railway economic climate but then again I often find the apparent short-termisim of the rail unions perplexing.

[Oldddudders]

One might expect that cab layout design, being very close to ASLEF members' hearts, would qualify for some consultation at the design stage.

 

The industry does not learn from history. More than 30 years ago, the introduction of 321 units on Euston - Northampton - New St services was seen as an opportunity for DOO, and shore systems were installed, at some expense. At the same time, Board HQ, responsible for rolling stock design and procurement, decided that moving the driver's seat slightly towards the centre of the cab would enhance the view ahead - true. But that meant it was impossible for the driver to look back or at mirrors/monitors as he opened the controller - an unsafe situation. Staff revolted. An ergonomist was brought in to examine the practicalities, found deficiencies and the DOO was never implemented. 

[black and decker boy]

AIUI, the challenge has been the cab in the 701s is much smaller, front to back, than the other classes as SWR (DfT) wanted an extra row of seats. If you compare photos, you can see the size & shape are different.

 

They changed this mid build I believe so later ones have the corrected cab layout, earlier ones need significant work (have seen it suggested the bulkhead has to move).

[Wickham Green too]

7 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

One might expect that cab layout design, being very close to ASLEF members' hearts, would qualify for some consultation at the design stage. ...

Does the cab layout differ significantly from the other 'Aventras' ? ........... or do the South Western ASLEF drivers differ significantly from those elsewhere ?

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Does the cab layout differ significantly from the other 'Aventras' ? ........... or do the South Western ASLEF drivers differ significantly from those elsewhere ?

 

Don't forget the SWR units have end gangways while the Crossrail and GA units don't!

 

End gangways have always been a bit problematic as they artificially constrain the amount of space available for the drivers desk not to mention where the seat can go, affect the front end design (as having a gaping big hole in the front means addition body strengthening is needed etc) plus the protruding gangway will also affect the drivers forward visibility. And thats before we get to the banks of DOO screens and other safety kit cabs must accommodate these days...

[phil-b259]

42 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

If true then it's not the first time recently that substantial investment has been made in new stock only for it to sit idle for industrial relations reasons - see also Class 777.  As an outsider I'm not convinced that this is very wise in the present railway economic climate but then again I often find the apparent short-termisim of the rail unions perplexing.

 

As I understand it the 777s had not begun to be constructed before the dispute over the role of the Guard was settled! You certainly don't have sidings full of the things waiting introduction as per the situation on SWR.

 

A better example would be the 317s British Rail ordered for the St Pancras to Bedford electrification scheme which were blacklisted by the unions for over a year in a dispute over DOO.

[black and decker boy]

24 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Don't forget the SWR units have end gangways while the Crossrail and GA units don't!

 

End gangways have always been a bit problematic as they artificially constrain the amount of space available for the drivers desk not to mention where the seat can go, affect the front end design (as having a gaping big hole in the front means addition body strengthening is needed etc) plus the protruding gangway will also affect the drivers forward visibility. And thats before we get to the banks of DOO screens and other safety kit cabs must accommodate these days...

No they don’t.
 

701s are the same as the others in service that respect

 

the 730s for LNW/WMT are only ones with gangways so far but not yet but traffic either.

[black and decker boy]

Pictures of cabs for comparison - vertical angle, side profile & length

 

class 701 (taken from https://www.southwesternrailway.com/travelling-with-us/our-trains/arterio)

 

 

Class 720 (my photo)

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

No they don’t.
 

701s are the same as the others in service that respect

 

the 730s for LNW/WMT are only ones with gangways so far but not yet but traffic either.

 

Whops, me bad.

 

Must have been an image of a repainted 450 which entered my head instead...

[Wheatley]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

One might expect that cab layout design, being very close to ASLEF members' hearts, would qualify for some consultation at the design stage.

Northern's staff reps made several trips to Spain as part of the 195/331 design and build programme, along with the in-house ergonomic expert, and the layout of the cab was designed with their comments taken into account. The only criticism I've heard since they entered traffic was that the centre driving position means that the dicky seat for the assessing DTM is a bit cramped (not that that bothers drivers !) and a couple of coat hooks fitted later as an afterthought are not ideally sited. 

 

The addition of conductor door controls as a result of the DOO/DCO dispute was less satisfactory, they're diagonally sited so on a route with platforms both sides the conductor is constantly having to push through the centre of the saloon rather than working from one vestibule. Of course the busiest routes all have platforms both sides. 

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

Pictures of cabs for comparison - vertical angle, side profile & length ...

I think the SW ASLEF guys should remember that their dads / granddads used to drive in cabs like this !

 

Clapham Junction : 5/8/83

[RadioRail]

On 07/04/2023 at 09:14, Oldddudders said:

One might expect that cab layout design, being very close to ASLEF members' hearts, would qualify for some consultation at the design stage.

 

The industry does not learn from history. More than 30 years ago, the introduction of 321 units on Euston - Northampton - New St services was seen as an opportunity for DOO, and shore systems were installed, at some expense. At the same time, Board HQ, responsible for rolling stock design and procurement, decided that moving the driver's seat slightly towards the centre of the cab would enhance the view ahead - true. But that meant it was impossible for the driver to look back or at mirrors/monitors as he opened the controller - an unsafe situation. Staff revolted. An ergonomist was brought in to examine the practicalities, found deficiencies and the DOO was never implemented. 

It is worth offering further background to DOO operation. This was before the proposed operation on the WCML. For context I was a member of the Project Team for the Bedford London Electrification so was close to the issues.

 

a) the new 317 stock also spent over a year in the sidings while the industrial issues with DOO were sorted out.  The argument (albeit just for an ambit claim) was that the door release buttons were not where the drivers wanted them - they said they should be buttons above the doors - substantially to support the contention that guards should be operating the doors.  Once the £8 or £10 per shift was offered DOO arguments were settled.

 

b) the 317s went into service between Bedford and Moorgate around March 1983, under Driver Only Operation - I was there in the signal box for the first two weeks of operation making sure the radio system was delivering and assisting signallers in it's operation.

 

c) DOO operation then came into operation on the Great Northern - which was supposed to be the first section but was gummed up by more complex negotiations because guards were already in place.

 

d) DOO then progressed to Strathclyde.

 

e) there were some minor repositioning of platform mirrors and TV monitors implemented but this was all done in advance of public service.

 

The Euston Northampton proposals came much later.  

[rodent279]

On 07/04/2023 at 20:45, Wickham Green too said:

I think the SW ASLEF guys should remember that their dads / granddads used to drive in cabs like this !

 

Clapham Junction : 5/8/83

Fair point, but compared to a steam loco, that was probably seen as a better deal.

[Southernman46]

On 07/04/2023 at 20:45, Wickham Green too said:

I think the SW ASLEF guys should remember that their dads / granddads used to drive in cabs like this !

 

Clapham Junction : 5/8/83

On of the more civilised ones too - didn't  require hanging out of the open FRONT cab window to change the headcode plates

Edited June 22, 2023 by Southernman46

[Wickham Green too]

4 hours ago, Southernman46 said:

On of the more civilised ones too - didn't  require hanging out of the open FRONT cab window to change the headcode plates

May have been all that were left at the time - apart from 4721's companion that day : - 

 

[roythebus1]

At least the SUB units worked. i loved driving them. Westinghouse brake and handbrake, everything works on line volts and as someone said, hang out the front window to change the headcode. :)

 

[Southernman46]

18 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

At least the SUB units worked. i loved driving them. Westinghouse brake and handbrake, everything works on line volts and as someone said, hang out the front window to change the headcode. :)

 

Don't forget the constant entertainment gained from attempting to leave the guard at each station by pulling away fast enough to close the outward opening van door before they'd made it back off the platform.

 

To explain that comment - there was no ding-ding and away with SUB's - the guard literally had to wave a green flag from the platform..............

Edited June 24, 2023 by Southernman46

[bécasse]

6 hours ago, Southernman46 said:

To explain that comment - there was no ding-ding and away with SUB's - the guard literally had to wave a green flag from the platform..............

 But that was initially true for the EPB group of units too. My recollection is that EPB units started to be fitted with bell communication (using quite a substantial biased switch mounted above the guard's door) in the early 1960s but I might be out by a year or two.

[Southernman46]

My point is that the SUB's never were - and the van doors on EPB stock opened inwards so the guard always had a fighting chance with those ................... 🙄

[Wickham Green too]

12 minutes ago, Southernman46 said:

... van doors on EPB stock opened inwards ...

... so could be left open for a breeze in sweltering weather : you'd get unbelieving comments if you did that on a model ! 😊

[bécasse]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

... so could be left open for a breeze in sweltering weather : you'd get unbelieving comments if you did that on a model ! 😊

....... and, indeed, were left open for a breeze in sweltering weather, for the driver as well as for the guard.

[darrel]

On 07/04/2023 at 11:36, Wheatley said:

Northern's staff reps made several trips to Spain as part of the 195/331 design and build programme, along with the in-house ergonomic expert, and the layout of the cab was designed with their comments taken into account. The only criticism I've heard since they entered traffic was that the centre driving position means that the dicky seat for the assessing DTM is a bit cramped (not that that bothers drivers !) and a couple of coat hooks fitted later as an afterthought are not ideally sited. 

 

The addition of conductor door controls as a result of the DOO/DCO dispute was less satisfactory, they're diagonally sited so on a route with platforms both sides the conductor is constantly having to push through the centre of the saloon rather than working from one vestibule. Of course the busiest routes all have platforms both sides. 

On our trains the secondmans seat is like a brick with no padding no lower back support and is extremely uncomfortable. There is no sun visor either. The union approved this. Yes drivers don't care about DTMs however the DTMs are also in ASLEF and the seat has to be used by driver instructors for hours causing them back pain.