HST cab protection

[yorkie]

Without getting involved in the wider discussion about risks, I don't think posting this incident report is relevant given it shows a hit to a window with no damage to the surrounding structure

I'm not suggesting that any individual incident is comparable, but the onus is on those who claim HSTs are more dangerous than other trains which Scotrail operate to justify their claims; it looks like the most recent incident either involved a tree falling onto the train or the tree was at a higher level than the other incident, hence the HST was worse off. In any case, the cabs of other trains used by Scotrail do not appear to be impenetrable by any means; if you look at the Class 170 image, it looks like fibreglass material, which the tree went through.

I'm yet to be presented with any evidence that HST cabs are in any way more dangerous than Class 170 or 158 cabs; it appears that the usual suspects are simply using this incident to further an anti-HST agenda. Had it been a Class 170 that was struck, those with the anti-HST agenda would have probably kept quiet.

Such incidents are rare, and rail remains a very safe mode of transport (whether that be for drivers, other staff or passengers), however it is unfortunate that people will latch onto anything rail related and claim that something is unsafe, while accepting a very poor safety record of road transport as totally normal. It's also considered fashionable among some to try to argue that certain types of trains are unsafe, while being silent about other types of trains, but without presenting any evidence that the 'unsafe' trains are actually any less safe than the type of trains they are silent about.

 

[Egg Centric]

An image has appeared showing the damage to the cab. That driver was very lucky

Does anyone know how the driver survived? Did (s)he "simply" duck, or did they have enough time to run back into the engine compartment, or something else?

 

[craigybagel]

Had it been a Class 170 that was struck, those with the anti-HST agenda would have probably kept quiet.

Why on earth would people have some kind of anti-HST agenda? From what I've heard most drivers of HSTs actually enjoy driving them - something that can't be said about 158s or 170s. I've not aware of ASLEF having any complains about them except from a safety point of view - and when you look at the photos above can you really be surprised?

I'm not aware of there having been any incidents with a 170 or 158 where the driver could well have been decapitated if they hadn't managed to get out of the seat in time - but it's happened at least twice now on HSTs. We've had incidents where 158s and 170s have crashed into trees, bridges, tractors, other trains etc and yet we've never seen the kind of catastrophic damage shown here.

We'll never be able to directly compare how another unit would cope unless you can some how stage an incident using two identical trees - but I've not seen any images of modern units showing anywhere near the kind of damage that HSTs have sustained in collisions against trees. Even the incident with the 158 you presented yourself as evidence looks a lot less serious than what happened today.

The HST was a great train that transformed the British Railway network - but it would be grossly irresponsible of ASLEF if they didn't look at these incidents with concern, and start asking some very hard questions. I have no "anti HST agenda"; I find it rather sad that I've never driven one, and almost certainly never will. They're an iconic train that any enthusiast should enjoy. But I am deeply concerned about them.

Their should be two mitigations in place against this kind of incident - proper management of lineside vegetation to stop trees encroaching on the railway, and strong cabs to protect against the risks when they do. Both of these mitigations have failed today - and both need looking at - because if they aren't, sooner or later a driver is going to come around a corner and not have time to duck.....

 

[Rockhopperr]

Does anyone know how the driver survived? Did (s)he "simply" duck, or did they have enough time to run back into the engine compartment, or something else?

Managed to dive behind the drivers seat I believe. Incredible. Must’ve been horrible for them.

 

[Recessio]

The HST cab also has the advantage of space, the driver can get out of the seat and move to a safer position - try doing that in a 15x cab.

In the Salisbury crash, one of the drivers sustained serious injuries in a 158 because they couldn't exit the cab quickly enough (I think they also tripped on their bag).

Either way, ScotRail need to put a plan in place to replace these units. Questions also need to be asked of why trains were running at linespeed, especially if NR had possibly received a warning ten minutes earlier.

 

[ModernRailways]

If a phone call is recieved saying there’s a tree on the line you shut the line and then investigate it. You don’t wait until you know how big the tree is before taking action because, as we’ve seen today, that can be too late.

It simply isn’t acceptable. If a call is received the facility should be there for the phone operator to immediately log it on a computer and for that to then go straight to the signaller(s) concerned for them to implement a closure to allow for investigation. If the facility is not there then it should be developed and implemented without delay.
People may be delayed but better that than sending them hurling towards a fallen tree at 100mph.

Let's say we live in a perfect world and each person/organisation involved answers the call immediately and has nothing else going on that requires their attention. Home owner notices tree has fallen down onto the railway, they dial 999 10 minutes prior to the next train passing through. The call handler needs to get the persons details, they need to ascertain the location, they then need to locate a contact number for Network Rail, we now have 6/7 minutes till the train passes. Network Rail takes the call, they then need to pass the information through to the correct signalling box/ROC etc. we now have 2/3 minutes till the next train passes through. Signaller makes an emergency call to stop trains. Train stops in time, 60 seconds later and the train would've been hitting the tree.
999 call handlers do have access to an emergency Network Rail line but they still require further information to be able to pass across.

The bigger questions that need answering here is why where trains running at line speed, and are the HSTs still fit for service considering modern day safety standards (and the larger Scotrail fleet (and Northern fleet)). I'll leave it up to others, and the professionals to answer those questions.

 

[RealTrains07]

Aslef is being completely ridiculous and once again pushes one side of an issue for the sake of making them look good meanwhile ignoring how the vegetation and trees was clearly over grown and too close to the line

Its clear that vegetation management or lack off played a big part in what happened today. Some responsibly has to fall on network rail otherwise other accidents similar to this are going to end up happening to other drivers in other classes of rolling stock.

To blame it solely on the design of the HST is in my view ignorant and ignores a big issue here. Why did this line have so much vegetation and trees so close to the railway line?

 

[John Bishop]

I want them immediately stopped. Appreciate ScotRail aren’t going to listen to me, but I’d rather they were removed immediately and we took the hit with reduced services etc until we got replacements, whether they were off lease 170s, 158s, 222s etc whenever they became available.

These trains are not fit for purpose for plenty of reasons, but we’ve already had two posters state how 158s and 170s have struck trees in Scotland and fared much better. Not sure how many times it needs reiterates these trains should be no longer be in service.

Totally agree with this. Couldn’t have put it any better myself. ASLEF need to step up to the plate here and protect their members.

Managed to dive behind the drivers seat I believe. Incredible. Must’ve been horrible for them.

Can’t even begin to imagine the outcome had it been dark and had no time to take any avoidance action.

 

[chuff chuff]

I'm yet to be presented with any evidence that HST cabs are in any way more dangerous than Class 170 or 158 cabs; it appears that the usual suspects are simply using this incident to further an anti-HST agenda. Had it been a Class 170 that was struck, those with the anti-HST agenda would have probably kept quiet

Well I'm in them on a daily basis and have already said on the hit taken yesterday I would rather take my chances in a 158/170.
I'm probably one of the few who would rather drive an hst to the others so I'm not anti hst but you seem unwilling to see what's in front of your eyes.

 

[BlueLeanie]

In spite of comments made here the fibreglass cab of the HST has been shown to be very resistant to penetration. Examples are that in the early days of operation it was reported that a cast iron brake block or pad from a train passing in the opposite direction bounced off the ballast and hit the front of the cab and windscreen at 125mph without penetrating either the fibreglass or the glass. The same incident would likely have severely injured the footplate staff of any other form of traction as the windscreen shattered. In 1994 a Class 158 collided with an HST at Newton Abbot at low speed, the front of the 158 was seriously bent but only some fibreglass fairings needed to be replaced on the HST.

Glass can be a very resilient material, and the type of impact makes a difference. A brick slamming into the centre bouncing off, but a very sharp point pushed into a corner shattering it.

Fibreglass is also resilient, but it degrades over time and becomes fatigued and brittle. You can't compare the impact resistance of the material 50 years apart.

 

[RGM654]

For those arguing for withdrawal of HSTs ASAP; does that apply to the ersatz Midland Pullman?

 

[mpthomson]

Not in the same way though. Cracks in the underframe, which are now being sorted for the long term, are not the same as a fragile and easily wrecked cab. This was a tiny tree strike and look what’s happened to it. It’s basically disintegrated.

Having seen the pictures that's not a 'tiny' tree that it's hit... trees are extremely solid if they're of any size at all.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Well I'm in them on a daily basis and have already said on the hit taken yesterday I would rather take my chances in a 158/170.
I'm probably one of the few who would rather drive an hst to the others so I'm not anti hst but you seem unwilling to see what's in front of your eyes.

I would agree with you on the 170 but not on a 158. Hit a substantial tree with one of those and it won’t be a good outcome. Not one of the 15x series have the kind of driver protection built into the structure that later designs have got.

That is where ASLEF need to focus on, after they have dealt with the HSTs.

 

[Western Lord]

One wonders whether HST cab crash worthiness would have been better if ASLEF hadn't insisted on cab side windows and a bigger windscreen. Was any consideration ever given to adding a protective steel reinforcement to the cab? If you want to race a 1960's car like a Mini Cooper or a Lotus Cortina you have to add a substantial steel roll cage (which they didn't have when raced in period).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Without getting involved in the wider discussion about risks, I don't think posting this incident report is relevant given it shows a hit to a window with no damage to the surrounding structure

Apart from the visible missing forward pillar?

 

[Krokodil]

The driver is very clearly not well protected in a HST cab.

Given that the driver walked away from the accident, they clearly were sufficiently protected. I wouldn't want to be in the front end of a 158 where you're reliant on diving into the leading vestibule for a safe space and can only do that if there aren't luggage/overcrowded passengers blocking the door.

This was a tiny tree strike

For someone who is a self-described journalist I can only assume that you're considering a career with a tabloid. You've jumped to conclusions before even considering the evidence.

Managed to dive behind the drivers seat I believe.

Again, try doing that in a 158.

To blame it solely on the design of the HST is in my view ignorant and ignores a big issue here. Why did this line have so much vegetation and trees so close to the railway line?

This is the real question. Many lines now have vegetation neatly (or not) trimmed to match the loading gauge. That's not even considering the vegetation growing out of masonry, fixing which is going to get far more expensive than not letting it grow in the first place would have been.

For those arguing for withdrawal of HSTs ASAP; does that apply to the ersatz Midland Pullman?

Statistically a tiny risk as there's only one of it. You may as well start asking questions about the various 47s/57s.

 

[chuff chuff]

I would agree with you on the 170 but not on a 158. Hit a substantial tree with one of those and it won’t be a good outcome. Not one of the 15x series have the kind of driver protection built into the structure that later designs have got.

That is where ASLEF need to focus on, after they have dealt with the HSTs.

Compared to yesterday's hit I would take the 158 afore an hst,I know of a similar incident in a 158 and it came away in much better nick.
If that tree hadn't started to turn on impact it would have made it the bulkhead across the width of the cab.

 

[Krokodil]

,I know of a similar incident in a 158 and it came away in much better nick.

Never mind the state of the unit, there's less space for the driver to move into on a 158.

 

[The Chimaera]

.

 

[OscarH]

Apart from the visible missing forward pillar?

I may be missing something, but I can't see anything other than the window penetrated on the 158

 

[chuff chuff]

There was little to no cab intrusion,did dismount the gangway door but driver came away unmarked if a little perturbed.

 

[12LDA28C]

I want them immediately stopped. Appreciate ScotRail aren’t going to listen to me, but I’d rather they were removed immediately and we took the hit with reduced services etc until we got replacements, whether they were off lease 170s, 158s, 222s etc whenever they became available.

These trains are not fit for purpose for plenty of reasons, but we’ve already had two posters state how 158s and 170s have struck trees in Scotland and fared much better. Not sure how many times it needs reiterates these trains should be no longer be in service.

This is just hyperbolic nonsense. Firstly it doesn't matter what 'you want'. If it had been a 158 on this service and suffered similar damage (which no doubt it would), would you be calling for all 158s to be 'immediately stopped'? And just removing an entire fleet from service with no immediate replacement would decimate services in Scotland.

Each situation is different and claiming how 158s and 170s 'fared much better' after striking trees is irrelevant as the speed involved / angle of strike / density, size and weight of tree would not have been the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I may be missing something, but I can't see anything other than the window penetrated on the 158

Oh, sorry, we are talking cross purposes, I thought you meant the HST pic. Ignore me then

 

[Dieseldriver]

Given that the driver walked away from the accident, they clearly were sufficiently protected. I wouldn't want to be in the front end of a 158 where you're reliant on diving into the leading vestibule for a safe space and can only do that if there aren't luggage/overcrowded passengers blocking the door.

I’ll wager a bet that had yesterdays incident happened in darkness rendering the Driver unable to take evasive action within the cab, they wouldn’t be here now.

 

[matchmaker]

Having seen the pictures that's not a 'tiny' tree that it's hit... trees are extremely solid if they're of any size at all.

Hit a tree at any other than low speed, even in a modern car, and the chances of death or serious injury are high.

 

[craigybagel]

I do find it amusing that people are criticising ASLEF for their stance when as far as I can tell, they haven't actually made any statement yet. To the best of my knowledge, neither of the two tweets posted at the start of the thread are from ASLEF members, and even if they are they don't represent an official ASLEF statement.

I'm sure there are plenty of ScotRail drivers contracting their reps, and I honestly wouldn't blame them. Seeing your workplace so thoroughly destroyed is a rather shocking site - and what happened yesterday could have happened to any HST driver. But any discussion, and indeed criticism of ASLEFs position should probably wait until ASLEF actually announce said position. Given their history, I'm sure they'll be very critical of HST crash performance, but clearly there were failings at an operational level as well and they may also want that looking into.

For those arguing for withdrawal of HSTs ASAP; does that apply to the ersatz Midland Pullman?

I would assume in a hypothetical situation where the ORR banned HSTs, an exemption would be applied for by LSL. ASLEF might object, but LSL drivers aren't members....

Given that the driver walked away from the accident, they clearly were sufficiently protected. I wouldn't want to be in the front end of a 158 where you're reliant on diving into the leading vestibule for a safe space and can only do that if there aren't luggage/overcrowded passengers blocking the door.

They were only sufficiently protected because they had time to get behind the seat. I definitely wouldn't count that as "sufficient".

This is the real question. Many lines now have vegetation neatly (or not) trimmed to match the loading gauge. That's not even considering the vegetation growing out of masonry, fixing which is going to get far more expensive than not letting it grow in the first place would have been.

It's certainly part of the question absolutely - but it can't be the only question. As I said above, there should be multiple protections against incidents like this - and they all failed. I'm sure ASLEF will come out swinging against the vegetation issue as well.

This is just hyperbolic nonsense. Firstly it doesn't matter what 'you want'. If it had been a 158 on this service and suffered similar damage (which no doubt it would),

And your evidence for this is?

 

[apbj]

Statistically a tiny risk as there's only one of it.

You've confused the likelihood of occurence with the level of risk. Are you a self-described statistician?

 

[chuff chuff]

The Aslef district organiser has issued an email out to the members,very calm and measured.

 

[12LDA28C]

And your evidence for this is?

Class 158s have suffered major damage in the past when striking trees leading to the driver sustaining injury. And as others have pointed out there is no space behind the driver's seat to shelter as the driver did in this case. The more pressing issue here is lineside vegetation.

 

[craigybagel]

The Aslef district organiser has issued an email out to the members,very calm and measured.

That'll be very disappointing for those who enjoy criticising ASLEF.

Class 158s have suffered major damage in the past when striking trees leading to the driver sustaining injury. And as others have pointed out there is no space behind the driver's seat to shelter as the driver did in this case. The more pressing issue here is lineside vegetation.

Unless you can recreate this exact scenario, you cannot say for definite that a 158 would have performed as badly.

That said, has there even been an incident with a 158 where a tree has ended up where the drivers head should be? All the photos I've seen of 158s with cab damaged show a much better amount of survival space left over than with both of the serious HST Vs Tree incidents