HST's are insufficiently safe (apparently)

[Justin Smith]

Railway Magazine, in its editor's comment, have suggested HSTs should be retired as they may be less safe than "more modern" rolling stock...
They have made this ludicrous assertion on the basis of a line in the Carmont accident report :

"RAIB considers it more likely than not that the outcome would have been better if the train had been compliant with modern crashworthiness standards"

Is that the best they've got ?
These people are suggesting we scrap millions of pound worth of comfortable rolling stock and spend even more millions of pounds to get less comfortable but possibly marginally safer (in the highly unlikely event of a serious accident) trains.
Even more preposterous the Scottish Labour party leader Anas Sarwar and (possibly less surprisingly) the unions have demanded the withdrawl of HSTs.
I wonder if the Unions would support that if their next pay rise went towards paying for this farcical "solution" ?

The world's risk aversion is reaching new heights of lunacy, possibly even higher than the response to the pandemic.
Have these people ever looked up the definition of "proportionality" ?
TBH I think my signature sums it all up.

 

[43066]

Re. the thread title, I think you mean “insufficiently safe”?

It’s not unreasonable to suppose that 1970s era rolling stock is less safe than modern kit. Whether there’s any need to retire it on these grounds is another question. I’d agree suggesting it seems like an overreaction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Re. the thread title, I think you mean “insufficiently safe”?

It’s not unreasonable to suppose that 1970s era rolling stock is less safe than modern kit. Whether there’s any need to retire it on these grounds is another question. I’d agree suggesting it seems like an overreaction.

As they're expensive, polluting* and (in Scotland seemingly) unreliable, then I think it is sensible to start planning how they will be replaced and get the order in, you can't just go to Tesco and buy trains off the shelf. A panic move, however, is not necessary.

* I know they have more modern engines than e.g. 15x, and so are better in terms of particulates, their inefficiency makes them quite high carbon.

 

[michael74]

My Dads Vauxhall Victor was a nice looking car and did the trick of getting us from A to B, but looking back on it I am glad we were not in any sort of accident. The Class 43 is unsafe compared to modern rolling stock, I would imagine its also becoming more difficult to maintain and is not very environmentally friendly, its had its time and should go, and it will, the Unions know that it can't go overnight but they have to be seen to be protecting the members at the pointy end (and rightly so) and Politicians have to be seen to care (but we know most don't) so its all noise and bluster.

 

[AlterEgo]

The HSTs are well past their sell by date. They should be replaced. Of course that won't be immediate, but in the short to medium term they will likely be put out to pasture.

 

[43096]

The Class 43 is unsafe compared to modern rolling stock

They are not unsafe. They may be less safe than modern stock, but they are not unsafe.

 

[Justin Smith]

Re. the thread title, I think you mean “insufficiently safe”?

Thanks for that, typo.....

My Dads Vauxhall Victor was a nice looking car and did the trick of getting us from A to B, but looking back on it I am glad we were not in any sort of accident. The Class 43 is unsafe compared to modern rolling stock, I would imagine its also becoming more difficult to maintain and is not very environmentally friendly, its had its time and should go, and it will, the Unions know that it can't go overnight but they have to be seen to be protecting the members at the pointy end (and rightly so) and Politicians have to be seen to care (but we know most don't) so its all noise and bluster.

The difference in safety between a Vauxhall victor of 1970 and a car now, would be far higher than between an HST and "more modern" rolling stock. Quite apart from anything one of the main differences would be airbags and front and mandatory fitting (and use) of seat belts. Are you suggesting these should be fitted (and possibly mandated...) to "modern rolling stock" ?
But we are forgetting "proportionality".
How many people have died on Britain/s railways over the last 10 years when there "dangerous" HSTs have been operating ?
And how much will it cost to have these trains replaced ? With, I would remind you, less comfortable rolling stock. Doesn't that count for anything ?
No this is madness, health and safety madness.

 

[Deltic1961]

Kinda funny seeing a class 43 in York Transport Museum yesterday but here in 3rd world Scotland they are our flagship intercity service.

 

[Justin Smith]

The HSTs are well past their sell by date. They should be replaced. Of course that won't be immediate, but in the short to medium term they will likely be put out to pasture.

Why are they ?

Kinda funny seeing a class 43 in York Transport Museum yesterday but here in 3rd world Scotland they are our flagship intercity service.

You're lucky, HSTs are the most comfortable trains on the network. If they are "Third world" I want to be third world.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're lucky, HSTs are the most comfortable trains on the network. If they are "Third world" I want to be third world.

The main contributor to comfort is the seat. How would you feel were Grammer IC3000s (very much not the awful junk they were built with) fitted to an 80x?

If you like the seats (and I very much do), the answer is to fit those seats to the replacement. OeBB Railjets have them too.

 

[Justin Smith]

They are not unsafe. They may be less safe than modern stock, but they are not unsafe.

Slightly less safe. AFAIK, on average, you are likely to die every two billion miles of travel on a British train, that's 2,000,000,000 miles. Scrapping HSTs might increase ones safety margin to 1 in 2,000,100,000 miles.
Do people who want HSTs to be scrapped know anything about the statistics of risk probability ? How safe do they want to be ?
PROPORTIONALITY....

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks for that, typo.....

Oh! I thought it was deliberate seeing as you spend so much time campaigning for things to be less safe

The main contributor to comfort is the seat. How would you feel were Grammer IC3000s (very much not the awful junk they were built with) fitted to an 80x?

If you like the seats (and I very much do), the answer is to fit those seats to the replacement. OeBB Railjets have them too.

Quite. The issue with modern stock is the DfT and Treasury driven demands to fit as many seats as possible (hence the pathetic leg room and cramped feeling in a lot of stock) and to fit the cheapest seats possible. TOCs may themselves have made decisions without direct DfT interference (but often not the direct HST replacements the various types of 80x were specified by the DfT in great detail) but even so they are driven to fit as many seats as possible as cheaply as possible to make the sums for their DfT/Treasury overlords work.

 

[Justin Smith]

The main contributor to comfort is the seat. How would you feel were Grammer IC3000s (very much not the awful junk they were built with) fitted to an 80x?

If you like the seats (and I very much do), the answer is to fit those seats to the replacement. OeBB Railjets have them too.

No, it's also about the noise, e.g. HST v Voyager.....

 

[warwickshire]

Railway Magazine, in its editor's comment, have suggested HSTs should be retired as they may be less safe than "more modern" rolling stock...
They have made this ludicrous assertion on the basis of a line in the Carmont accident report :

"RAIB considers it more likely than not that the outcome would have been better if the train had been compliant with modern crashworthiness standards"

Is that the best they've got ?
These people are suggesting we scrap millions of pound worth of comfortable rolling stock and spend even more millions of pounds to get less comfortable but possibly marginally safer (in the highly unlikely event of a serious accident) trains.
Even more preposterous the Scottish Labour party leader Anas Sarwar and (possibly less surprisingly) the unions have demanded the withdrawl of HSTs.
I wonder if the Unions would support that if their next pay rise went towards paying for this farcical "solution" ?

The world's risk aversion is reaching new heights of lunacy, possibly even higher than the response to the pandemic.
Have these people ever looked up the definition of "proportionality" ?
TBH I think my signature sums it all up.

We don't know for certain the condition off the vehicles underneath do we.
Inside they are okay? They probably do have a lot off rust and corrosion which in a crash isn't ideal. Yes they can go for repair however costs would be quite high. When they went for plug door conversion 3 years ago was a good time to do the work then. Underneath. Which would have seen them last longer but didn't happen. Just look at the issues with corrosion underneath and the state off the ex lner to emr hsts at the time. Totally rotten underneath. We don't want to see another incident. Put anymore at risk. Hsts are approaching end of life. Yes maintaince would have got some more out of them. Even then. We would still would have faced up to hsts being withdrawn anyway. Its only just a little sooner than later. We would only have had to face it anyway. Good things do end sadly. Same can be said for the ending off 455 317 prm 321 very soon.

 

[ExRes]

Nobody, TOC or ROSCO, are going to remove all the seats on 8xx units, throw them on the local council tip and fit replacements

 

[physics34]

I assumed stock like 165/170 etc are less sturdy than mk3 stock (bolted then welded sections, rather than welded panels on a frame -mk3s)... didnt the paddington inquiry mention that? Not sure about the hitachi rubbish which i guess would be the favourite to replace HST s at one point

 

[AlterEgo]

Why are they ?

They're elderly, less crashworthy, and polluting. The latter reason is the main reason to dispense with them. Poor crashworthiness is another. They aren't exactly new stock and getting rid of them is a good idea.

 

[ainsworth74]

No, it's also about the noise, e.g. HST v Voyager.....

A Voyager I will grant is noisier (though I've never bought that they're as bad as some suggest) but an Azuma? You have to strain to hear if one of them is on diesel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, it's also about the noise, e.g. HST v Voyager.....

Voyagers are rattly, noisy, poorly designed junk, on that we can agree. The only redeeming feature is the big windows.

80x are a totally different beast (and aren't even the only option - Stadler would no doubt bid FLIRTs, and CAF could bid loco hauled Mk5s or a new bi-mode). You can barely hear the diesels on those.

Nobody, TOC or ROSCO, are going to remove all the seats on 8xx units, throw them on the local council tip and fit replacements

No, but if they are going to order some new ones, as ScotRail would be (because there aren't any spare ones to send there), then they can specify their preference of seat. It might require certification for a new 125mph train, but if it's important to them they can pay for that. FirstGroup did exactly that for Lumo and Avanti, though I'm yet to try those seats myself.

 

[yorkie]

My Dads Vauxhall Victor was a nice looking car and did the trick of getting us from A to B, but looking back on it I am glad we were not in any sort of accident.

So your new car will definitely save you if you are involved in an accident?

Remind me, how many people die or are seriously injured on the roads on average each year?

The Class 43 is unsafe compared to modern rolling stock, I would imagine its also becoming more difficult to maintain and is not very environmentally friendly,

Far safer than any car and more environmentally friendly than going by car.

its had its time and should go

By that logic, why don't cars go? They've had their time!

and it will, the Unions know that it can't go overnight but they have to be seen to be protecting the members at the pointy end (and rightly so) and Politicians have to be seen to care (but we know most don't) so its all noise and bluster.

The unions are a disgrace.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

HSTs are/were very safe.

The leading car did not carry any passengers

 

[JonathanH]

HSTs are/were very safe.

The leading car did not carry any passengers

It isn't at all reasonable to sacrifice the driver to protect the passengers though. The concerns about HSTs are very much about drivers in a fibreglass cab.

 

[Wolfie]

They're elderly, less crashworthy, and polluting. The latter reason is the main reason to dispense with them. Poor crashworthiness is another. They aren't exactly new stock and getting rid of them is a good idea.

They've also needed massive amounts of work to deal with corrosion.

It isn't at all reasonable to sacrifice the driver to protect the passengers though. The concerns about HSTs are very much about drivers in a fibreglass cab.

Absolutely

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn't at all reasonable to sacrifice the driver to protect the passengers though.

Indeed. The issue here isn't so much the passenger coaches (though a comparable modern train is likely to be safer) but the cab which seems to be little better in safety terms than if it was completely open.

 

[Lucan]

The HSTs are well past their sell by date. They should be replaced. Of course that won't be immediate, but in the short to medium term they will likely be put out to pasture.

Obviously they will be replaced one day, but hopefully for better reasons than just declaring they are past their sell by date. And the Carmont accident is not a reason for replacing them, it is a reason for looking at operating procedures for when there are landslips going on.

I have carried out formal safety assessments (in another industry) following guidelines set by the Heath and Safety Executive, and some people might be upset to know that in these assessments a money value is placed on life. In other words, it is not justified to spend limitless amounts of money to improve safety - you have to draw the line somewhere (othewise we would for example be building cities underground to avoid asteroid strikes). Replacing HSTs just because more modern stock has a somewhat higher crash resistance is plainly far short of being a worthwhile project. That sort of money could be spent on safety far more effectively in other ways - replacing level crossings by bridges for example.

 

[michael74]

So your new car will definitely save you if you are involved in an accident?

Nope never said that, but in my 1 year old car compared to my Dads Victor, as the driver, I fancy my chances

Remind me, how many people die or are seriously injured on the roads on average each year?

A lot more than the trains, shall we now compare who eats more Apples, the French or the Spanish?

Far safer than any car and more environmentally friendly than going by car.


By that logic, why don't cars go? They've had their time!

Steps are already being taken, the "proposed" ban on new sales of Petrol and Diesels cars

The unions are a disgrace.

That makes no difference they have to be seen as promoting the safety of the workforce

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obviously they will be replaced one day, but hopefully for better reasons than just declaring they are past their sell by date. And the Carmont accident is not a reason for replacing them, it is a reason for looking at operating procedures for when there are landslips going on.

I have carried out formal safety assessments (in another industry) following guidelines set by the Heath and Safety Executive, and some people might be upset to know that in these assessments a money value is placed on life. In other words, it is not justified to spend limitless amounts of money to improve safety - you have to draw the line somewhere (othewise we would for example be building cities underground to avoid asteroid strikes). Replacing HSTs just because more modern stock has a somewhat higher crash resistance is plainly far short of being a worthwhile project. That sort of money could be spent on safety far more effectively in other ways - replacing level crossings by bridges for example.

There are many reasons to replace* HSTs that aren't safety, too. They are simply old and knackered.

* In practice, a decision to replace now will result in new trains in about 5-10 years, tending towards 10. That's about the right timeframe anyway, even if Carmont hadn't happened and on the background of a planned long-term rolling electrification programme meaning bi-modes are needed unless you want to be running a lot of diesels under said wires.

 

[Wolfie]

No, it's also about the noise, e.g. HST v Voyager.....

For who? Passengers or others? HSTs might be quiet for the former, but for the latter.....

 

[Starmill]

They won't be economical to life extend beyond about 2030 regardless of anything else, because they're not as easy to maintain as newer trains and many vehicles have permanent weaknesses (though not enough to make them unsafe). You replace rather than keep mending at some point in any line of business. Even a brick building has a finite lifespan, though it's many times longer than a steel machine. As others have pointed out they also have serious air quality impacts which cannot be mitigated, and of course, they cannot use overhead wires. The case for replacement is overwhelming before you enter into a consideration of the safety impacts, but not immediately.

 

[michael74]

Thanks for that, typo.....


The difference in safety between a Vauxhall victor of 1970 and a car now, would be far higher than between an HST and "more modern" rolling stock. Quite apart from anything one of the main differences would be airbags and front and mandatory fitting (and use) of seat belts. Are you suggesting these should be fitted (and possibly mandated...) to "modern rolling stock" ?
But we are forgetting "proportionality".
How many people have died on Britain/s railways over the last 10 years when there "dangerous" HSTs have been operating ?
And how much will it cost to have these trains replaced ? With, I would remind you, less comfortable rolling stock. Doesn't that count for anything ?
No this is madness, health and safety madness.

Never said we should retro fit anything. I am making a comparison of the times and technologies....