HST's are insufficiently safe (apparently)

[Meole]

• ASLEF demands ORR begins the immediate process of withdrawal of HST’s from service across the entire rail network by 12th of August 2023.
• ASLEF demands the ORR conduct an immediate industry review of crashworthiness standards of all rolling stock in service today and insist that classes of train or locomotive that do not meet minimum standards of crashworthiness be modified or be given a timescale for withdrawal.
• ASLEF demands the ORR to ensure that going forward there are regular reviews of the crashworthiness of legacy rolling stock to take into account the “state of the art” at the time of the review, and the introduction of any new cab equipment.
• The RSSB initiate research on the design, specification and effectiveness of lifeguards with a view to specifying a new standard that would prevent the derailment of trains in scenarios such as the one experienced at Carmont.
• In line with the RAIB report ASLEF calls for the RSSB to review its previous research on the fitting of secondary impact protection devices for train drivers (including seatbelts) in the light of the circumstances of Carmont, future train accident risk (including derailment) and the capabilities of current technology.
• In consultation with relevant stakeholders the RSSB evaluates the case for fitting specific secondary impact protection devices into new and existing trains; and where justified and incorporate requirements for improved protection measures into standards for train driving cabs.
• A Public Inquiry into the events at Carmont and the awarding of the franchise to Abellio with regards bringing HSTs to Scotland

 

[yorkie]

If you look at what ASLEF have actually said, they want them to start to be withdrawn from next year (which I understood was already envisaged). That doesn’t seem unreasonable in the circumstances and I don’t think can reasonably be described as a knee jerk reaction.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

The thing is trains are far, far less likely than motor vehicles to be involved in a collision, so their safety has to be assessed in light of that.

I completely agree with this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

• ASLEF demands ORR begins the immediate process of withdrawal of HST’s from service across the entire rail network by 12th of August 2023.

Stupid. The Cornish ones will probably be gone by then, but doing that for the Scottish ones will cause a serious overcrowding problem and more car use, unless something else genuinely suitable is available (double 3-car 175 or 185 is the only thing I can vaguely think about).

• ASLEF demands the ORR conduct an immediate industry review of crashworthiness standards of all rolling stock in service today and insist that classes of train or locomotive that do not meet minimum standards of crashworthiness be modified or be given a timescale for withdrawal.
• ASLEF demands the ORR to ensure that going forward there are regular reviews of the crashworthiness of legacy rolling stock to take into account the “state of the art” at the time of the review, and the introduction of any new cab equipment.
• The RSSB initiate research on the design, specification and effectiveness of lifeguards with a view to specifying a new standard that would prevent the derailment of trains in scenarios such as the one experienced at Carmont.
• In line with the RAIB report ASLEF calls for the RSSB to review its previous research on the fitting of secondary impact protection devices for train drivers (including seatbelts) in the light of the circumstances of Carmont, future train accident risk (including derailment) and the capabilities of current technology.
• In consultation with relevant stakeholders the RSSB evaluates the case for fitting specific secondary impact protection devices into new and existing trains; and where justified and incorporate requirements for improved protection measures into standards for train driving cabs.

All sensible.

• A Public Inquiry into the events at Carmont and the awarding of the franchise to Abellio with regards bringing HSTs to Scotland

Into Carmont, yes. Into the franchise, that's just a classic Union dig at private operators' decisions.

If you were to ask me, I'd say they're over-asking, so as to get what they really want, i.e. the stuff in the middle.

 

[43066]

If you were to ask me, I'd say they're over-asking, so as to get what they really want, i.e. the stuff in the middle.

Which of course is what happens in any negotiation. I’m not sure why people find unions employing standard negotiating tactics so troubling!

 

[QSK19]

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.

Indeed - EMR’s HSTs and the ex-GC were in better condition than the ex-LNER HSTs… all that work to the ex—LNER sets and for what, so that EMR had slightly more PMR-compliant rolling stock for a matter of a few weeks. IMO, the person who authorised that needs sacking. There is no way that they should have gone to EMR - they should have been examined and scrapped immediately after LNER had finished with them and (some of) the EMR & ex-GC HSTs not withdrawn until the 360s & 180s arrived.

If the decision is to have all HSTs off the tracks by 2030, some decisions on new train orders and/or fleet cascades need to be thought about pronto… the GWR sets in particular.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the decision is to have all HSTs off the tracks by 2030, some decisions on new train orders and/or fleet cascades need to be thought about pronto… the GWR sets in particular.

There's already a plan to replace the GWR sets with 5-car 80x. I believe the 80x to do it are freed up by cutting back Bedwyn-Newbury to a DMU shuttle rather than a through IET to Paddington plus a couple of other tweaks - there aren't that many of them.

 

[bramling]

Stupid. The Cornish ones will probably be gone by then, but doing that for the Scottish ones will cause a serious overcrowding problem and more car use, unless something else genuinely suitable is available (double 3-car 175 or 185 is the only thing I can vaguely think about).



All sensible.



Into Carmont, yes. Into the franchise, that's just a classic Union dig at private operators' decisions.

If you were to ask me, I'd say they're over-asking, so as to get what they really want, i.e. the stuff in the middle.

If anything needs looking in to, it may well be the ridiculous situation with rolling stock procurement and strategy over the last decade. There’s been too many debacles now. 442s, LNER HSTs to EMR, 365s, 360s, 379s, retractioned 455, etc.

It’s pretty unsatisfactory that perfectly good 1990s stock has been sidelined whilst 1970s stock is still going.

 

[ainsworth74]

If anything needs looking in to, it may well be the ridiculous situation with rolling stock procurement and strategy over the last decade. There’s been too many debacles now. 442s, LNER HSTs to EMR, 365s, 360s, 379s, retractioned 455, etc.

It’s pretty unsatisfactory that perfectly good 1990s stock has been sidelined whilst 1970s stock is still going.

This is of course what happens when there's no "guiding mind" behind the decisions and they end up being taken on a franchise by franchise basis as awards came up for renewal. The plan to get rid of the entire 707 fleet from SWR fleet before (or just after perhaps) it had turned a wheel in service when SWR won the franchise being the most egregious perhaps.

But in reality that's the issue. The DfT didn't wish to take a strategic view of the network and rolling stock procurement outside of a handful of situations (the IEP primarily and things like the 700s for Thameslink) and in the absence of that there isn't really anyone else who can!

 

[AndrewE]

This is of course what happens when there's no "guiding mind" behind the decisions and they end up being taken on a franchise by franchise basis as awards came up for renewal. The plan to get rid of the entire 707 fleet from SWR fleet before (or just after perhaps) it had turned a wheel in service when SWR won the franchise being the most egregious perhaps.

But in reality that's the issue. The DfT didn't wish to take a strategic view of the network and rolling stock procurement outside of a handful of situations (the IEP primarily and things like the 700s for Thameslink) and in the absence of that there isn't really anyone else who can!

so what is GBR for then?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Well, I'm looking forward to doing Sydney-Melbourne on an XPT in July, although I think that a sleeper may be out of the question

Note that from 2023 the whole of the NSW regional fleet, comprising 3 types including XPT, will start to be replaced by a relatively standardised fleet based on the CAF Civity platform. They will also be Australia's first bi-modes. It will be interesting to see if Transport Scotland goes down a similar path when replacing its diesel fleet operating a similar variety of services. Given the other comments upthread the lack of co-ordination in rolling stock procurement is something that the Scots have a real opportunity to avoid in the next decade or so.

 

[ainsworth74]

so what is GBR for then?

That hopefully. But they've not even started and who knows how much power they'll actually be allowed to wield if/when they do get going.

 

[Lucan]

I think air travel is almost certainly safer on a global level, though of course that is likely using a per distance measure, and it may be different if measured per journey.

Air travel is hard to compare because it consists of a potentially fairly dangerous bit, a long distance in great safety then another potentially fairly dangerous bit.

Air travel is safer than rail on a global per/km basis partly because rail safety in some third world (and even first world) nations is appalling, and it skews the data. OTOH even third world airlines must meet international safety standards if they are to fly beyond their borders. It is also because, as Bletchleyite says, air flights are generally much longer than rail journeys and the mid-flight danger is relatively low. If typical flights were as short as typical rail journeys, air travel would show as more dangerous because more time would be spent in take-off and landing. In fact the chance of death per journey is about six times worse for air than for rail, even by global statistics.

​

Air travel is hard to compare with rail but people still do. For example some of the other guys at work travelling from London to the north of England try to tell me it is safer flying than by rail - yet it certainly is not for such a short flight, and in the UK. Also, here is a quote from that idiot Elon Musk's infamous (and influential) "White Paper" advocating Hyperloop :

The train … would be less safe by two orders of magnitude than flying

How the heck he gets that figure, goodness knows; he loathes railways of course.

Here is an interesting table. The aircraft shows as safest in per km because of the long journey factor, but the Space Shuttle is a more extreme example of this effect - the Space Shuttle gobbled up such vast distances between its extremely unsafe take-offs and landings that per km it is not much worse than a car, even though you had a 1-in-60 chance of dying when you boarded one.

There are also now over 3 times as many cars on the road than 1966. Most of the fall in deaths has come about through safety improvements in road vehicles, legally enforced maintenance of safety critical aspects and better braking/lighting/roadholding visibility leading to less incidents involving pedestrians as well.

Not just that, a lot of the fall in deaths is because there are far fewer pedestrians and cyclists now. For example in 1966 kids walked or cycled to school, but now they are driven there - which also explains some of the increase in cars. There is also the drink-drive factor. As a child I remember men boasting how drunk they had been when driving, like how they found their way home from the pub with their front wheel scraping along the kerb.

 

[Justin Smith]

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.

Excessive corrosion is a different question altogether. If the MK3s are excessively corroded leading to significant reduction in the original crashworthiness then that is a maintenance problem and there is no excuse.
Something built in the 1970s is not necessarily coming to the end of its life, it is only such if it has not been maintained.
On a similar point, why not make trains out of stainless steel then that would not be an issue. I would love to be able to buy a car made of stainless steel then I would not have to worry about it rusting !

 

[yorksrob]

HST travel is still one of the safest forms of transport in the country.

The sort of hysterics calling for them to be withdrawn on safety grounds are undoubtedly the same people who'd think nothing of traveling on our death-trap roads.

The Railway Magazine ought to know better.

 

[Justin Smith]

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.

Who is going to pay for it ?

The unions sacrificing a pay rise ?
I'll bet they would suddenly drop their insistence the trains be withdrawn, hypocrites.

Me in higher fares ?
No, I don't want to, I'm happy catching an HST anyway, but I certainly do not want to pay more for the dubious privilege of travelling in a plasticy buzz box with small windows.

The tax payer ?
They are paying quite enough, and if they are going to be touched up for yet more dosh I'd prefer they spend it on something more productive.

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

Are you talking electric trains or diesel ?
The re-engined HSTs are far quieter than the original Valenta powered versions. I do not find them any more noisy than a passing Voyager.

Isn’t this thread just going to be repeating last month‘s similar discussion that can be found in the last few pages of the Carmont derailment thread, and a number of other similar HST threads?

Its' more focussed on just the HSTs and if they really should be regarded as dangerous.

 

[AndrewE]

Not just that, a lot of the fall in deaths is because there are far fewer pedestrians and cyclists now. For example in 1966 kids walked or cycled to school, but now they are driven there - which also explains some of the increase in cars. There is also the drink-drive factor. As a child I remember men boasting how drunk they had been when driving, like how they found their way home from the pub with their front wheel scraping along the kerb.

That's not entirely true.
Someone upthread said cars haven't changed much... Cars are a lot safer (for their occupants) nowadays. Front wheel drive makes them infinitely better at cornering, and the roof-support pillars are much stronger than they used to be. The downside is that a) the drivers blind-spots are worse than they have ever been, and b) people are lulled into cornering as fast as they can but ignoring what they might be about to drive into. Better suspension and sound-proofing also isolates drivers from the environment, when a rougher ride might keep them better attuned to conditons outside.

A distressing number of "road" casualties are pedestrians on the pavement. Every set of railings to "protect" them simply takes space away from the footway, and the battered remnants littering our footways also serve as a permanent reminder of the vulnerability of non-motorised road users.

 

[Wolfie]

Who is going to pay for it ?

The unions sacrificing a pay rise ?
I'll bet they would suddenly drop their insistence the trains be withdrawn, hypocrites.

Me in higher fares ?
No, I don't want to, I'm happy catching an HST anyway, but I certainly do not want to pay more for the dubious privilege of travelling in a plasticy buzz box with small windows.

The tax payer ?
They are paying quite enough, and if they are going to be touched up for yet more dosh I'd prefer they spend it on something more productive.


Are you talking electric trains or diesel ?
The re-engined HSTs are far quieter than the original Valenta powered versions. I do not find them any more noisy than a passing Voyager.


Its' more focussed on just the HSTs and if they really should be regarded as dangerous.

We get it, you like HSTs. There were people who liked 442s, 317s, 321s etc etc too. Those are now razor blades and that, within the next 10 or so years, is where the 43s and Mk3s will be too. Possibly sooner if there is another serious accident.

 

[The Planner]

God help us when HSTs do finally get retired, this place will implode.

 

[ainsworth74]

God help us when HSTs do finally get retired, this place will implode.

I'm pleased to report that the Forum Staff are undertaking urgent strengthening work to try ensure the Forum retains it's structural strength when this does occur! There will be no unplanned implosions!

 

[the sniper]

Which of course is what happens in any negotiation. I’m not sure why people find unions employing standard negotiating tactics so troubling!

I heard it's because they're a disgrace...?

Excessive corrosion is a different question altogether. If the MK3s are excessively corroded leading to significant reduction in the original crashworthiness then that is a maintenance problem and there is no excuse.

Nah. Still statistically safer than driving a rusty Vauxhall Viva of similar vintage from Edinburgh to Inverness. It's fine.

 

[bramling]

This is of course what happens when there's no "guiding mind" behind the decisions and they end up being taken on a franchise by franchise basis as awards came up for renewal. The plan to get rid of the entire 707 fleet from SWR fleet before (or just after perhaps) it had turned a wheel in service when SWR won the franchise being the most egregious perhaps.

But in reality that's the issue. The DfT didn't wish to take a strategic view of the network and rolling stock procurement outside of a handful of situations (the IEP primarily and things like the 700s for Thameslink) and in the absence of that there isn't really anyone else who can!

I'm not even sure it can be blamed on lack of a guiding hand, after all every single one of these franchise agreements was agreed by the self-same DFT. They could quite easily have steered bidders towards specific rolling stock strategies if they so desired.

One can only put it down to incompetence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nah. Still statistically safer than driving a rusty Vauxhall Viva of similar vintage from Edinburgh to Inverness. It's fine.

I think if you want a car analogy, your Viva has just passed its MoT, but it's getting on a bit and you're not sure if it'll pass the next one, so time to start taking a few test drives with a view to replacement but no need to rush out and buy the first car you see. And your wife (the Union) will be happy that you've started that process, because she's getting a bit bored of it too.

 

[43066]

And your wife (the Union) will be happy that you've started that process, because she's getting a bit bored of it too.

I dread to think what a wife who resembles ASLEF would look like!

 

[Wolfie]

I dread to think what a wife who resembles ASLEF would look like!

How about one who resembles RMT???

 

[yorkie]

Nah. Still statistically safer than driving a rusty Vauxhall Viva of similar vintage from Edinburgh to Inverness. It's fine.

Ah, a false equivalence claim. These are always a good sign that you've lost the argument!

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about one who resembles RMT???

Typing "woman waving communist flag" into Google brought up some amusing options!

(NOTE: no offence to RMT members intended here - this is a joke! )

 

[bramling]

Indeed. In fact, despite my avatar, I’d happily sit at the pointy end of one again now .

It wouldn't bother me either. However, I have to say I'd probably hesitate if I were putting my name to something which required others to work them - especially if other options were available.

This isn't a particularly new issue, the Ladbroke Grove report commented that the HST cab offers "no significant structural strength, that it could not resist loads above the underframe, and that it provided minimal protection for the driver in a collision". Much as I love HSTs, it is probably the case that luck is going to run out on this at some point; indeed it may well have already done at Ufton where the driver ought to have stood some chance of survival, however the cab side door structure disintegrated allowing debris to enter the cab.

 

[northwichcat]

The main contributor to comfort is the seat.

While I'm not disagreeing with you I also think on a long distance service the toilet facilities and luggage storage are important. A lack of space on overhead racks might mean taking a backpack with you means you don't have as much leg room.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While I'm not disagreeing with you I also think on a long distance service the toilet facilities and luggage storage are important. A lack of space on overhead racks might mean taking a backpack with you means you don't have as much leg room.

All new InterCity stock built after the Voyager/180 (i.e. 80x and all the CAF kit, and even Pendolinos to some extent) has massive overheads, all of which take the largest of bags, and I can't think of any particular issues with the bogs.

 

[the sniper]

Ah, a false equivalence claim. These are always a good sign that you've lost the argument!

I'm not arguing.