HST's are insufficiently safe (apparently)

[swt_passenger]

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?

 

[yorkie]

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

As I am sure did the thousands of people who have died or been seriously injured on the roads recently.

A lot more than the trains,

That's an understatement.

shall we now compare who eats more Apples, the French or the Spanish?

Feel free to create a new thread if you wish

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

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

They do not have to act in this way; you are defending the indefensible.

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?

I think so; I don't think there is much more to be said that hasn't already been said.

Those who argue these trains are unsafe must never set out of their home as to do so puts them in danger by their logic.

 

[lachlan]

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.

Exactly, IIRC the ScotRail HSTs were only ever meant to last ten years tops. Crashworthyness is just one reason why they should be replaced. The primary reason IMO is that in 5-10 more of the network will be electrified and so bimodes could reduce emissions and improve journey times.

I'm surprised this is so controversial

 

[yorkie]

Exactly, IIRC the ScotRail HSTs were only ever meant to last ten years tops. Crashworthyness is just one reason why they should be replaced. The primary reason IMO is that in 5-10 more of the network will be electrified and so bimodes could reduce emissions and improve journey times.

I'm surprised this is so controversial

The lines to Aberdeen and Inverness are unlikely to be electrified anytime soon (and the same applies to the extremeties of the GWR route), but feel free to create a thread in the speculative section if you wish to explore that possibility further.

In the meantime, I see no reason why HSTs should not continue to operate in line with the current expected lifespan, which is - as others have said - no more than another 7-8 years anyway.

 

[43096]

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.

Perhaps people should actually read the Carmont report, because there’s an awful lot of drivel and hyperbole on this thread.

To remind you, the driver died most likely as a result of “secondary impact with the cab windscreen and interior as the leading power car struck the embankment below the bridge”. It doesn’t matter if you’re in an HST power car, a 170 or something just out of the factory: if it goes nose down off a bridge at ~50mph then head impacts are equally likely regardless of the stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the meantime, I see no reason why HSTs should not continue to operate in line with the current expected lifespan, which is - as others have said - no more than another 7-8 years anyway.

Which is commensurate with the idea of starting the discussion now on exactly what should replace them and getting an order in in the next year or two. So in other words, what the Unions want isn't really particularly far from what's going to happen anyway.

A "panic" replacement, i.e. swapping them for short DMU formations, would be nuts.

 

[yorkie]

A "panic" replacement, i.e. swapping them for short DMU formations, would be nuts.

Indeed it would be, but that has been quoted as a union demand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed it would be, but that has been quoted as a union demand.

If they are demanding that, they need to be ignored. The result of that would be more deaths and injuries overall as a result of people switching to the car to avoid the overcrowding and higher fares it would result in.

6-car 170s or double 185s would be reasonable temporary replacements from my point of view as a passenger, but the former aren't available and the latter are probably even more polluting. What it would end up being is the likes of 3-car 158s which would be grossly insufficient.

 

[yorkie]

Perhaps people should actually read the Carmont report, because there’s an awful lot of drivel and hyperbole on this thread.

To remind you, the driver died most likely as a result of “secondary impact with the cab windscreen and interior as the leading power car struck the embankment below the bridge”. It doesn’t matter if you’re in an HST power car, a 170 or something just out of the factory: if it goes nose down off a bridge at ~50mph then head impacts are equally likely regardless of the stock.

Exactly.

If they are demanding that, they need to be ignored. The result of that would be more deaths and injuries overall as a result of people switching to the car to avoid the overcrowding and higher fares it would result in.

Absolutely; indeed much of what Aslef/RMT say should be ignored!

 

[Lucan]

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.

The numbers of passenger deaths on trains on UK railways in the last 20 years is : 6 in 2001, 7 in 2002, 5 in 2004, 1 in 2007 and 1 in 2020. Each of those figures is from a single crash. The whole 20 year average is 0.025 per billion passenger-km, and the last 10 year average is 0.0025. The last 10 years equates to about one passenger death in 250,000,000,000 miles.

That does not include railway staff deaths, for example at Carmont there were two. It is also notable that the UK average is significantly safer than most (or any?) other nation in the world. The last 10 year average is also about 20 times safer than air travel, despite frequently heard claims that air travel is the safest.

 

[43096]

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.

Is that an engineering assessment or something you just made up?

 

[yorkie]

... despite frequently heard claims that air travel is the safest.

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.

Is that an engineering assessment or something you just made up?

It'll be made up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That does not include railway staff deaths, for example at Carmont there were two. It is also notable that the UK average is significantly safer than most (or any?) other nation in the world. The last 10 year average is also about 20 times safer than air travel, despite frequently heard claims that air travel is the safest.

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. Thus you get skewed figures depending how you account it.

 

[The exile]

Indeed it would be, but that has been quoted as a union demand.

I had understood that what the union was demanding was that a date should be set for their withdrawal (as was done for slam-door stock and pacers). As some of them are approaching 50 years old that doesn’t actually seem that unreasonable, provided that that date isn’t “next week”

 

[AM9]

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

At the moment, there are about 1800 persons killed on UK roads per year. In 1966 there were 8000! 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.
The original comment "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." is perfectly understandable in that context.

 

[Ken H]

At the moment, there are about 1800 persons killed on UK roads per year. In 1966 there were 8000! 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.
The original comment "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." is perfectly understandable in that context.

The roads are different from 1966. We have far more motorways and dual carriageways. in 1966 many long journeys involved going through towns and cities*. Now we trundle along at about 70mph on roads with no real conflicts like right turns, or pedestrians.

* Near me there were no bypasses in Otley, Addingham, Skipton, Settle, Kendal then, so getting to the Lakes was a major undertaking from Leeds.

 

[scotraildriver]

Perhaps people should actually read the Carmont report, because there’s an awful lot of drivel and hyperbole on this thread.

To remind you, the driver died most likely as a result of “secondary impact with the cab windscreen and interior as the leading power car struck the embankment below the bridge”. It doesn’t matter if you’re in an HST power car, a 170 or something just out of the factory: if it goes nose down off a bridge at ~50mph then head impacts are equally likely regardless of the stock.

Also, had the train been a 170 most of the passengers would have been in the leading coach (as the coach nearest the buffers at Aberdeen is always the busiest). I'm not sure that would have been a better outcome.

ASLEF have asked for a meaningful plan to be in place by August 2023 for the replacement of HSTs. Whether that's a new train order or whatever, they are not "demanding" HSTs are immediately withdrawn.

 

[ainsworth74]

There always seems to be a great deal of fire and fury on this subject but little actual sense as most people seem to have a red mist descend and either end up arguing that HSTs must continue ever more Trigger's Broom fashion or should be instantly withdrawn from service and damn the torpedoes!

Trying to pick a middle path between the extremes it seems to me that there are several things going on.

Are HSTs old? Yes. Are they less safe (but in the context of an extremely safe mode of transport) than modern stock? Yes. Are there are some features which, following Carmont which raise concerns either for the first time or once again? Yes, the survivability of the cab is dubious (though the drivers chances of surviving in any cab were slim), the lifeguards on the power cars weren't as strong as modern vehicles would have been, there were corrosion concerns, the couplers may not have performed as well as they should and the bogies appear to have gone flying around. Do these features mean that HSTs and Mk3s are inherently unsafe? No, they're just not as safe as a modern vehicle. Should some of them be corrected? Probably yes, strengthening the lifeguards for instance seems a logical change to make which is unlikely to be overly complex/expensive. Should the HSTs be withdrawn immediately? No, of course not, there's no replacements available and the disruption would be significant and would likely drive more people to drive. Should the HSTs be replaced eventually? Yes, of course, all things wear out eventually. Should a specific end date be chosen? Possibly, having a date to work towards seems like it wouldn't be unreasonable.

It seems to me that if you try and peer through the smoke and fire produced by this topic the conclusion you reach is that HSTs will need to be replaced probably by the end of this decade to pretend otherwise seems a bit silly but equally it is silly to try and suggest that they're somehow death traps that need to be removed from service immediately.

 

[warwickshire]

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


Absolutely

Agree fully. Exactly it's the corrosion issues that's the problem. To far gone underneath

 

[cjmillsnun]

Also, had the train been a 170 most of the passengers would have been in the leading coach (as the coach nearest the buffers at Aberdeen is always the busiest). I'm not sure that would have been a better outcome.

ASLEF have asked for a meaningful plan to be in place by August 2023 for the replacement of HSTs. Whether that's a new train order or whatever, they are not "demanding" HSTs are immediately withdrawn.

That’s not an unreasonable request from ASLEF. They, like ScotRail know these trains have a finite life and are asking for some forward planning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s not an unreasonable request from ASLEF. They, like ScotRail know these trains have a finite life and are asking for some forward planning.

To decide what is wanted (I'd say 5 x 24/26m bi-modes or LHCS with bi-mode locomotives capable of diesel performance equivalent to or better than a Class 158, with an option to extend to 7-car) and get a tender out for it seems a reasonable step to take. Would be a bonus to get at least one vehicle level boarding in the spec too.

 

[gordonthemoron]

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

 

[Falcon1200]

It seems to me that if you try and peer through the smoke and fire produced by this topic the conclusion you reach is that HSTs will need to be replaced probably by the end of this decade to pretend otherwise seems a bit silly but equally it is silly to try and suggest that they're somehow death traps that need to be removed from service immediately.

Indeed, no train lasts for ever and the HSTs will be replaced, as will their successors in the fullness of time. But there is no need for a knee-jerk reaction to scrap them before suitable replacements, whatever they may be, are available. And of course the best way to ensure rail safety is to prevent accidents from happening in the first place, an area in which the railway has made huge advances, so much so that Carmont, while a dreadful event, was the first fatal train crash since 2007.

 

[Taunton]

The Carmont accident is an embarrassment to the operators, who sent off the train through known extreme conditions, with other trains stranded both sides by washouts, at full 75 mph line speed. If the manager who had to come down from Aberdeen to Carmont to deal with it had driven down the A90 in those conditions at normal 70mph he would have lost his driving licence for dangerous driving. So it's convenient for the operators to stick it on some imagined deficiency of the train.

If you look at the Ladbroke Grove collision, HST head-on to a "modern", near-new Class 165, the HST power car structurally held up notably, and the carriages, although a couple punched at the ends, held their rigidity, although later destroyed by the fire. The Class 165 first car was completely shredded down to the twisted underframe, the body reduced to shards - by good fortune, at 8am hardly anybody had walked down to the front car at Paddington. In contrast the HST had many standees in the aisle wanting to be first out at the terminus.

There's an interesting lab test video of a 1959 versus 2009 car here - the thing that strikes me is actually how much the modern car is still destroyed; you cannot evade physics. The principal saving for the modern driver there is not the structural integrity, but the airbag :

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's an interesting lab test video of a 1959 versus 2009 car here - the thing that strikes me is actually how much the modern car is still destroyed; you cannot evade physics. The principal saving for the modern driver there is not the structural integrity, but the airbag

Actually not quite true. The modern car will appear to fare worse - it is designed with crumple zones to absorb energy - but the actual "cell" around the cabin is much more protected and is intended to stay as intact as possible given the forces involved.

 

[Falcon1200]

The Carmont accident is an embarrassment to the operators,

So it's convenient for the operators to stick it on some imagined deficiency of the train.

Who are these 'operators' you are criticising ?

 

[43066]

Indeed it would be, but that has been quoted as a union demand.

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.

The Carmont accident is an embarrassment to the operators, who sent off the train through known extreme conditions, with other trains stranded both sides by washouts, at full 75 mph line speed. If the manager who had to come down from Aberdeen to Carmont to deal with it had driven down the A90 in those conditions at normal 70mph he would have lost his driving licence for dangerous driving. So it's convenient for the operators to stick it on some imagined deficiency of the train.

Trains aren’t driven on sight, so it isn’t really a valid comparison.

There's an interesting lab test video of a 1959 versus 2009 car here - the thing that strikes me is actually how much the modern car is still destroyed; you cannot evade physics. The principal saving for the modern driver there is not the structural integrity, but the airbag :

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.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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

They’re being retired next year I believe.

The Carmont accident is an embarrassment to the operators, who sent off the train through known extreme conditions, with other trains stranded both sides by washouts, at full 75 mph line speed. If the manager who had to come down from Aberdeen to Carmont to deal with it had driven down the A90 in those conditions at normal 70mph he would have lost his driving licence for dangerous driving. So it's convenient for the operators to stick it on some imagined deficiency of the train.

If you look at the Ladbroke Grove collision, HST head-on to a "modern", near-new Class 165, the HST power car structurally held up notably, and the carriages, although a couple punched at the ends, held their rigidity, although later destroyed by the fire. The Class 165 first car was completely shredded down to the twisted underframe, the body reduced to shards - by good fortune, at 8am hardly anybody had walked down to the front car at Paddington. In contrast the HST had many standees in the aisle wanting to be first out at the terminus.

There's an interesting lab test video of a 1959 versus 2009 car here - the thing that strikes me is actually how much the modern car is still destroyed; you cannot evade physics. The principal saving for the modern driver there is not the structural integrity, but the airbag :

I suggest you look at that again.

Modern vehicles have a safety cell which you’ll find virtually undamaged The other parts are designed to crumple progressively and absorb the energy from the impact. Older cars are not like this. Oh and the primary driver safety device is the seat belt. It has saved more lives than any other safety kit in any vehicle.

 

[bramling]

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.

I wouldn’t think twice about travelling in a Mk3. The chances of being involved in an accident are so rare it’s not worth thinking about.

However, there is clearly more of an issue with the cabs. Carmont was always going to have a bad outcome for the driver no matter what the rolling stock was, but clearly the HST cabs offer little protection to the driver, and odds are there will probably be a fairly minor incident at some point (for example a tree strike) where the lack of cab crashworthiness will likely make a more significant contribution to a bad outcome. On that basis I think it’s certainly reasonable for the unions to be on the case.

 

[43066]

I wouldn’t think twice about travelling in a Mk3. The chances of being involved in an accident are so rare it’s not worth thinking about.

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