HST's are insufficiently safe (apparently)

[yorksrob]

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



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

Given that HST's operate in a carefully signalled environment, I'd say that it's significantly safer than the most modern family car - which will likely be traveling on an unsignalled highway alongside lots of heavy juggernoughts.

 

[43066]

How about one who resembles RMT???

I can think a couple of amusing directions to go with that. To save @yorkie some admin, I’ll publish neither!

 

[the sniper]

Given that HST's operate in a carefully signalled environment, I'd say that it's significantly safer than the most modern family car - which will likely be traveling on an unsignalled highway alongside lots of heavy juggernoughts.

Hence why I'm not sure why excessive corrosion on Mk3s is too much of a concern either? It's probably not going to crash and you'll still be safer than being in a car.

 

[43066]

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.

Yes - I think the union’s concern isn’t unreasonable given what happened in Scotland. There has been a great deal of new stock introduced recently, including to replace much more modern stock than HSTs, so it’s a little incongruous that HSTs are still operating.

As an enthusiast I was certainly sorry to see the back of HSTs and actually getting to drive them as they were intended was a railway bucket list item well and truly ticked off for me! However, when the nostalgia is taken out of it, most of us would accept they’re now long past their use-by date.

 

[AM9]

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.

I would imagine the same sort of reduction has been experienced on the MI (south) which was 7 years old in 1966. I would imagine that figures for deaths on that stretch show a significant progressive reduction over the years, especially if the increased traffic levels are taken into consideration.

 

[43301]

The RAIB report couldn't say whether any other type of train would have fared sufficiently better to stop fatalities, so it's unclear why ASLEF have such a thing against HSTs. I assume they have advised all their members to move to within walking distance of their depot, and never go in a car? Because even the safest car is far more dangerous than any train.

Also, why are they not also complaining about 2nd Generation BR DMUs? It seems verry unlikely that the driver in a 150 / 153 / 155 /156 is at any less risk than the driver of an HST.

 

[bramling]

The RAIB report couldn't say whether any other type of train would have fared sufficiently better to stop fatalities, so it's unclear why ASLEF have such a thing against HSTs. I assume they have advised all their members to move to within walking distance of their depot, and never go in a car? Because even the safest car is far more dangerous than any train.

Also, why are they not also complaining about 2nd Generation BR DMUs? It seems verry unlikely that the driver in a 150 / 153 / 155 /156 is at any less risk than the driver of an HST.

I'd imagine ASLEF are aware there's other diesels coming off-lease over the next couple of years which could, if push comes to shove, replace HSTs. Two separate Voyager fleets, the TFW 158s, and potentially the 175s as well. It's not unreasonable for a union to be raising the issue against this backdrop.

(I'm aware none of these fleets are ideal replacement for the ScotRail HSTs in particular, but they could be made to fit).

 

[43066]

I assume they have advised all their members to move to within walking distance of their depot, and never go in a car? Because even the safest car is far more dangerous than any train.

I realise it’s popular to criticise the rail unions on here, sometimes with good reason, but this is a little unfair. No, of course ASLEF haven’t advised their members not to drive to work. They haven’t advised them not to take part in extreme sports either because, fairly obviously, they are concerned with risks they can control.

As someone who drove HSTs until quite recently, if I had to be in an accident, I’d rather be in the more modern stock that I sign. By the same token: would the NHS unions be happy with 1970s X-ray equipment being used; would teaching unions be happy with 1970s fire regs in schools; would BALPA be happy with pilots still flying around in Boeing 727s?

I rather think not. For the simple reason that safety standards have moved on a great deal since then.

I'd imagine ASLEF are aware there's other diesels coming off-lease over the next couple of years which could, if push comes to shove, replace HSTs. Two separate Voyager fleets, the TFW 158s, and potentially the 175s as well. It's not unreasonable for a union to be raising the issue against this backdrop.

Exactly. It’s not as if the union have asked for an immediate grounding of all HST stock as seemed to be implied upthread. They simply want a phased withdrawal of what is now undeniably obsolete stock.

 

[Clansman]

If the Carmont derailment involved a 170 or a 158 the almost certainly the outcome would have been worse. The outcome wasn't worse not because of the HSTs' design, but the power car taking the brunt of the impact rather than public areas.

That's not to say that an Mk3 is more safe than a DMU coach or newer built coaches - but it does say that the issue after Carmont shouldn't be anything to do with rolling stock itself unless there is concrete proof that the Mk3s themselves (not the HST per se) contributed to loss of life when another type would have fared better.

 

[43301]

Exactly. It’s not as if the union have asked for an immediate grounding of all HST stock as seemed to be implied upthread. They want a phased withdrawal.

That will realistically happen anyway in not that many years - there's really no justification for grandstanding given the miniscule risk which exists here. In the entire lifetime of the HSTs so far (over 40 years) how many drivers have been killed in accidents? Three, isn't it? Given the size of the fleet for most of that time and the number of miles covered, that represents a very, very small risk. And one which wouldn't be entirely removed with even the latest trains - a serious crash may well lead to fatalities, no matter how new the train.

 

[bramling]

I realise it’s popular to criticise the rail unions on here, sometimes with good reason, but this is a little unfair. No, of course ASLEF haven’t advised their members not to drive to work. They haven’t advised them not to take part in extreme sports either because, fairly obviously, they are concerned with risks they can control.

As someone who drove HSTs until quite recently, if I had to be in an accident, I’d rather be in the more modern stock that I sign. By the same token: would the NHS unions be happy with 1970s X-ray equipment being used; would teaching unions be happy with 1970s fire regs in schools; would BALPA be happy with pilots still flying around in Boeing 727s?

I rather think not.



Exactly. It’s not as if the union have asked for an immediate grounding of all HST stock as seemed to be implied upthread. They want a phased withdrawal.

And that's exactly it. HST cab crashworthiness has been raised in two separate accident reports, the performance of the cab - whilst not criticised as such - didn't come out smelling of roses at Ufton either.

Given that part of the function of unions is promoting the health and safety interests of members, to be honest I'd be surprised if the unions *weren't* raising the salience of this, especially against the backdrop of HSTs being now well past their book life.

As much as anyone else I don't wish to see the HSTs go, however we need to be realistic and accept that the design of the power cars essentially includes a flaw which dates back to their design. Closing our eyes to this isn't going to make the issue go away, unfortunately, especially with other diesel stock becoming available.

I can't help but once again re-iterate the point that it is remiss for us to have ended up in a situation where there's 1970s stock still running around, whilst 1990s stock has been scrapped.

 

[yorksrob]

I realise it’s popular to criticise the rail unions on here, sometimes with good reason, but this is a little unfair. No, of course ASLEF haven’t advised their members not to drive to work. They haven’t advised them not to take part in extreme sports either because, fairly obviously, they are concerned with risks they can control.

As someone who drove HSTs until quite recently, if I had to be in an accident, I’d rather be in the more modern stock that I sign. By the same token: would the NHS unions be happy with 1970s X-ray equipment being used; would teaching unions be happy with 1970s fire regs in schools; would BALPA be happy with pilots still flying around in Boeing 727s?

I rather think not. For the simple reason that safety standards have moved on a great deal since then.



Exactly. It’s not as if the union have asked for an immediate grounding of all HST stock as seemed to be implied upthread. They simply want a phased withdrawal of what is now undeniably obsolete stock.

By being concerned by risks "they can control", I take it you mean risks they can exercise political influence over, while ignoring other risks, and contributing to the double standard over rail safety versus safety in other contexts, which in turn is helping to make it so much more expensive to invest in and upgrade the railway, which is ultimately damaging the future of the railway and could lead to people being pushed onto more dangerous forms of transport ?

 

[43066]

That will realistically happen anyway in not that many years - there's really no justification for grandstanding given the miniscule risk which exists here.

ASLEF aren’t grandstanding. Indeed their members will be driving this stock in Scotland and the West Country as we speak. They’ve simply asked for a movement towards withdrawal! What is unreasonable about that?

Sorry but your earlier comparison to them asking their members to stop driving cars was ludicrous and deeply unfair.

 

[bramling]

By being concerned by risks "they can control", I take it you mean risks they can exercise political influence over, while ignoring other risks, and contributing to the double standard over rail safety versus safety in other contexts, which in turn is helping to make it so much more expensive to invest in and upgrade the railway, which is ultimately damaging the future of the railway and could lead to people being pushed onto more dangerous forms of transport ?

To put it another way, would you be comfortable as a duty-holder signing off a risk assessment on HST power cars, specifically could you honestly say that keeping HSTs running (especially if other stock is available) is reducing risk to as low as reasonably practicable?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy travelling in HSTs, and completely agree with your views relating to comfort of Mk3s in relation to newer fleets, including in relation to seats. I just don't think ignoring the issue of cab crashworthiness would stand up to scrutiny if push came to shove.

In essence, I think politically the ScotRail HSTs will find themselves being replaced by Voyagers or Meridians in due course, and the GWR ones with 158s or via a reshuffle of IETs. The latter already seems to be a partly done deal anyway. It's a shame, but if anyone's to "blame" then it's those who specified and designed the GRP cab structures, rather than present-day ASLEF.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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.

Who is going to pay to keep patching them up?

It’s getting to the stage where the maintenance expense is not worth it.

 

[43066]

By being concerned by risks "they can control", I take it you mean risks they can exercise political influence over, while ignoring other risks, and contributing to the double standard over rail safety versus safety in other contexts, which in turn is helping to make it so much more expensive to invest in and upgrade the railway, which is ultimately damaging the future of the railway and could lead to people being pushed onto more dangerous forms of transport ?

I’m afraid the above paragraph reveals that you don’t really understand what a trade union is, or the function it is supposed to perform.

ASLEF are a train drivers’ union. As such they represent train drivers and their (very specific and narrow) range of interests *when they’re at work*. They aren’t a transport pressure group, they don’t represent passengers, so why on earth would they concern themselves with the relative risks of other forms or transport, future investment in the railway, or even what their own members get up to outside of work?!

 

[michael74]

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



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

My Dad also had a Vauxhall Viva, he never had the hydrogas suspension tuned properly, it was like riding around in a bowl of soup and made me violently car sick.... Unlike a super smooth Mk3

 

[Wolfie]

I’m afraid the above paragraph reveals that you don’t really understand what a trade union is, or the function it is supposed to perform.

ASLEF are a train drivers’ union. As such they represent train drivers and their (very specific and narrow) range of interests *when they’re at work*. They aren’t a transport pressure group, they don’t represent passengers, so why on earth would they concern themselves with the relative risks of other forms or transport, future investment in the railway, or even what their own members get up to outside of work?!

Spot on.

My Dad also had a Vauxhall Viva, he never had the hydrogas suspension tuned properly, it was like riding around in a bowl of soup and made me violently car sick.... Unlike a super smooth Mk3

Methinks that you are confused. Hydrogas suspension was on British Leyland products not Vauxhall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m afraid the above paragraph reveals that you don’t really understand what a trade union is, or the function it is supposed to perform.

ASLEF are a train drivers’ union. As such they represent train drivers and their (very specific and narrow) range of interests *when they’re at work*. They aren’t a transport pressure group, they don’t represent passengers, so why on earth would they concern themselves with the relative risks of other forms or transport, future investment in the railway, or even what their own members get up to outside of work?!

They probably should concern themselves with the good of the industry, though, as they also have an investment in that. Pushing for a very fast replacement will end up it being 2-car 158s, very bad for the industry's reputation. A more realistic timescale of maybe 5 years should allow some 80x, FLIRTs or Mk5s to be ordered, tested and brought into service.

 

[whoosh]

How dare ASLEF have an issue with a fibreglass bolt-on cab!

How dare ASLEF have an issue with out of date safety standards of no cage or safety frame surrounding the driver.

How dare ASLEF have an issue with these trains still being around, when they could've been replaced with something safer, due to no long term rolling stock strategy.

I mean the nerve!



It's their job. And they have a point!

I will say though, for balance, that I did used to drive these, and was safer doing so for hundreds of miles each day, than the single figure mileage in each direction driving a car to and from work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think they shouldn't have an issue with it. I just think like the Mk1 fleet replacement, a sensible deadline should be put in place to allow for something genuinely suitable to be ordered, tested and delivered, rather than just going on the hunt for whatever junk old DMUs they can find, of which 175s are probably the best but aren't *great*.

GWR is a bit different as they're just acting as stand-in double 158s - replacing them with 5-car 80x will be a reasonable upgrade, the GWR ones are quite tatty and all Standard with the high density interior so not even that nice!

XC, well, that needs more sorting out than just a couple of HSTs, the whole operation is awful from start to finish, there is pretty much nothing good about any of it.

 

[michael74]

Methinks that you are confused. Hydrogas suspension was on British Leyland products not Vauxhall.

I stand corrected, that car still made me as a sick as a parrot....

 

[Wolfie]

I stand corrected, that car still made me as a sick as a parrot....

Maxi, Allegro or Princess at a guess....

 

[43301]

Sorry but your earlier comparison to them asking their members to stop driving cars was ludicrous and deeply unfair.

Why? It highlights the point that as forms of transport go, all trains in this country are very, very safe. It's about balancing risk, and it is highly questionable whether it's appropriate to withdraw trains earlier than planned in order to reduce what is already a miniscule risk. Especially if (as tends to happen) that results in short-forms and cancellations and pushes more people into using cars.

And isn't the biggest risk to drivers that of being propelled at speed against the inside of the windscreen due to rapid deceleration? The RAIB report seems to indicate that this is what happend to the unfortunate driver of the Scotrail HST. It's presumably also what happened at Ufton Nervet as the photos of the leading power car there show it on its side but intact with no visble cab damage. Unless they start fitting seatbelts and airbags, this risk is going to be there in any train.

 

[Wolfie]

How dare ASLEF have an issue with a fibreglass bolt-on cab!

How dare ASLEF have an issue with out of date safety standards of no cage or safety frame surrounding the driver.

How dare ASLEF have an issue with these trains still being around, when they could've been replaced with something safer, due to no long term rolling stock strategy.

I mean the nerve!



It's their job. And they have a point!

I will say though, for balance, that I did used to drive these, and was safer doing so for hundreds of miles each day, than the single figure mileage in each direction driving a car to and from work.

Thank you for sharing these. The enthusiasts who care more about their preferences than staff safety won't, l fear, get the message though.

 

[bramling]

They probably should concern themselves with the good of the industry, though, as they also have an investment in that. Pushing for a very fast replacement will end up it being 2-car 158s, very bad for the industry's reputation. A more realistic timescale of maybe 5 years should allow some 80x, FLIRTs or Mk5s to be ordered, tested and brought into service.

It is what it is, unfortunately. In terms of rolling stock strategy, the industry deserves to get a bad reputation. Too many debacles in recent years, and this is another one to add to the list.

For some reason there has been an obsession with replacing EMUs which in most cases didn't need replacing, yet here we are talking about 2-car 158s replacing HSTs. I don't think that needs to happen though, there's several diesel fleets becoming available in the relatively short term. Completely agree none of them are ideal, but we are where we are. I don't think this issue is going to go away, so best start planning now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is what it is, unfortunately. In terms of rolling stock strategy, the industry deserves to get a bad reputation. Too many debacles in recent years, and this is another one to add to the list.

For some reason there has been an obsession with replacing EMUs which in most cases didn't need replacing, yet here we are talking about 2-car 158s replacing HSTs. I don't think that needs to happen though, there's several diesel fleets becoming available in the relatively short term. Completely agree none of them are ideal, but we are where we are. I don't think this issue is going to go away, so best start planning now.

I'd agree to start planning, but on a horizon that allows for new-build of "something" around 130-150m long, capable of 100mph on diesel and electric and with scope to swap the diesel engines for batteries, in sufficient quantities to operate all services on the Highland Mainline and all fast services via Aberdeen. I suspect it'd probably be 80x, but go out to tender to see what else comes up, Stadlers might for instance be good for the low platforms of the Highland mainline.

You could stick the 222s in temporarily (a bit like 180s on the MML) but you really would want it to be temporary - they're awful things and it'd just mean diesel under the progressively-erected wires.

 

[bramling]

Why? It highlights the point that as forms of transport go, all trains in this country are very, very safe. It's about balancing risk, and it is highly questionable whether it's appropriate to withdraw trains earlier than planned in order to reduce what is already a miniscule risk. Especially if (as tends to happen) that results in short-forms and cancellations and pushes more people into using cars.

And isn't the biggest risk to drivers that of being propelled at speed against the inside of the windscreen due to rapid deceleration? The RAIB report seems to indicate that this is what happend to the unfortunate driver of the Scotrail HST. It's presumably also what happened at Ufton Nervet as the photos of the leading power car there show it on its side but intact with no visble cab damage. Unless they start fitting seatbelts and airbags, this risk is going to be there in any train.

In the case of Ufton, the structure of one of the cab side doors failed, which allowed a considerable amount of ballast and other debris into the cab. To be honest, it's surprising more wasn't made of this at the time.

 

[Wolfie]

It is what it is, unfortunately. In terms of rolling stock strategy, the industry deserves to get a bad reputation. Too many debacles in recent years, and this is another one to add to the list.

For some reason there has been an obsession with replacing EMUs which in most cases didn't need replacing, yet here we are talking about 2-car 158s replacing HSTs. I don't think that needs to happen though, there's several diesel fleets becoming available in the relatively short term. Completely agree none of them are ideal, but we are where we are. I don't think this issue is going to go away, so best start planning now.

If there is a requirement to bring forward HST replacement the 222s would appear to be the best bet with the Avanti 221s going to Cross Country.

 

[43301]

Thank you for sharing these. The enthusiasts who care more about their preferences than staff safety won't, l fear, get the message though.

It's really not about 'preferences' - it's about what is reasonable in the circumstances. Given their age, HSTs will be withdrawn over the next few years anyway. If some massive risk had come to light (unlikely after all this time) it may be reasonable to bring replacement forward, but this isn't what has happened. As Bletchleyite says above, far better overall to procure a long-term new-built replacement, rather than scrabble around for whatever trains happen to be available, and which end up reducing capacity (as is likely to happen in practice).