HSTs - Are they sufficently crashworthy now, should they be withdrawn?

[tbtc]

To be fair, what really matters is if they are safe enough - meaning that the risk of death/injury is lower than if the equivalent number of journeys were made by alternate means (e.g. car, bus) - rather than if they are as safe as they possibly could be.

A lot of people have difficulty with the fact that safety is never an absolute. If we consider them being pulled from service now, the result would be overcrowded single 158s replacing them. That would push people into cars, and thus be a safety negative

That's not how it works though.

It feels like you're suggesting that a restaurant with a poor hygiene rating is still fine because it'd be cleaner than eating at home! Restaurants should be compared to other restaurants, trains should be compared to other trains. If people pay for a train ticket, they expect a certain standard, a certain quality, a certain safety (just like people will be quick to complain if there is any litter strewn on the train despite the fact that their private cars are a lot filthier).

Similarly, if I buy a plane ticket, I want a plane that complies with modern aviation standards, not one that is "at least as safe as a different means of transport"

Either HSTs are safe enough to comply with modern heavy rail expectations or they aren't - trying to change the subject by comparing them to cars/ buses (or suggesting that an unsafe train is better than making people stand on a safe train) suggests that you're happy to keep staff in unsafe workplaces because they are your favourite trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

It feels like you're suggesting that a restaurant with a poor hygiene rating is still fine because it'd be cleaner than eating at home! Restaurants should be compared to other restaurants, trains should be compared to other trains.

I fundamentally don't agree. A holistic view of the transport system needs to be taken much more than presently is. Because if you spend a fortune on rail safety to the point that you have to crank fares up, people get into cars and the transport system is less safe overall. Same if you withdraw the HSTs and leave everyone to cram onto overcrowded 2-car 158s (which are probably little if any better) pending the building of some 80x, FLIRTs, Civities or whatever.

HSTs are not my favourite trains, I've repeatedly said I favoured 80x or FLIRTs.

And many, many jobs are more dangerous than driving an HST.

As for your view on safety on purchasing a train ticket, I bet it doesn't even enter the consideration of most passengers. The most likely thing they will be concerned about is how overpriced it is.

And as for the restaurant analogy, it's like a policy of mandatorily closing all restaurants that don't have a 5* rating. HSTs are very safe. It's just that they're a bit less safe than Pendolinos and 80x.

And what of those other trains that are less safe than HSTs? 15x? Turbos? Scrap the lot now and close down half the secondary network?

 

[Ianno87]

Either HSTs are safe enough to comply with modern heavy rail expectations or they aren't - trying to change the subject by comparing them to cars/ buses (or suggesting that an unsafe train is better than making people stand on a safe train) suggests that you're happy to keep staff in unsafe workplaces because they are your favourite trains

But then which trains are fully in line with modern safety standards? I'd wager only latter privatisation stock of the last 10-15 years or so. Standards constantly evolve.

Where does the line fall between "safe" and "unsafe"? The range is actually a spectrum of more safe to less safe. The important thing for railway operations is that material safety risks are identified and actively managed. Any movement of a train that involves squishy human beings on or around it inherently involves risk, and management of that risk, to a greater or lesser extent.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I fundamentally don't agree. A holistic view of the transport system needs to be taken much more than presently is. Because if you spend a fortune on rail safety to the point that you have to crank fares up, people get into cars and the transport system is less safe overall.

That's a ridiculous position to take.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a ridiculous position to take.

Because?

A holistic view of the transport system is required (but usually not taken in the UK) in many, many contexts, not just this one.

When you're pouring subsidy into the railway to be spent on safety, it absolutely should be considered as to whether more lives would be saved by fixing some dangerous road junctions instead, or keeping fares reasonably low. Without question. The railway spends a lot of money chasing diminishing gains on safety these days (TPWS was probably the last big jump), while at the same time a highly dangerous smart motorway system needs fixing urgently, for example.

The bit I'd concede to is staff safety, and that may well be achievable by modifying the cab design if it is found to be deficient.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Because?

A holistic view of the transport system is required (but usually not taken in the UK) in many, many contexts, not just this one.

When you're pouring subsidy into the railway to be spent on safety, it absolutely should be considered as to whether more lives would be saved by fixing some dangerous road junctions instead. Without question. The railway spends a lot of money chasing diminishing gains on safety these days (TPWS was probably the last big jump), while at the same time a highly dangerous smart motorway system needs fixing urgently, for example.

This all feels very much like a "Bloody 'elf and safety" kind of argument you're going down.

 

[Bevan Price]

Anything that rams a wall (bridge parapet) at around 70 mph is going to suffer a lot of damage.
And an uncontrolled fall down a steep embankment is going to cause injuries, or worse, regardless of the type of train.

 

[tbtc]

Look at how slam doored stock and Pacers were scrapped (rather than keeping unfit trains in operation to avoid people having to stand on other trains) - whilst other old trains have bene kept in service but brought up to modern standards - why do people have such a blind spot about HSTs?

I fundamentally don't agree. A holistic view of the transport system needs to be taken much more than presently is. Because if you spend a fortune on rail safety to the point that you have to crank fares up, people get into cars and the transport system is less safe overall. Same if you withdraw the HSTs and leave everyone to cram onto overcrowded 2-car 158s (which are probably little if any better) pending the building of some 80x, FLIRTs, Civities or whatever

Holistic approaches are all well and good in theory but in the reality of modern railways we need to offer something a bit better than "well, it's safer than some other modes of transport"

Excusing an unsafe train because the alternative would be people having to stand on a safe train isn't a solution - it reads like an excuse to ignore the problems with this old stock

And many, many jobs are more dangerous than driving an HST

Good luck explaining that to the Unions!

"yes, these fragile trains are knocking on fifty years old, with safety concerns, but it could be worse, eh, mustn't grumble..."

And what of those other trains that are less safe than HSTs? 15x? Turbos? Scrap the lot now and close down half the secondary network?

Bring them up to modern standards - I'm not saying they have to be as safe as a brand new train (in the way that an old public building doesn't have to comply with all new-build but would be expected to make adjustments, e.g. wheelchair ramps)

But then which trains are fully in line with modern safety standards? I'd wager only latter privatisation stock of the last 10-15 years or so. Standards constantly evolve.

Where does the line fall between "safe" and "unsafe"? The range is actually a spectrum of more safe to less safe. The important thing for railway operations is that material safety risks are identified and actively managed. Any movement of a train that involves squishy human beings on or around it inherently involves risk, and management of that risk, to a greater or lesser extent.

Like with emissions.

You don't expect all old buses/trains to comply with the same emission requirements as brand new buses/trains but you do require them to meet a certain minimum (in the way that HSTs should have proper door controls rather than expecting people to stick their heads out of the window - all trains should have some minimum standards (and the fact that they were deemed safe enough in the 1970s shouldn't give them an indefinite free pass)

 

[Bletchleyite]

This all feels very much like a "Bloody 'elf and safety" kind of argument you're going down.

No, not at all. The argument is that there is only so much taxpayer's money to spend, and it should be spent where it will save the most lives.

As things stand, it would save more lives to spend it reinstating permanent hard shoulders on smart motorways than replacing HSTs a few years early. They are intended to be replaced in just 9 years anyway.

In practice because it takes a few years to order a new fleet and get them fully in service, we're talking about pushing to replace them about 5-6 years early, which won't make a massive difference. However, what we really must not do is to take them out of service now and cram people onto 2-car 15x for a few years while a replacement is built. That would be downright stupid.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

No, not at all. The argument is that there is only so much taxpayer's money to spend, and it should be spent where it will save the most lives.

As things stand, it would save more lives to spend it reinstating permanent hard shoulders on smart motorways than replacing HSTs a few years early. They are intended to be replaced in just 9 years anyway.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Bletchleyite]

Look at how slam doored stock and Pacers were scrapped (rather than keeping unfit trains in operation to avoid people having to stand on other trains) - whilst other old trains have bene kept in service but brought up to modern standards - why do people have such a blind spot about HSTs?

Mk1s were not scrapped until replacements arrived.

Pacers were scrapped in my view too early, largely because of hyperbole in newspapers and (justifiably) for reasons of accessibility. COVID saved the railway's bacon on this one. Without it, there would have been years of overcrowding. FWIW I don't doubt that were it not for COVID they would have been kept a bit longer, and indeed a few (5?) are still going in South Wales because TfW is really stuck for stock.

Holistic approaches are all well and good in theory but in the reality of modern railways we need to offer something a bit better than "well, it's safer than some other modes of transport"

Hyperbole.

Excusing an unsafe train because the alternative would be people having to stand on a safe train isn't a solution - it reads like an excuse to ignore the problems with this old stock

Hyperbole. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be replaced when due; it's due in 9 years.

Good luck explaining that to the Unions!

Without going too far down that line, not everything the Unions say is reasonable. A lot of it is not.

"yes, these fragile trains are knocking on fifty years old, with safety concerns, but it could be worse, eh, mustn't grumble..."

Hyperbole.

Bring them up to modern standards - I'm not saying they have to be as safe as a brand new train (in the way that an old public building doesn't have to comply with all new-build but would be expected to make adjustments, e.g. wheelchair ramps)

And I have said - a few times - that I would be unsurprised to see some cab modifications as a result of this. That is the one that may be justified.

You don't expect all old buses/trains to comply with the same emission requirements as brand new buses/trains but you do require them to meet a certain minimum (in the way that HSTs should have proper door controls rather than expecting people to stick their heads out of the window - all trains should have some minimum standards (and the fact that they were deemed safe enough in the 1970s shouldn't give them an indefinite free pass)

They are due to be scrapped (on ScotRail, I don't know about GWR) in 9 years. That isn't an "indefinite free pass".

*rolls eyes*

So you think limited public money should be spent on things that will be less effective? Up to you, but personally I think that's nonsense.

 

[Ianno87]

Like with emissions.

You don't expect all old buses/trains to comply with the same emission requirements as brand new buses/trains but you do require them to meet a certain minimum (in the way that HSTs should have proper door controls rather than expecting people to stick their heads out of the window - all trains should have some minimum standards (and the fact that they were deemed safe enough in the 1970s shouldn't give them an indefinite free pass)

But, as far as I'm aware, no such minimum standards for crashworthiness of legacy stock exist. How would they be defined? How would you pick and choose which standards are and are not applied to legacy stock? ("It can be up to this much less safe than new stock"). Emissions can at least have a quantifiable threshold applied to it, gradually incremented over time.

Old stock basically exists on grandfather rights from when it was designed combined with practicable modifications as the years go by.

The only logical way to do this would be, when some requirement or other is updated, state a requirement that older stock only gets a pass for 10/15/20 (whatever) years, after which point the standard would apply to everything.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

So you think limited public money should be spent on things that will be less effective? Up to you, but personally I think that's nonsense.

You're rehashing the same "bloody 'elf and safety!" mantra that always get rolled out in situations like this. It's just a little pathetic.

 

[Ianno87]

Pacers were scrapped in my view too early, largely because of hyperbole in newspapers and (justifiably) for reasons of accessibility. COVID saved the railway's bacon on this one. Without it, there would have been years of overcrowding. FWIW I don't doubt that were it not for COVID they would have been kept a bit longer, and indeed a few (5?) are still going in South Wales because TfW is really stuck for stock.

Pacers were themselves of debatable crashworthiness - the unit involved in the Winsford accident in 1999 had its body torn from the chassis, for example. But they lasted a full further 20 years in service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're rehashing the same "bloody 'elf and safety!" mantra that always get rolled out in situations like this. It's just a little pathetic.

I think it is quite different to suggest that some H&S spending may be unjustified because the money could be better spent on H&S matters elsewhere, from shouting that. Very different.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I think it is quite different to suggest that some H&S spending may be unjustified because the money could be better spent on H&S matters elsewhere, from shouting that. Very different.

So so very different that it's basically the same....

Pull the other one,

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pacers were themselves of debatable crashworthiness - the unit involved in the Winsford accident in 1999 had its body torn from the chassis, for example. But they lasted a full further 20 years in service.

That Pacer survived pretty well when you consider what hit it and how fast. I very much doubt a 15x would have done much better.

I seem to recall the body was actually meant to separate (as it's an integral body, it's not a Mk1 with an underframe and a weak body - that same body, albeit with a bit more reinforcement, was used in the 153/155 without an underframe), though they changed their minds on it later and put those reinforcing bolts in.

So so very different that it's basically the same....

Pull the other one

So is it your considered view that the HSTs should be removed from service immediately regardless of the fact that nothing, other than short-forming other ScotRail services and using single 2-car 15x on those services, is available?

If not, what is your view on what should happen?

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

So is it your considered view that the HSTs should be removed from service immediately regardless of the fact that nothing, other than short-forming other ScotRail services and using single 2-car 15x on those services, is available?

If not, what is your view on what should happen?

That's not anything like what I said but go on and put words in my mouth why don't you....

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not anything like what I said but go on and put words in my mouth why don't you....

I asked you what your view was. Perhaps you could tell us what it is? I might even agree with it.

 

[edwin_m]

Considering fatalities of staff and passengers on board 125mph passenger trains since 2000, which takes out of the reckoning the major accidents before that would not have happened later due to TPWS etc. Some figures are ball-park so won't bear nitpicking on accuracy.

HST: Ufton Nervet 4 fatalities, Carmont 3 fatalities, total 7 for about 100 trains in service for the whole 20 years so 2000 train-years. 0.004 fatalities per train-year.
IC225: Hatfield 4 fatalities, Great Heck 9 fatalities for about 30 trains in service for the whole 20 years so 600 train-years. 0.022 fatalities per train-year.

Does this mean we should be starting a thread on "IC225s - are they sufficiently crashworthy now, should they be withdrawn?"? Or does it just illustrate the pointlessness of trying to draw statistical conclusions from very small samples?

 

[bramling]

You're rehashing the same "bloody 'elf and safety!" mantra that always get rolled out in situations like this. It's just a little pathetic.

Not sure what the issue is. Any safety enhancements cost money, and like it or not will be subject to scrutiny as to whether the spending is justifiable. This is essentially why we ended up with TPWS over ATP, yet (notwithstanding the period of indecision during the 1990s) most people will probably accept TPWS has proven sufficiently satisfactory that this was the right decision. The money saved on ATP will no doubt have gone towards other safety enhancements.

It’s certainly not pathetic to expect spending to be targeted towards measures which will deliver the greatest return. Like it or not, safety is an exercise in risk management, not complete elimination at any cost. If we’re going to eliminate all risk, none of us would venture outdoors!

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I asked you what your view was. Perhaps you could tell us what it is? I might even agree with it.

I think you ought to stop making aspersions about the character of the driver who spoke out, about their ability to do their job, and you probably ought to wait for the report before rubbishing any suggestion that something might be up with the 50 year old trains...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you ought to stop making aspersions about the character of the driver who spoke out, about their ability to do their job, and you probably ought to wait for the report before rubbishing any suggestion that something might be up with the 50 year old trains...

I'd suggest you report the thread to the moderators and request they close it, then, as it's a speculative thread, the purpose of which is speculation.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I'd suggest you report the thread to the moderators and request they close it, then, as it's a speculative thread, the purpose of which is speculation.

I'm not asking for it to be closed, I'm asking for you to have some respect.

 

[43096]

I think you ought to stop making aspersions about the character of the driver who spoke out, about their ability to do their job, and you probably ought to wait for the report before rubbishing any suggestion that something might be up with the 50 year old trains...

Perhaps said driver should have waited for the experts at the RAIB to report, too, then. Rather than running to the press for some trumped up, hyperbolic rant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not asking for it to be closed, I'm asking for you to have some respect.

I don't believe what I posted was in any way disrespectful, though you are within your rights to disagree.

The driver allowed himself to be quoted in a highly hyperbolic article in a national newspaper, and has by so doing made his statements open to public critique. You cannot go to the Press without expecting people to form opinions on what you publish therein.

 

[MarkyT]

...This is essentially why we ended up with TPWS over ATP, yet (notwithstanding the period of indecision during the 1990s) most people will probably accept TPWS has proven sufficiently satisfactory that this was the right decision. The money saved on ATP will no doubt have gone towards other safety enhancements.

The simple TPWS interfaces both onboard the trains and with the trackside signalling not only reduced the cost significantly compared to any available full supervision ATP system of the time, but also allowed network-wide fitment at the highest risk junction locations in an extraordinarily short timescale, hence delivering the safety improvement much more quickly. ATP could easily have taken 3 or 4 times as long to roll out.

 

[35B]

That's not how it works though.

It feels like you're suggesting that a restaurant with a poor hygiene rating is still fine because it'd be cleaner than eating at home! Restaurants should be compared to other restaurants, trains should be compared to other trains. If people pay for a train ticket, they expect a certain standard, a certain quality, a certain safety (just like people will be quick to complain if there is any litter strewn on the train despite the fact that their private cars are a lot filthier).

Similarly, if I buy a plane ticket, I want a plane that complies with modern aviation standards, not one that is "at least as safe as a different means of transport"

Either HSTs are safe enough to comply with modern heavy rail expectations or they aren't - trying to change the subject by comparing them to cars/ buses (or suggesting that an unsafe train is better than making people stand on a safe train) suggests that you're happy to keep staff in unsafe workplaces because they are your favourite trains

The question is whether the HST is actually unsafe. A truly exceptional incident is being extrapolated from to draw a conclusion that these trains are not safe.

There are many good reasons to replace HST, and it is an indictment of rolling stock design that the MK3 has not seriously been improved upon in nearly 50 years (I’ve yet to experience Flirt, and am no great fan of either 80x or 390). But the argument that they need replacement because they’re unsafe is both ridiculous hyperbole and, more seriously, increasing public risk by undermining confidence in rail safety; something that can and will lead to people choosing more dangerous alternatives to rail.

Carmont was the tragedy it was because of a landslip in a dreadful location, leading to a more drastic derailment than any I can recall in my lifetime - including Greyrigg. Putting the focus on the train’s ability to withstand that is to me completely missing the point; I remain to be convinced (though the full RAIB report may do so) that any other train type would have had materially less damage in those circumstances, or that the survival rate would have been different.

If there is an argument for early replacement of HST on safety grounds, I would like to see that expressed through some proper ALARP cost benefit analysis, comparing that to other projects and looking at the results. Until then, I will regard this report as showboating by a reporter who would be better with the Scottish Sun than a broadsheet, and an engineer who seems to place more value on “likes” and retweets than rigorous analysis; something that if I were a customer of his employer would have me asking searching questions about whether this is representative of how they work.

 

[Killingworth]

Considering fatalities of staff and passengers on board 125mph passenger trains since 2000, which takes out of the reckoning the major accidents before that would not have happened later due to TPWS etc. Some figures are ball-park so won't bear nitpicking on accuracy.

HST: Ufton Nervet 4 fatalities, Carmont 3 fatalities, total 7 for about 100 trains in service for the whole 20 years so 2000 train-years. 0.004 fatalities per train-year.
IC225: Hatfield 4 fatalities, Great Heck 9 fatalities for about 30 trains in service for the whole 20 years so 600 train-years. 0.022 fatalities per train-year.

Does this mean we should be starting a thread on "IC225s - are they sufficiently crashworthy now, should they be withdrawn?"? Or does it just illustrate the pointlessness of trying to draw statistical conclusions from very small samples?

I'd say this means that throughout the British railway sytem all aspects of operation are very safe, but accidents will inevitably happen. By definition they're usually down to a combination of unusual circumstances. If we get a number with the same or similar causes (broken rails, points, signalling or rolling stock) that's where most attention needs focussing - and it is.

Once the accident is caused the resultant damage is virtually impossible to predict. There are so many possible combinations. Great Heck would not have happened if the vehicle had not rolled the final foot onto the track. Then a sequence of events unfurled due to the speed, position, proximity and types of both trains in relation to points and lineside structures. Carmont is still sub judice but the immediate cause was fairly clear, running into debris on the line at speed. That it was on a downhill curve above a ravine made a bad outcome inevitable, whatever stock was involved. On straight and level track the result would have been different.

 

[swissrailpassion]

The forces in the Carmont crash were overwhelming and catastrophic. Any train would be seriously damaged in that situation and there would be little chance of survival for the driver. There are no seat-belts and one can only imagine what went on in the seconds after the derailment as the power car plunged off the bridge.


On the Hitachi derailment the concern is the lateral lift and shift at low speed. A minor collision such as at Neville Hill could result in obstruction of a mainline and a major collision with a passing train.