What Happened to all the Slam door trains?

[Zoe]

No it isn't my opinion, and I don't care whether it is everybody elses. It is a fact. There are official values for human lives. They differ depending on the mode of transport but a life has a monetary value.

You said that vast amounts of money should not be spent on saving a few theoretical lives, that is an opinion.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Indeed. Time moves on and the slammers were never going to be replaced by more slam door stock, and I expect many regular users do prefer air con, but they were far more suited to London peak services than the new stuff and the arguments about them being death traps are nonsensical.

Try telling that to people who were / continue to be affected by the Clapham disaster. Maybe you are too young to remember that terrible day but others like me are not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The slammers were absolutely perfect for that purpose. On arrival at Waterloo the train was half empty before it had come to a halt.

You may advocate unsafe travel on our railways but fortunately for the rest of us Network Rail do not. And as a commuter into Waterloo for many years that was most definitely not the case as most customers had far more sense.

 

[90019]

I doubt many people would want to travel in a Rover 100 these days though.

One of the other drivers at work has a Rover 100.

I was considering buying one as a cheap runaround at one point, too. Apparently they're a right laugh to drive.

 

[Zoe]

I was considering buying one as a cheap runaround at one point, too. Apparently they're a right laugh to drive.

Had you seen the Euro NCAP crash test (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUs-h23sp7M) at the time?

 

[BestWestern]

Had you seen the Euro NCAP crash test (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUs-h23sp7M) at the time?

Oh dear oh dear, that is bad! Probably withstand a head-on with a Pacer though!

 

[John55]

One of the other drivers at work has a Rover 100.

I was considering buying one as a cheap runaround at one point, too. Apparently they're a right laugh to drive.

I assumed in the context of this thread the Rover 100 of 1962 woulf be the model in question.

http://www.roverp4.com/100.jpg

 

[90019]

Had you seen the Euro NCAP crash test (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUs-h23sp7M) at the time?

Yep.


I'm not that interested though, how much fun a car is and how much I enjoy it is more important for me.

I'd rather be killed in a car that I've enjoyed driving than sustain serious and long lasting injuries in a dreary car that I hate.

 

[BestWestern]

I assumed in the context of this thread the Rover 100 of 1962 would be the model in question.

http://www.roverp4.com/100.jpg

That would probably have performed better in an accident!

 

[Rick1984]

out of interest why where 378's not built with 3 sets of double doors?

seems quite normal in other countries.

 

[sprinterguy]

out of interest why where 378's not built with 3 sets of double doors?

seems quite normal in other countries.

I would presume because the Electrostar product platform is set up with two sets of doors per carriage side. Although admittedly the 378s would appear to incorporate many different features compared to other Electrostar designs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Try telling that to people who were / continue to be affected by the Clapham disaster. Maybe you are too young to remember that terrible day but others like me are not.

And thousands of people are affected every year in this country alone by fatal accidents involving modern car designs on Britain’s roads, and yet they do not seem to be being held in contention here for being “death traps” despite the far higher chance of being killed in a car accident than on a train. I’m inclined to agree with yorksrob on this one, pulling up a few major accidents that have occurred during the vehicles’ lives in order to bewail them as “death traps” is a major over-reaction to a handful of freak accidents. You could do the same with almost any item that you could encounter in daily life if you wanted.

The new trains that have replaced the slammers are built to more stringent safety standards and for this we can be thankful, but being built to less demanding standards does not equal “death trap”.

 

[John55]

And thousands of people are affected every year in this country alone by fatal accidents involving modern car designs on Britain’s roads, and yet they do not seem to be being held in contention here for being “death traps” despite the far higher chance of being killed in a car accident than on a train. I’m inclined to agree with yorksrob on this one, pulling up a few major accidents that have occurred during the vehicles’ lives in order to bewail them as “death traps” is a major over-reaction to a handful of freak accidents. You could do the same with almost any item that you could encounter in daily life if you wanted.

The new trains that have replaced the slammers are built to more stringent safety standards and for this we can be thankful, but being built to less demanding standards does not equal “death trap”.

The 3 accidents specifically mentioned were not freak accidents. They were a rear end collision, a buffer stop collision and a highish speed derailment.

The accident at Cannon St in particular highlighted what poor structural integrity the SR suburban trains had.

I don't think it is a good argument to say "our trains are really bad at crash protection but someone else's car is even worse!".

There is also an important distinction between travelling in a car and a train. In a car you have made all the decisions for yourself about the vehicle and how it is to be used and maintained. When using a train this is not the case as a passenger you are placing your life in someone else's hands . As a result there is a reasonable expectation of a higher standard from the railway. Exactly the same applies to bus and airline companies.

 

[AndyLandy]

There are other good reasons than health and safety why slam door stock is largely gone from our railways.

1. Disability and accessibility. It's much easier to hit a button than to work the handle, especially if doing so requires you to lean out of the window to do so!
2. Reduced dwell times. Do you really want to have to send the guard/station staff to walk down the whole length of the train at every station, just to make sure the doors are shut? What if people open them up again before you've got back and locked them?

When I used to travel on a slam door train to work there was in the evening a man who used to open the door when the train was slowing to stop at my station. He then jumped out whilst the train was still moving to have a running start up the footbridge.

Luckily he never met someone coming down the footbridge to catch the train, carrying a bike or suitcases.

I vaguely recall a similar incident on a 421 on the SWML. I was on a Fast service back from Waterloo to Southampton. One wily passenger had worked out when to hit the emergency stop button to make the train come to a halt in his local station, at which point he opened the door and bolted.

 

[yorksrob]

There is also an important distinction between travelling in a car and a train. In a car you have made all the decisions for yourself about the vehicle and how it is to be used and maintained. When using a train this is not the case as a passenger you are placing your life in someone else's hands . As a result there is a reasonable expectation of a higher standard from the railway. Exactly the same applies to bus and airline companies.

A common delusion amongst motorists I'm afraid.

When you're in your car, you feel that you are making all the decisions about how the car is used. You feel that you are in control. But all it takes is a lorry to come up against you from the wrong direction and you have no control. Similarly, your passengers have no control. People on bycicles or on pavements have no control.

The Cannon Street accident report is interesting in that it found that the EPB with BR bodywork (basically a Mk1) actually held out well compared to one of the Bullied designed EPB's (a pre Mk1 design), and it was recognised that comparitively speaking the Mk 1 design actually came out stronger.

From another point of view though, this argument could be useful in making a case against future railway closures, since the railway is easily safer than any form of road transport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

2. Reduced dwell times. Do you really want to have to send the guard/station staff to walk down the whole length of the train at every station, just to make sure the doors are shut? What if people open them up again before you've got back and locked them?

People seemed to entrain and detrain surprisingly quickly from a VEP in my experience.

 

[90019]

When you're in your car, you feel that you are making all the decisions about how the car is used. You feel that you are in control. But all it takes is a lorry to come up against you from the wrong direction and you have no control. Similarly, your passengers have no control. People on bycicles or on pavements have no control.

When you travel by car you have made the choice of what car you're driving.
When you're on the train, particularly if you have to travel on a specific service, you get whatever turns up.

 

[yorksrob]

When you travel by car you have made the choice of what car you're driving.
When you're on the train, particularly if you have to travel on a specific service, you get whatever turns up.

Depends if it's your car or not.

 

[John55]

A common delusion amongst motorists I'm afraid.

When you're in your car, you feel that you are making all the decisions about how the car is used. You feel that you are in control. But all it takes is a lorry to come up against you from the wrong direction and you have no control. Similarly, your passengers have no control. People on bycicles or on pavements have no control.

You make a interesting point but it has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I seem to recall that SWT had to retime their trains when it became obvious that station dwell times were longer for the automatic doors of 450s and 444s than was the case for the previous slammers that they replaced.

But I remember that at London Bridge train despatch got easier and quicker once all the trains had automatic doors. It was so busy at London Bridge that as soon as a 10 or 12 coach slamdoor train was ready to depart more than one person would rush up the ramp and open a door.

As for the problem with compartment stock. That is as in NO corridor just an external door at each end of 6+6 seats - did we really have them !. By the late 80s it was only the EPBs (one subclass at that ?) that had one or two coaches as pure compartment. There was always an open coach or more within each 4EPB and the Southern diagrammed EPBs so as not to use the compartment stock in the evenings. They were horrible GRIM things to travel in on the North Kent lines.

Given the large number of trains that run on Southern and for so many years the three nasty accidents referred to previously were quite rare. But as the trains were old there were obviously going to be improvements made in a lot of areas once new trains were ordered.

The railways are and were already much safer than roads but because one car or coach cannot contain as many people as a train the results of a train crash are always viewed with more surprise/shock than a road accident. That is even though rail accidents are much rarer. In recent years no passengers have been killed on our railways but on the roads they quietly kill many people each week. I feel sure more money should be spent on road safety but it is not such an emotive subject.

As for doors open on moving trains. I saw someone hit by an open door at London Bridge once. The offending passenger had opened the door early but did not jump off while the train was moving so created a risk for no benefit. Most times I witnessed people opening the door thay did not actually get off until the train stopped !.

It is important to reduce risk as much as REASONABLY possible but it is worth evaluating where money should be spent to achieve the best result. The most obvious dangers are not always the worst offenders. I also worry that some risk is avoided by not providing a service at all thus exposing potential passengers to those nasty roads !.

In the grand scheme of things there are many endangered species - we are not one of them but we do endanger a lot of other species !. How much money is that worth ?.

 

[jopsuk]

Peter: the big re-timetabling SWT did included the routes served only by 455, where the trains had been struggling to meet the timetable for years, which was not to do with the doors.

 

[yorksrob]

You make a interesting point but it has nothing to do with my post.

Put it this way.

I just don't see why people fool themselves into thinking they would so much safer getting into any old banger just because they've had an MOT, when in reality, they'd be a lot safer on a VEP.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Peter: the big re-timetabling SWT did included the routes served only by 455, where the trains had been struggling to meet the timetable for years, which was not to do with the doors.

Oh thanks, I never knew that - I was blaming the desiros' doors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Put it this way.

I just don't see why people fool themselves into thinking they would so much safer getting into any old banger just because they've had an MOT, when in reality, they'd be a lot safer on a VEP.

You put it better than me (even an EPB I suspect).

 

[starrymarkb]

IIRC SWT also took the opportunity to move to a Clockface timetable with most services leaving at the same times past each hour.

 

[yorksrob]

You put it better than me (even an EPB I suspect).

Many thanks. The EPB would be more comfortable as well !

 

[BestWestern]

As far as the roads vs railways safety argument goes, I've always tended to hold the view that the reason a rail accident is thought of as 'worse' is at least partly because a train passenger has put their safety entirely into the hands of somebody else, and indeed has paid for the privilege. When we use the roads, we accept that we are in an open public space with lots of other users, and that there will always be a risk from those other users, as well as the inherent risk we pose ourselves. Even as a pedestrian, we accept that there is a risk in us walking along the pavement with all that traffic whizzing past. When we step onto a train however, the perception is that you are in a fail-safe environment, without any of those "other people's" risk issues to think about. So if it does go wrong those responsible were charged with getting you there safely, which they have failed to do. That, I believe, is a big part of the difference.

 

[causton]

As far as the roads vs railways safety argument goes, I've always tended to hold the view that the reason a rail accident is thought of as 'worse' is at least partly because a train passenger has put their safety entirely into the hands of somebody else

Interesting, considering you're also trusting:
- the guy who did your MOT for you
- the guy who you bought your car second-hand from, to make sure it wasn't falling apart
- those group of pedestrians who look like they might jump out in front of you
- the person driving the car coming the other way
- the person who taught you how to drive, that they taught you the correct way!
- the people who built your car and built the robots that built your car
- the people who built the road surface, bridges, structures etc

etc etc if you think about it, with the regular checks that take place on the railways, a lot less can theoretically (and in real life!) go wrong

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, as someone who is mainly a pedestrian, I often feel forced to accept a lot of the risks inherant in mixing with motor traffic that other road users seem to take for granted.

 

[Bushy]

Interesting, considering you're also trusting:
- the guy who did your MOT for you
- the guy who you bought your car second-hand from, to make sure it wasn't falling apart
- those group of pedestrians who look like they might jump out in front of you
- the person driving the car coming the other way
- the person who taught you how to drive, that they taught you the correct way!
- the people who built your car and built the robots that built your car
- the people who built the road surface, bridges, structures etc

etc etc if you think about it, with the regular checks that take place on the railways, a lot less can theoretically (and in real life!) go wrong

Risk and accountability.

Risk: When undertaking any risk assessment the number of people likely to be injured or killed is a factor in assessing the severity. A railway incident always has the potential to affect a larger number of people than is probable for a road collision.

Accountability: Accidents don't just happen. Even on the road police no longer refer to a incidents as Road Traffic Accidents as they will always try to identify the person that caused an incident, particularly in case of personal injury.
As an example: when my son was driving a bus, a car pulled out of a side turning in front of him. He stopped without hitting the car but an elderly passenger was thrown forward out her seat. He reported the incident although the person said she was wasn't hurt. The police prosecuted the driver because there was the potential for a large number of people to have been injured.

Regards

Bushy

 

[yorksrob]

Risk and accountability.

Risk: When undertaking any risk assessment the number of people likely to be injured or killed is a factor in assessing the severity. A railway incident always has the potential to affect a larger number of people than is probable for a road collision.

Accountability: Accidents don't just happen. Even on the road police no longer refer to a incidents as Road Traffic Accidents as they will always try to identify the person that caused an incident, particularly in case of personal injury.
As an example: when my son was driving a bus, a car pulled out of a side turning in front of him. He stopped without hitting the car but an elderly passenger was thrown forward out her seat. He reported the incident although the person said she was wasn't hurt. The police prosecuted the driver because there was the potential for a large number of people to have been injured.

Regards

Bushy

yet the system takes no account of the fact that the lack of interlocking signalling on the road system (for example) will lead to a far greater loss of life than the construction of any given type of train carriage. Seems peculiar to me.

 

[John55]

yet the system takes no account of the fact that the lack of interlocking signalling on the road system (for example) will lead to a far greater loss of life than the construction of any given type of train carriage. Seems peculiar to me.

Road traffic signals are designed to allow only non conflicting moves through junctions as are railway signals. I have never seen traffic lights showing green to conflicting traffic moves. Although incorrect design and installation could lead to errors as on the railway. As far as I am aware there is no difference between road traffic lights and railway signals in this respect.

Interlocking the signals does not prevent a train running through the signal into the path of another. To do that requires other systems to be fitted to the signalling and the train.

 

[yorksrob]

Road traffic signals are designed to allow only non conflicting moves through junctions as are railway signals. I have never seen traffic lights showing green to conflicting traffic moves. Although incorrect design and installation could lead to errors as on the railway. As far as I am aware there is no difference between road traffic lights and railway signals in this respect.

Interlocking the signals does not prevent a train running through the signal into the path of another. To do that requires other systems to be fitted to the signalling and the train.

yes, but you couldn't possibly claim that road traffic signals are anything near as comprehensive a control system as railway signalling ?

 

[John55]

yes, but you couldn't possibly claim that road traffic signals are anything near as comprehensive a control system as railway signalling ?

I have not nor would ever claim such a thing. Road signals perform a different set of functions compared to the railway signalling system.