• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cab Design v Safety

Status
Not open for further replies.

Envoy

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2014
Messages
2,478
It seems to me that drivers are obviously much safer in certain types of train. Surely, a cab design like that on the Class 800’s with a pointed nose to displace any objects, is much safer than the cabs on trains with through door connections. Would it not be preferable therefore, that all new trains have a similar front end to the 800’s - even at the expense of through corridor connections for trains that split/join?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bengley

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2008
Messages
1,844
The nose on trains is unlikely to make any significant difference to crashworthiness.
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
1,370
I am pretty sure the nose is for aerodynamics and not as an obstacle deflector.
 

xcooler123

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2015
Messages
32
Location
North Yorkshire
Many train designs similar to Class 800 have glass-reinforced fibre (GRP) shapes at the from with the main crush structure a fair bit behind it (usually straight down from the bottom of the windscreen). Main reasons are aerodynamic and general day-to day protection of equipment (e.g. from birds, etc). It also means that in the unfortunate event of a train running into someone/something, the GRP is the thing that gets damaged and not the crash structure (much cheaper).

With regard to safety, all trains will have to meet the required Railway Group Standards (at the time of build) which define a minimum level of crash worthiness regardless of type. In the worst case scenario of a serious derailment, the crash worthiness of newer units will be greater than older units due to the advancements in technology, engineering, manufacturing, etc. This is not to say a Sprinter, etc. is a death trap and you should never ride one because the likelihood of the above scenario happening is very low.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
From my understanding of train crashes for impacts head on, obviously what a train is most likely to face, the majority of energy is meant to be directed into the chassis and spine of the train which can absorb and dissipate it, rather than crumple zones as seen in cars.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
More recent trains do have more energy absorption, and that is part of the reason for the more pointed ends and the rather strange designs of some recent end gangwayed units. It's unlikely to be enough to make much difference to a train-to-train collision at any significant speed, but it could improve safety in something like a crossing collision with a HGV.
 

Sleeperwaking

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2018
Messages
166
I think the main benefit of not having the through gangway is that there's extra space in the cab for everything, including the various screens that come with modern train systems. I presume it's easier to get a driver-friendly cab layout without the through gangway, which could result in safer operation. The driver would also have a larger windscreen area with which to sight signals and enjoy the view (unless it's a very pointy nosed train, in which case I reckon the nose would get in the way somewhat).

As pointed out above, the operator / manufacturer has to demonstrate that new trains are safe regardless before getting ORR approval, so bear in mind that the "baseline" situation includes compliance with a lot of stringent safety requirements.
 

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
The designed maximum operating speed also determines how much energy absorption is needed in the current regulations. Hence units intended for high speed use will need a larger cab structure than a medium speed commuter unit. Almost impossible to configure a corridor connection through the cab on a high speed unit, hence one solution cannot fit all requirements.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,444
Location
UK
My only real concern is something coming through the window.
 

Envoy

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2014
Messages
2,478
Many thanks for all your responses. Another factor in driver safety must also be how quickly he/she can leave the cab - with the train braking - when an obstacle such as a tree or lorry is seen blocking the line ahead and a crash is likely.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
Many thanks for all your responses. Another factor in driver safety must also be how quickly he/she can leave the cab - with the train braking - when an obstacle such as a tree or lorry is seen blocking the line ahead and a crash is likely.
How many trains don't or didn't have this, excluding steam locos? I can think of classes 303, 309, 310 and 312 but I suspect the older SR EMUs didn't either.
 

Sleeperwaking

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2018
Messages
166
Many thanks for all your responses. Another factor in driver safety must also be how quickly he/she can leave the cab - with the train braking - when an obstacle such as a tree or lorry is seen blocking the line ahead and a crash is likely.

The crash-worthiness standards include provision for survival spaces (one such space being around the driver's seat), including a hazard-free route from the survival space to a place of safety (e.g. no steps or other trip hazards). I vaguely remember something about the cab door lock being special - you need a key to enter the cab from the passenger area, but not going the other way - but I'm sure someone who is train crew would know more about that.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
905
When you look at the cab interior photos of the Northern 195s it did occur to me how difficult it must be to fit all that equipment in the smaller available space of a gangway cab unit.
 

PennineSuperb

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2018
Messages
95
My only real concern is something coming through the window.
This is a Class 185 windscreen, they are about 25mm thick (a sandwich of glass.) This is the result of hitting a Buzzard at 100mph. It cracked the outer pane only. Older units such as 14X's have only a single pane of glass, which would most likely result in the windscreen smashing and debris entering the cab.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20190104_161852.jpg
    IMG_20190104_161852.jpg
    4.4 MB · Views: 56
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top