Sileby Derailment

Kneedown said:

The fact is, it could quite easily have been a lot worse. A broken leg can quite easily be fatal if a major blood vessel is damaged and rescue is a long way off, as it was in this case, two and a half hours off! A broken pelvis can be even more hazardous as there is the potential even more blood vessel, organ or nerve damage.
As Chris Cooper pointed out, it might well have been a different story had the Driver been older or not in good health. Fortunately he's a young, fit guy.
I stand by my belief that you cannot put a price on an innocent life, especially when they are doing their everyday job. Sprinters and Pacers must go, and be replaced by something with proper crumple zones that will give those on board a better chance of survival in the event of a collision. Or would you sooner wait until someone DOES get killed?

Click to expand...

I just don't believe there is enough evidence to suggest that sprinters are massively unsafe. The driver was injured, but nobody else was - I'm not really sure what you're basing your argument on here! And is there anything to suggest that newer stock would have better safety, particularly for the driver?

Personally, I don't think that even 1 death would justify the withdrawl of a complete family of units. If you were going by this rule, much of the UK's current fleet would have already gone to the scrapyard. The fact is that it was an accident. Accidents are rare, it's not like drivers go out in fear of them happening every single day because they're that frequent! Surely money would be more wisely invested in preventing accidents in the first place?

I believe that on these new units with crumple zones, the drivers cab in fact forms part of the crumple zone. So not necessarily solving the dilemma for the driver.

I wish a speedy recovery to the driver on that one, it's something that could happen to any of us.

As for replacing 158's (or sprinters in general), well frankly I think that it stood up really well to what must of been a heavy impact. Although 153's are the opposite as they really are weak. I would rather be in a 158 than a 175 for instance in a crash. Next time you see a 175 have a look at the chassis area underneath the driving cab! Then you will notice that the whole area is weaker than the rest of the coach, reason being we, the drivers are the airbags sat up there in that crumple zone. So much for newer is safer, not as far as traincrew go then!

Hmn, well we have a number of conflicts here, and at some stage, the circle has to be squared.

First, the Sprinter seemed to do pretty well with everything taken into account, so mass withdrawal seems a tad extreme.

Either way the whole incident is part of a classic dilemma. Crash worthiness by and large means extra weight, how is that set again increased damage to the track, which new trains have been heavily criticised for, especially the new class 185 Trans-Pennine trains and Desiros? Network Rail has to perform extra maintenance, which means extra costs, at a time when the Government is trying to reduce the tax payer contribution. How about increased fuel consumption at a time of energy price hikes and environmental concern? Who pays for new trains, and is it safety at any cost? Do these costs fall into the hands of fare payers, who are already complaining about lack of value for money, who may be inclined to switch to less safe car travel? Or should the cost fall into the hands of increasingly vocal tax payers complaining about lack of value for money within Government spending? In conclusion, while a new build of better trains may be desirable in terms of saving lives and is perfectly laudable, value for money dictates, it’s unlikely in an industry that has to reduce costs to survive.

Had a chat with someone directly involved, and to put everyone's mind at rest, the Driver escaped with severe lacerations and bruising. He's now out of hospital. Although there is still no solid evidence available, it is now thought that the unit was travelling at nearer 70 than 90. The bridge is thought to have been lying square on to the unit at the point of impact, striking below solebar level, thereby pushing the solebar up, trapping the Driver against the back wall of the cab. It is also thought that, had the unit been travelling at higher speed (and with a good unit 90mph IS possible at that location, even with a stop at Loughboro) and had the main impact occurred above solebar level, then the outcome would almost certainly have been less fortunate.

I hasten to add that these are NOT, in anyway, official findings preliminary or otherwise, but reasoned speculation from a professional investigator.

Crumple zones are not presently fitted to units that travel below 100mph (so if you only get up to 90 you're deemed expendable!) and these crumple zones are placed in generally unoccupied areas, cycle/luggage storage areas for eg, not in the cab.

It's obvious to me that the incident could have been so much worse, and almost certainly would have been had it not been for one or two lucky breaks. We can go on until we're blue in the face about spending money on preventing accidents, but it's a fact that accidents always have, and always will occur from time to time. The factors involved are too random to guard against or legislate for. We would be far better spending our money on reducing the danger from accidents as far as is possible, and if this means replacing old stock, with entirely new stock, with better crash protection for crew and passengers, then so be it. We certainly waste enough money in other areas! All the photograpths i've seen are taken head on from the front of the unit, and show a twisted gangway. I'd be interested to see one taken from the side, that shows the depth of the impact, and gives a better idea of the confined area the Driver had to endure during those painful two and half hours. Not for ghoulish purposes you understand, remember, the Driver is a personal friend of mine, but to show people that the unit sustained more damage than can be seen from a frontal photo, and that a few more mph, or impact a little higher, and the outcome could've been different. I cannot, and will not, accept that the savings made from not replacing the entire fleet of older stock with more crashworthy new stock, are greater than the lives of innocent men and women, with loved ones and families. Remember, an accident could happen to any one of us tomorrow, and the cards may, or may not be stacked in our favour!

Thank you again though, to all you kind hearted people who have offered their very best wishes for my friends recovery. It means a lot, and i'm sure he'll appreciate them greatly!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just a thought.....
We almost entirely eliminated slam door stock, and fitted central locking to the remainder, in a relatively short space of time when you consider the logistics involved, and in accidents occurring due to slam door stock, the person leaning on, or opening the door, was almost always to blame for his or her own misfortune.
Why then could we not do the same again, especially when we consider that those who are injured, or worse, are entirely innocent and just going about their day to day business?

Interesting stuff.

If I may, I'm still not entirely convinced in what way trains can be made more crashworthy. Given that the majority of the fleet will enjoy and long and fruitful existence covering very many millions of miles and never be involved in a single collision, is a total fleet replacement really necessary?

The other thing I would also question is in what way would trains be made more crashworthy and to what standard? When every accident is governed by so many random factors, how can a vehicle designer possibly hope to guard the train occupants and crew from harm in the event of a spill? I'm sure that there are certain things that can be done, but probably with only limited effectiveness. For example, if a structure is likely to deform in the event of a collision it should be designed and manufactured so that it will be more likely to deform away from any spaces occupied by people and not towards them.

My own non-scientific feelings on the matter are that I'd rather rail vehicles are made as strong as possible to form safety cells in which all occupants can be safeguarded. The Pendolino that went off-roading at Grayrigg showed just how effective this approach can be. Crumple zones are a good way of absorbing the impact forces in road vehicles, but I'm not convinced that they would be as appropriate for rail vehicles because of the greater amount of energy that a moving train would have to dissipate. For example, how would crumple zones protect the occupants of an MU if it fell of the road and collided with a bridge or something equally solid.

What I would like to see is proper research done into rail vehicle collisions with a view to designing in more and better crash protection technologies. What works for the automotive industry does not necessarily transfer to rail. Given that a rail vehicle could be expected to have a life of 30 years it would be better to get things right first time rather than applying the wrong set of solutions at great cost for no benefit whatsoever.

**EDIT**

Kneedown: I wouldn't say that we saw off all the slammers all that quickly. The process was begun under BR back in the 1980's (although it wasn't their stated aim, but simply a program of rolling stock renewal) and took something in the region of 20 years to complete. By privatisation the remaining stud of slammers had already been greatly reduced.

one TN

It was a lot less than 20 years ago when a date was set for the elimination of non-central locking slam door stock, however i concede that the process had gradually been started well before, although not on a grand scale. 20 years is still a fairly short period of time when you consider the logistics that must have been invovled. The point i was making was that it was financially possible, without bankrupting the country, and plenty of money was left over to give to our European masters to the tune of 25m a day, and also to go off and fight wars on the other side of Europe and halfway around the world, in conflicts that never affected this country.

Crumple zones have been around for a while. The first that i am aware of was on the class 58's. When i learnt them we were always told that, in the event of a potential collision, you were never to retreat into the cross corridor, as that was the area designed to crumple. Today the technology has advanced immensely, and is fitted to the French TGV's. These have been impact tested at high speeds and have been found to absorb considerable forces without buckling the cab or passenger compartments.

You can never cater for all eventualities. As i've said, accidents always have, and always will happen, but you certainly can do the very best, employing the best technologies, to try and protect lives as much as possible.