Collision and derailment at Neville Hill Depot (13/11)

Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by Class455, 13 Nov 2019.

  1. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Forum Staff Staff Member Global Moderator

    Messages:
    21,331
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Redcar
    Yes mostly because, as much as people seem to be trying to ignore it(!), on a modern train like the 800 the cab is part of the structure of the train that is protected by crumple zones and similar mechanisms whilst on older trains, like the HST, the cab is very much part of the crumple zone!
     
  2. hwl

    hwl Established Member

    Messages:
    5,061
    Joined:
    5 Feb 2012
    Indeed - the driver of that 66 whose the side of cab was hardly damaged ended up being drowned by ballast/soil when it over turned and ploughed through the garden as there was less room to manoeuvre round the drivers seat and escape.
     
  3. richw

    richw Established Member

    Messages:
    8,500
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2010
    Location:
    Liskeard
    I’ve read unconfirmed reports the HST cab was damaged with the desk moved. Yet everyone seems focused on the cosmetic damage to a piece of fibre glass
     
  4. Raul_Duke

    Raul_Duke Member

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    29 Mar 2014

    I’d be surprised if it wasn’t. There’s very little to an HST cab. Solid as they look.
     
  5. LOL The Irony

    LOL The Irony Established Member

    Messages:
    2,825
    Joined:
    29 Jul 2017
    Location:
    Takeshi's Castle
    His side of the cab tore open the DVT.
    It's because we probably expect a trains crumple to be similar to that of a car.
     
  6. option

    option Member

    Messages:
    443
    Joined:
    1 Aug 2017
    As already said, 250mph.
    Your not going to design anything that could survive those forces, & you'll have a lot more than 2 dead drivers.
    So, you design other safety systems to prevent the event happening.
     
  7. 158747

    158747 Member

    Messages:
    212
    Joined:
    5 Aug 2010
    Location:
    Trowbridge
    The derailed vehicles were on straight track, it was the rear three vehicles which were over the points, these vehicles along with the three vehicles ahead of them remained on the track.
     
  8. Swimbar

    Swimbar Member

    Messages:
    142
    Joined:
    31 Jan 2018
    The point I was making is that the set was still straddling a set of points when the impact occurred albeit the rear part of the train.
    The fact that the whole set was not straight may have contributed to what happened.
    Would it have behaved differently if all the train had been on a straight track?
     
  9. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,791
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    That’s what some of us have been asking for almost a fortnight. I’d expect the RAIB report will be the first clarification...
     
  10. Dieseldriver

    Dieseldriver Member

    Messages:
    653
    Joined:
    9 Apr 2012
    You are correct however he wasn't sat in the seat at the time as he had partially evacuated the cab into the corridor behind. Had he been sat in the seat at the point of impact I don't think he'd have lived (or at the very least he'd have been seriously injured). For such a high speed impact, the class 66 actually stood up remarkably well. The DVT on the GNER train on the other hand was completely destroyed due to the sheer difference in weight between the two trains and the differing heights of them due to the DVT being on the ballast.
     
  11. 158747

    158747 Member

    Messages:
    212
    Joined:
    5 Aug 2010
    Location:
    Trowbridge
    I don’t believe that the rear of the train straddling the points is relevant to the the derailment, I believe what may have happened was that the rear of the second and third coaches moved upwards in the impact causing the wheels to momentarily leave the rails. In this instant due to a combination of the length of the coupling bars between vehicles and the dampers between vehicle ends and coupling bars, the dampers extended causing the vehicles to move to the right, as can be seen from the photo of the train earlier in this thread that both vehicles moved the same distance and in the same direction.
     
  12. Meerkat

    Meerkat Established Member

    Messages:
    2,563
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2018
    someone once told me that calculating an impact speed like that wasn’t hugely relevant. Not sure I fully understood the physics, but I think it was on the lines of hitting a car head on, both doing 70, was no worse than hitting a wall at 70, as you were still going from 70 to zero. I assume it only works if both vehicles are matched so they both stop dead asbsorbing only their own energy, rather than one being bounced back.
    Anyone clarify the (in)accuracy of this?
     
  13. PG

    PG Member

    Messages:
    737
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2010
    On the face of it that is a plausible theory... I guess in around 10 months the RAIB report will reveal all.
     
  14. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,791
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    [Googles...]
    There is a myth busters episode on YouTube that seems to demonstrate exactly what you’re saying.
     
  15. dosxuk

    dosxuk Member

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    2 Jan 2011
    It depends what you're looking at. If you look at the overall vehicle, then yes, it's decelerating from 70 - 0, and the g-forces on an occupant will be in line with that.

    If you look at an individual component, which relative to the vehicle is traveling at 0, it will come into contact with an object traveling at 140, and have to deal with the energy of that collision.

    The amount of energy involved in a -70/+70 collision is the same as a 0/+140 collision. How the effects of that energy is handled would be different though.
     
  16. Meerkat

    Meerkat Established Member

    Messages:
    2,563
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2018
    Double the energy, but dissipated across two vehicles - one of the vehicles doesn’t absorb the energy of both???
    And the individual component is doing zero relative to the car at the start and finish. It still doesn’t decelerate by 140mph
     
  17. 158747

    158747 Member

    Messages:
    212
    Joined:
    5 Aug 2010
    Location:
    Trowbridge
    It will be interesting to read when the RAIB report is published.
     
  18. dosxuk

    dosxuk Member

    Messages:
    693
    Joined:
    2 Jan 2011
    At some points during an impact it may well be going at -140 compared to its owner vehicle. The coupling doors on the front of the IEP in this incident have been moving in the opposite direction to those at the back at times during the impact.

    It's only in a perfectly matched collision that impact forces will be shared equally between the vehicles, as soon as there are differences in mass, velocity, design or impact location, both vehicles will behave differently, with their component parts being subject to wildly different amounts of impact energy.
     
  19. superkev

    superkev Established Member

    Messages:
    2,019
    Joined:
    1 Mar 2015
    Location:
    west yorkshire
    Any update on this. Theres a rumour going round that 4 new coaches or bodyshells are required.
    K
     
  20. LOL The Irony

    LOL The Irony Established Member

    Messages:
    2,825
    Joined:
    29 Jul 2017
    Location:
    Takeshi's Castle
    And the HST could get away with just a new cab, right?
     
  21. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,791
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    There’s been rumours like that almost since this thread started, and I suspect they’re mostly rubbish...
     
  22. 43096

    43096 Established Member

    Messages:
    6,319
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2015
    "Could" being the operative word.
     
  23. westv

    westv Established Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    Joined:
    29 Mar 2013
    Why not info from LNER seeing as this appears to be affecting their services.
     
  24. AndrewE

    AndrewE Established Member

    Messages:
    3,424
    Joined:
    9 Nov 2015
    But didn't a class 47 come off a lot worse in a similar depot collision with an HST 30 or 40 years ago?
     
  25. Taunton

    Taunton Established Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    Joined:
    1 Aug 2013
    You are correct, it was reported at the time. The HST broke the nosecone, the 47 cab was crushed back to the bulkhead. And it was described as "demonstrating the crashworthiness of a modern unit".

    This comes up elsewhere too. Mk 3 coaches are derided for not being adequately crashworthy. Yet when they were new and involved in some substantial collisions, they were praised for being able to stand up to the forces. The same even was said about Mk 1 stock in the 1950s, how steel construction and buckeyes made them very resistant.
     
  26. Raul_Duke

    Raul_Duke Member

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    29 Mar 2014
    It’s similar to cars.

    If I crash an old armour plated steel 60’s car (with seatbelts), the car will look like it’s taken much less damage than a modern Volvo for example.

    However, I will be splattered to a much smoother jelly over the inside of the old car than I would the Volvo.

    Coaches are different as obviously you don’t want them telescoping and crumpling in the same way.

    If you ever see a 222 without it’s cab shell then it’s a very substantial cage of steel bars and you can certainly see the “survivable area,” in it.

    Whereas a HST is more or less some 70’s fibreglass bolted to the frames.
     
  27. AndrewE

    AndrewE Established Member

    Messages:
    3,424
    Joined:
    9 Nov 2015
    I don't think that's a very convincing explanation. Your seatbelts in the old car will probably have injured you more (and you will have got worse whiplash) because of the faster deceleration from not having a crumple zone.
    The HST's fibreglass nose / cab did a lot more damage to the old sheet steel on a substantial steel framework than anyone expected, and might have been providing the survivable area by itself. The "70s fibreglass" obviously wasn't designed as a crumple zone, but equally I assume the class 47 front was designed to protect the driver from most things that it might impact.
     
  28. Raul_Duke

    Raul_Duke Member

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    29 Mar 2014
    Fair enough. I know what traction I’d rather hit an obstruction in though.
     
  29. Chris M

    Chris M Member

    Messages:
    895
    Joined:
    4 Feb 2012
    Location:
    London E14
    I also remember the Mark 3 coaches being extensively praised after the Ladbroke Grove and/or Southall accidents, obviously compared to to earlier generations of rolling stock.
     
  30. JN114

    JN114 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,232
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2005
    And then criticised after Ufton, particularly with regard to window resilience in a rollover event.
     

Share This Page