crumple zones

[Qwerty133]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum.
I am currently on a 125mph capable DMU, with a crumple zone at the front, which is also normally used for bike storage.
Anyway at the station where I boarded the train a member of dispatch staff told a couple with a buggy to put it in the bike area and to sit on the bench in the area.
Since then a bike has boarded and is now blocking a vestiule. The guard Knows and has seen the sktuation.
Anyway I was under the impression that it is strictly forbidden for safety reasons to travel in this area?
Is that the case?

 

[swt_passenger]

It is not possible to generalise any more. There did used to be a blanket restriction but it was amended out of later versions of the Rail Group Standards. The situation is specific to each unit type now, dependent on what safety case is made.

 

[bengley]

I probably wouldn't worry too much, if there's an impact which is hard enough to intrude that far into the train it is very unlikely that anyone in the first few carriages will survive.

 

[Class 170101]

I don't agree with that statement. You have to look how badly that Pendolino was thrown about at Grayrigg and all bar one (sadly) survived. The death toll would have been much higher had that been a Mark III and Class 87 set.

 

[fowler9]

I don't agree with that statement. You have to look how badly that Pendolino was thrown about at Grayrigg and all bar one (sadly) survived. The death toll would have been much higher had that been a Mark III and Class 87 set.

Proof?

 

[Dave1987]

I don't agree with that statement. You have to look how badly that Pendolino was thrown about at Grayrigg and all bar one (sadly) survived. The death toll would have been much higher had that been a Mark III and Class 87 set.

Yeah that's quite a statement to make actually. Unless someone has done a test crash of both in exactly the same situation you really don't know that for sure.

 

[Temple Meads]

Yeah that's quite a statement to make actually. Unless someone has done a test crash of both in exactly the same situation you really don't know that for sure.

I'd say it's pretty much odds on that Mark 3's would have fared worse at Grayrigg..

I think most people would rather have a road accident in a Vauxhall Insignia over a first generation Cavalier..

 

[sng7]

If you look at the RAIB report into the Grayrigg derailment (http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/081023_R202008_Grayrigg_v5.pdf) on pages 147 to 151 they make at least 2 references to the Ufton Nervet level crossing derailment in both cases saying how the Class 390 was better in the derailment than the Mark 3 coaches at Ufton Nervet

 

[cjmillsnun]

Yet we can go back a few years to Colwich where the Mk3s stood up to a 100MPH crash with only one fatality...

 

[O L Leigh]

No train has a "crumple zone". It may have an area at the front that is not used for seating, but it as strong as the rest of the train.

And what about the poor b@stard right up at the pointy end...?

**EDIT**

You can't generalise about accidents because they are all different. The Southall crash was bad because the vehicles were knocked out of line and struck lineside obstructions. Had the train stayed in line or not struck the obstacles I'm sure the vehicles would have faired better.

O L Leigh

 

[222001]

As a general rule, you would believe that a train built in the 2000s would be stronger than coaches built in the 80s, due to better building technologies and regulations of design.

As for crumple zones, the whole front is not a crumple zone. You really wouldn't want that to crumple in a crash. There are however sections right at the front of the train (sort of where the buffers would be) that are designed to take a front impact and absorb some of the force.

 

[Hairy Bear]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum.
I am currently on a 125mph capable DMU, with a crumple zone at the front, which is also normally used for bike storage.
Anyway at the station where I boarded the train a member of dispatch staff told a couple with a buggy to put it in the bike area and to sit on the bench in the area.
Since then a bike has boarded and is now blocking a vestiule. The guard Knows and has seen the sktuation.
Anyway I was under the impression that it is strictly forbidden for safety reasons to travel in this area?
Is that the case?

If where talking about one of our 222's then yes it is forbidden for you to travel in that area. It is a secure area and should be maintained so.
Buggies need to be folded out the way or you don't travel. Bikes (max 2) need to be stowed in that area clear of the gangway and yellow lines.
The platform staff were wrong, big time, to say you should sit there.
And the Train Manager should have done there job properley and manage the area correctly.........Rant over, have a nice day

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yet we can go back a few years to Colwich where the Mk3s stood up to a 100MPH crash with only one fatality...

That was a head on collision so the impact speed would have been rather greater unless both trains were only doing 50mph each ( or a matching sum thereof ).

 

[sprinterguy]

That was a head on collision so the impact speed would have been rather greater unless both trains were only doing 50mph each ( or a matching sum thereof ).

The Down Manchester train was almost at a stand as it crossed into the path of the Up ex-Liverpool service, so cjmilsnun's figure is correct.

 

[222001]

If where talking about one of our 222's then yes it is forbidden for you to travel in that area. It is a secure area and should be maintained so.

It's a bit contradictory how it is meant to be a secure area but it is also a bike storage area, and now also a luggage storage area. Before refurbishment and it was bikes only, I used to notice it was usually locked, but these days it's just left open. About as secure as an un-encrypted hard drive...
I did however notice also upon refurb they put a locked cover over all the computer stuff that's in there...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'd say it's pretty much odds on that Mark 3's would have fared worse at Grayrigg....

Another poster has mentioned Colwich, but actually, in comparison to Grayrigg (95mph derailment), Nuneaton (1975, Mk1 stock, 80mph, six fatalities) and Bushey (1980, Mk3 stock, 100mph, no fatalities) would be more appropriate imo.

Yet we can go back a few years to Colwich where the Mk3s stood up to a 100MPH crash with only one fatality...

To be fair, from pictures I have seen of the ten most damaged coaches, only three were mk3s, two were Mk1s and the rest Mk2s.

That was a head on collision so the impact speed would have been rather greater unless both trains were only doing 50mph each ( or a matching sum thereof ).

The Manchester train was over a 45mph crossing but had braked when the red aspect did not change as the driver had expected. The driver and another member of railway staff were able to escape the locomotive as it stopped, before the London bound train, approaching on a green aspect at 100mph, struck it head on. The only fatality was the driver of the London train who didn't stand a chance. 100mph is about right, possibly slightly too fast if anything.

 

[edwin_m]

If you look at the RAIB report into the Grayrigg derailment (http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/081023_R202008_Grayrigg_v5.pdf) on pages 147 to 151 they make at least 2 references to the Ufton Nervet level crossing derailment in both cases saying how the Class 390 was better in the derailment than the Mark 3 coaches at Ufton Nervet

It also says elsewhere in the report that the "crumple zones" were irrelevant to Grayrigg because it was not the type of collision they were designed to mitigate.

I do wonder (but can't prove) whether damage to the crumple zones was one reason why the bodyshells weren't repaired.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for crumple zones, the whole front is not a crumple zone. You really wouldn't want that to crumple in a crash. There are however sections right at the front of the train (sort of where the buffers would be) that are designed to take a front impact and absorb some of the force.

There is also a deformable area at the end of each coach of anything built in the last 20 years or so. This is why there are always equipment cases etc to make it a non-passenger area (except for people going through the gangway).

This was shown by tests to reduce the severity of train-to-train collisions at medium to high speeds. However due to TPWS and other reasons, I'm pretty sure no train fitted with these deformable ends has been involved in a collision where they would make a difference.