Alanko
Member
Shouldn't the thread be renamed something slightly more neutral, such as 'ScotRail HST sustains damage to cab after striking fallen tree near Broughty Ferry'?
-
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!
HST cab protection
- Thread starter HC1998
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yeah scrap those HST’s! Get aslef to make the drivers strike!….and replace them with what exactly? Many members of this forum are quick to remind people that there isn’t a ‘spare group of trains’ just sitting around.
Everyone is quick to point out the failures (of yes, I agree a well outdated train) but where is the replacement? Is Scotland just expected to have a limited rail service because of a few freak accidents?. NR should have placed measures in place to mitigate, there is no prevention apart from not running trains, and that’s a can of worms I don’t want to think about
Everyone is quick to point out the failures (of yes, I agree a well outdated train) but where is the replacement? Is Scotland just expected to have a limited rail service because of a few freak accidents?. NR should have placed measures in place to mitigate, there is no prevention apart from not running trains, and that’s a can of worms I don’t want to think about
fishwomp
Member
A coach driver is at far higher risk, if we have to bustitute in the meantime..
Especially on some of the roads around Scotland!
Agreed.
This thread is discussing the safety of the cabs specifically, as per the tweets linked in the OP.
222s, 68s + mk5s?
No coach drivers are expected to drive vehicles with 1970s crashworthiness in 2023, to my knowledge (and a coach driver wasn’t killed at Stonehaven). In any case, the fact another mode of transport is less safe is hardly relevant to a discussion of the safety of railway cabs, neither is it relevant to the union representing members who work in them.
Would there have been a different outcome if the train had been one of the other types Scotrail uses on the route, i.e. Class 158/Class 170?
Presumably @800 Driver is proposing that all coaches should be withdrawn?
The problem is that if you take the view that vastly different standards apply, you end up with a situation where trains become increasingly uncompetitive compared to coaches. This does not improve safety; quite the opposite, in fact.
The alternatives would be Class 158/170s; does anyone have any evidence that they would fare better with being hit by a tree in similar circumstances? I'd be surprised if so.
True; some people have a bee in their bonnet over HSTs in particular; they would be quiet if it was (say) a Class 170 that had been operating this service.
Last edited:
Zamracene749
Member
You may be shocked to find that there are no applicable standards of crash protection for coach drivers, unlike HGVs or cars. Since crashworthiness costs money and can add weight, it's quite likely than coach drivers today are not any better protected than their 1970s predecessors.
Link to 2023 research on bus and coach accident integrity here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350630723003230
Interestingly, the 1970s Leyland National was one of the best designed buses regarding accidents!
chuff chuff
Member
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 461
On today's evidence I'd take my chances.
That'll be a no then
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b0d3f18fa8f503764ed54f/D042021_210906_Glencarse.pdf
Of course, a direct comparison between any two incidents is unfair because each incident is different, but those who call for HSTs specifically, and not the other types of trains used on the route, to be withdrawn, should have a good rationale for making the claims, rather than it being based on what appears, on the face of it, to simply be a dislike of one particular type of train.
Trains and coaches serve different markets and don’t necessarily compete for a range of reasons. In any case that isn’t really going to be any of ASLEF’s concern, which is simply for the safety of its members; you’d expect commercial road vehicles and aircraft to meet modern crashworthiness standards, so it’s entirely reasonable to expect the same for train cabs (accepting that the rolling stock lifecycle is longer, so cabs might need to be modified).
It also isn’t unreasonable to want life expired 1970s rolling stock replaced ASAP, particularly when there isn’t any sensible reason why this shouldn’t happen, given that appropriate stock is going to be available imminently. At the very least Scotrail should publish a clear roadmap to when and how this will be achieved.
Last edited:
chuff chuff
Member
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 461
On todays hit I would take my chances with a 158 or 170 compared to an hst.
I know of a fairly similar and closer than your example at Glencarse where a 158 took a substantial hit to the front and came away in much better nick than today's example.
I know of a fairly similar and closer than your example at Glencarse where a 158 took a substantial hit to the front and came away in much better nick than today's example.
Zamracene749
Member
How well did 170520 and it's driver cope when it hit a tree near Lydney? I realise there are all kinds of factors in play, size of tree, type, collision speed, position of tree etc etc.
coppercapped
Established Member
There is a lot of handwaving going on as a result of this latest incident with the generally trend of the posts being that the HSTs are no longer safe - with a few notable exceptions.
I would point out over the past half century nearly 100 HSTs have been in continual front line service. They have run millions of miles and in all that time there have been four major head-on crashes: Southall (1997); Ladbroke Grove (1999); Ufton Nervet (2004) and the Stonehaven derailment (2020). The driver was killed in three of these. This works out to be about 0.6 of a fatal accident per decade. In my book this is a pretty good record.
In spite of comments made here the fibreglass cab of the HST has been shown to be very resistant to penetration. Examples are that in the early days of operation it was reported that a cast iron brake block or pad from a train passing in the opposite direction bounced off the ballast and hit the front of the cab and windscreen at 125mph without penetrating either the fibreglass or the glass. The same incident would likely have severely injured the footplate staff of any other form of traction as the windscreen shattered. In 1994 a Class 158 collided with an HST at Newton Abbot at low speed, the front of the 158 was seriously bent but only some fibreglass fairings needed to be replaced on the HST. A photograph of the incident can be found on Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/35992382@N00/8609555961/in/photolist-e7Ne32 The major weak point is when a long object, such as a signal post or tree hits the cab above the drivers desk where the side supports are at their narrowest.
Railway safety is conveniently considered under two groupings: Active safety and Passive safety. Active safety are all those things which traditionally have made rail one of the safest forms of transport ever developed by man — signalling, track and infrastructure integrity as well as safety critical items on the train such as wheel profiles and suspensions, efficiency of the braking system, signalling components and so on. Passive safety covers those features which protect those in the train if the active safety fails.
It seems to me that many commentators in this thread are concentrating on passive safety for which one of the fundamental documents is the standard EN 15227:2020 Railway applications — Crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies which is a requirement for new construction.
More objectivity and less virtue-signalling is the only way to advance safety.
I would point out over the past half century nearly 100 HSTs have been in continual front line service. They have run millions of miles and in all that time there have been four major head-on crashes: Southall (1997); Ladbroke Grove (1999); Ufton Nervet (2004) and the Stonehaven derailment (2020). The driver was killed in three of these. This works out to be about 0.6 of a fatal accident per decade. In my book this is a pretty good record.
In spite of comments made here the fibreglass cab of the HST has been shown to be very resistant to penetration. Examples are that in the early days of operation it was reported that a cast iron brake block or pad from a train passing in the opposite direction bounced off the ballast and hit the front of the cab and windscreen at 125mph without penetrating either the fibreglass or the glass. The same incident would likely have severely injured the footplate staff of any other form of traction as the windscreen shattered. In 1994 a Class 158 collided with an HST at Newton Abbot at low speed, the front of the 158 was seriously bent but only some fibreglass fairings needed to be replaced on the HST. A photograph of the incident can be found on Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/35992382@N00/8609555961/in/photolist-e7Ne32 The major weak point is when a long object, such as a signal post or tree hits the cab above the drivers desk where the side supports are at their narrowest.
Railway safety is conveniently considered under two groupings: Active safety and Passive safety. Active safety are all those things which traditionally have made rail one of the safest forms of transport ever developed by man — signalling, track and infrastructure integrity as well as safety critical items on the train such as wheel profiles and suspensions, efficiency of the braking system, signalling components and so on. Passive safety covers those features which protect those in the train if the active safety fails.
It seems to me that many commentators in this thread are concentrating on passive safety for which one of the fundamental documents is the standard EN 15227:2020 Railway applications — Crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies which is a requirement for new construction.
Even here it is understood that no design can cope with all possible collision scenarios - absolute safety on the railways is a chimera. As long as trains move it is unobtainable.
More objectivity and less virtue-signalling is the only way to advance safety.
Last edited:
Surely a fairer comparison would be against a similar modern train, either a class 22x operated by cross country on the same route (which are over 20 years old), or a class 80x operated by lner on the route, about 5 years old.
Though the real solution is removing trees which are closer to a railway line than they are high. Motorways are not flanked by forests at that proximity nor should railway lines be. There is plenty of land elsewhere in Scotland to plant trees.
I hope the driver is ok though it can't have been a pleasant experience.
Though the real solution is removing trees which are closer to a railway line than they are high. Motorways are not flanked by forests at that proximity nor should railway lines be. There is plenty of land elsewhere in Scotland to plant trees.
I hope the driver is ok though it can't have been a pleasant experience.
John Bishop
Member
A 170 hit a large tree on the borders line last winter in very similar circumstances. The cab was a mess but the cab remained intact unlike this incident.
I’m reminded of the Barrow upon Soar incident in 2008, where a 158 collided with an iron footbridge which had been brought down across the track by an errant tipper lorry. Below is a clip from the RAIB report showing the damaged leading cab of the unit, both as recovered and then with the fibreglass fairings and gangway removed. The report states that the cab was badly damaged leading to very little survival space, particularly on the secondman’s side, however it is clear that the metal superstructure of the cab did ultimately serve to protect the driver, albeit not to current standards.
I love an HST, but it’s undeniable that they offer precious little protection in a smash, as illustrated by the cab having been sheared in half with absolutely nothing to provide any sort of structural defence. I’m not in any rush to see them go; I think they’re superb machines. But, then again, I don’t have to sit in the front of them all day at high speed. Drivers sometimes quip that they sit “in the crumple zone”. On an HST they’re not even sitting in that.
Link to the RAIB report containing the attached photos:
Attachments
If NR spent less money on "managing risk" (people filling in spreadsheets where the colours change from red to amber or green) and instead spent that on lineside clearance (aka actually managing the risk) we'd be seeing less of this.
Wouldn't be impossible to weld together a fairly simple roll-cage like structure to fit into a cab to provide some extra protection for the drivers. It's done up and down the country to make cars safer for racing/competition and has saved numerous lives, and even with a railway markup could be done relatively cheaply if people got their heads together.
Wouldn't be impossible to weld together a fairly simple roll-cage like structure to fit into a cab to provide some extra protection for the drivers. It's done up and down the country to make cars safer for racing/competition and has saved numerous lives, and even with a railway markup could be done relatively cheaply if people got their heads together.
And what is it that you think those risk management spreadsheets actually do? Maybe identify areas where lineside clearance is indeed seen as a risk?
There is no such think as 100% risk management in any industry. Natural disasters are just that. Freak accidents happen that no one can prepare for.
Risk management is about identifying and mitigating risks based on a scale of likely occurrence. This was highly unlikely.
Alanko
Member
But then the people employed to manage 'lessons learned' sessions would have nothing to do!
Scotrail do not operate these trains, and in any case, if anyone is suggesting that Scotrail should not be operating 'older' trains, surely that sentiment would extend to much of the Scotrail fleet?
If this service was not operated by an HST, it would have been operated as a Class 170, or possibly 158.
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
No one wants HSTs immediately stopped. They want ScotRail to actually put an active plan in place for replacing them. Nothing has been ordered, and according to the plans they released the HSTs will run to 2027/2028, which is almost five years away - and that's before we take into account no railway project ever runs on time.
Are those same people hassling Scotrail for an "active plan" to replace 158s, 170s etc?
And if not, why not?
(Rhetorical question; we all know the answer to this!)
I'm not trying to make any point about the crashworthinesss of either - I don't even have the full details of what happened. But from the image it looks like the 158 came out with a somewhat bent gangway (aren't those flexible anyway?) and some broken bodywork. The HST seems to have significantly more damage, the lower part of the front completely missing and that damage extending slightly around the side. Again, I'm no expert, I just think that it doesn't seem to agree with you from the image I've seen.
snookertam
Member
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 779
I want them immediately stopped. Appreciate ScotRail aren’t going to listen to me, but I’d rather they were removed immediately and we took the hit with reduced services etc until we got replacements, whether they were off lease 170s, 158s, 222s etc whenever they became available.
These trains are not fit for purpose for plenty of reasons, but we’ve already had two posters state how 158s and 170s have struck trees in Scotland and fared much better. Not sure how many times it needs reiterates these trains should be no longer be in service.
These trains are not fit for purpose for plenty of reasons, but we’ve already had two posters state how 158s and 170s have struck trees in Scotland and fared much better. Not sure how many times it needs reiterates these trains should be no longer be in service.
In fairness, low speed shunts are not the issue here. Fibreglass is very good at absorbing low speed impacts, however it is less robust when it comes to heavy crashes at speed. In an “HST vs 158” scenario the driver of the 158 has metal superstructure surrounding him, which will provide strength and protection; the driver of the HST has nothing but the fibreglass, which will put up very little resistance to any sort of significant impact.
1. Scotrail/NR are now very quick to impose speed restrictions in bad weather along vulnerable stretches of line, essentially trains are driven on line of sight. If the train was operating at line speed, we need to ask why.
2. There does not seem to be any damage to what would in old car language be described as the chassis, so there is no reason why it can't be easily repaired. I thought that there was a stash of stored 43s at Ely?
3. However I think that they should be replacing the fibreglass with carbon fibre with the windscreen bonded as it is on a car, where it is part of its structural strength.
2. There does not seem to be any damage to what would in old car language be described as the chassis, so there is no reason why it can't be easily repaired. I thought that there was a stash of stored 43s at Ely?
3. However I think that they should be replacing the fibreglass with carbon fibre with the windscreen bonded as it is on a car, where it is part of its structural strength.
2. It could indeed be replaced, it’ll depend if SR think it’s worth the expense.
3. They aren’t going to redesign the cab of a near 50 year old fleet seeing out its last few years of service.
I do rather suspect that we may see some movement on SR’s hitherto position that HSTs will stay to the end of their leases, this incident may well force a change of heart.
chuff chuff
Member
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 461
No shortage of power cars so likely stripped for bits.
Andy317345
Member
Without getting involved in the wider discussion about risks, I don't think posting this incident report is relevant given it shows a hit to a window with no damage to the surrounding structure
- Status