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'?
A coach driver is at far higher risk, if we have to bustitute in the meantime..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Everyone is quick to point out the failures (of yes, I agree a well outdated train) but where is the replacement?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
Especially on some of the roads around Scotland!A coach driver is at far higher risk, if we have to bustitute in the meantime..
That is a striking, well, strike. They need to go fairly urgently. Derby? I'd not realised how crash unworthy they are.
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'?
.and replace them with what exactly?
A coach driver is at far higher risk, if we have to bustitute in the meantime..
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?The deal is, as Paul said, they are made of fibreglass, and as Gareth says, without cost prohibitive upgrades, they are no longer suitable for mainline operation. We need new trains.
Presumably @800 Driver is proposing that all coaches should be withdrawn?A coach driver is at far higher risk, if we have to bustitute in the meantime..
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.In any case, the fact another mode of transport is less safe is hardly relevant ...
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.Yeah scrap those HST’s! Get aslef to make the drivers strike!….and replace them with what exactly?
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.I'm not sure why the issue of class 43 design is being ratted again. The crash worthiness weaknesses of that design is well known about.
Large trees can wreak the cabs of other types of in service trains.
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.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.
On today's evidence I'd take my chances.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.
That'll be a no thenOn today's evidence I'd take my chances.
The tree penetrated the driving cab of the class 158 unit which
formed the train, and the driver sustained injuries to his head and arms.
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.
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.The requirements do not cover all possible accident scenarios but provide a level of crashworthiness that will provide an appropriate level of protection in most eventualities, when the active safety measures have been inadequate. The requirement is to provide a level of protection consistent with the probable collision risks and this is achieved by addressing the most common types of collision causing injuries and fatalities.
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.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.
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?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.
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.
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?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.
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.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
Are those same people hassling Scotrail for an "active plan" to replace 158s, 170s etc?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.
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.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
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.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.
2. It could indeed be replaced, it’ll depend if SR think it’s worth the expense.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.
No shortage of power cars so likely stripped for bits.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?
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 structureThat'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.