HST cab protection

[43096]

Withdrawing them before the leases end in 2027 will result in a significant thinning of the service - that's why I object to kneejerk reactions calling for instant withdrawal.

As I keep saying (and providing evidence for), there is a Section 54 on the HSTs through to 2030.

 

[Meerkat]

Who made the decision, or whether that decision was a bad one, is not really at issue here.
The issue is that a replacement for the HSTs will cost the taxpayers a very large sum of money, and noone has yet articulated a positive BCR for spending that money.

ASLEF or Scottish traincrew might want that money spent, they don't really have much ability to force the government to spend that money short of industrial action, which is a step they have threatened but have not taken. It's not even clear whether industrial action would actually force a replacement as opposed to major service cuts.

Is there no formal process for ASLEF to (try to) have 43s declared unsafe by some regulatory body, such that they could refuse to drive them but still get paid?

In terms of money, obviously it is somewhat of a moot point now, but I've seen it claimed by some that brand new trains wouldn't have been much more than the leasing costs being paid for the HSTs. If that is true then that decision is even more insane.

I assume they didn’t want to buy new diesels, and were planning on getting enough electrification done that 43s could last til BEMUs became practicable?
Would a ROSCO really have been willing to finance new diesels in this class - seems a bit of a risk considering Scottish government stated policy.

 

[Krokodil]

My point is that the money can be found if the politicians want to find it.

Devolved governments are rather more restricted than Westminster in terms of how much they can shake the magic money tree, they aren't permitted to borrow funds. They get central government funding that is a proportion of that spent in Westminster, so if Westminster cuts budgets then Barnett funding will also be reduced. The SNP have already exhausted the capacity for raising taxes and have raised them to a level which is probably counter-productive (incomes of between £43,663 and £50,271 are paying a combined Income Tax and NI rate of 54% which is eyewatering for a middle income).

 

[Annetts key]

Talking of shaking the magic money tree, what if the tree fell on the train while it was passing? No amount of cab crash protection is gonna help if the tree hits the roof of the carriages.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Talking of shaking the magic money tree, what if the tree fell on the train while it was passing? No amount of cab crash protection is gonna help if the tree hits the roof of the carriages.

Whilst not up to the standard of modern stock, I'd expect that a mk3 coach has more structural strength than the pointy end of a power car. It still wouldn't look pretty though- the example that springs to mind to illustrate the likely result, though not an exact comparison, would be the 455 that had a heavy road vehicle dropped onto it from a bridge.

 

[Annetts key]

Whilst not up to the standard of modern stock, I'd expect that a mk3 coach has more structural strength than the pointy end of a power car. It still wouldn't look pretty though- the example that springs to mind to illustrate the likely result, though not an exact comparison, would be the 455 that had a heavy road vehicle dropped onto it from a bridge.

To be honest, I'm more worried about that bit between the carriages... Tree falls on carriage roof, then rolls into the gap between carriages...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To be honest, I'm more worried about that bit between the carriages... Tree falls on carriage roof, then rolls into the gap between carriages...

I suspect the answer to that is "it depends". There are so many variables at play (size of tree, speed of train, to name but two) though I'm sure it wouldn't be pretty. Let's hope we never find out!

 

[david1212]

....
First the facts. On a HST, there is nothing structural above the cab floor. The GRP nose fairing is incredibly weak. It offers far less impact resistance than any steel/aluminium framed locomotive or multiple unit.

It is a design that offers very little protection to the driver.
....
A few days ago a tree impact smashed (there's no other word for it) through the entire cab structure and penetrated as far as the engine compartment bulkhead. There is NO structure ahead of the driver to protect them from this impact. .....

Until seeing the total open space in what was the left front of the 'structure' I had always presumed that inside the fibreglass skin was a substantial metal frame. While designs have improved over time going back to the original design in the 1970's for what was to be the UK's fastest train in everyday service ( along with the APT had it been successful ) I now wonder how just fibreglass was considered adequate.

Talking of shaking the magic money tree, what if the tree fell on the train while it was passing? No amount of cab crash protection is gonna help if the tree hits the roof of the carriages.

To be honest, I'm more worried about that bit between the carriages... Tree falls on carriage roof, then rolls into the gap between carriages...

While it could happen the probability of a tree or any substantial object falling on to a train once the front vehicle be it it a loco, HST power car or the first car or a D/EMU has passed must be much lower than the front colliding with an object on the track.

 

[43096]

I now wonder how just fibreglass was considered adequate.

Because it met the required standards of the time. You are judging 1970s engineering with 2023 standards.

 

[JamesT]

Devolved governments are rather more restricted than Westminster in terms of how much they can shake the magic money tree, they aren't permitted to borrow funds. They get central government funding that is a proportion of that spent in Westminster, so if Westminster cuts budgets then Barnett funding will also be reduced. The SNP have already exhausted the capacity for raising taxes and have raised them to a level which is probably counter-productive (incomes of between £43,663 and £50,271 are paying a combined Income Tax and NI rate of 54% which is eyewatering for a middle income).

Holyrood is allowed to do a limited amount of borrowing. Unfortunately they've already used up a large proportion of what they can - https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/loc...ount-of-holyrood-borrowing-used-report-finds/

Under the fiscal framework agreement between the UK and Scottish governments, ministers in Edinburgh are able to borrow to fund capital investment.

However this is limited to a total capital debt stock of £3 billion, with a maximum of £450 million in a single year.

As part of its annual report on the upcoming Scottish Budget, the FAI analysed how this borrowing would evolve in the current decade under the Scottish Government's plans.

With borrowing of £250 million each year, it is forecast to reach 83% of the cap by 2028/29.

Where do shiny new trains sit on the list of priorities for the funding?

 

[Davester50]

As I keep saying (and providing evidence for), there is a Section 54 on the HSTs through to 2030.

And some are already withdrawn from ScotRail service. Whether they are paying for them, or there's contract issues, you've never said, or have avoided answering.
But the fact remains, ScotRail aren't running every set they have this Section 54 on.

 

[JamesT]

Because it met the required standards of the time. You are judging 1970s engineering with 2023 standards.

According to https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/evolution-of-car-safety-features

1934 – General Motors performed the first ever crash test.
1947 – The Tucker Sedan was the first car with padded dashboards, which aimed to reduce face and chest damage when hit front-on.
1951 – Walter Linderer created the airbag, which could be released by the driver or by contact to the car bumper.
1952 – Mercedes Benz engineer Bela Barenyi invented the crumple zone concept, designed to absorb the force of impact in a crash.

Unless train designers were hiding in a cave, surely the effects of a head on collision with an object and the effect on the cab could have been foreseen in the 1970s?

 

[43096]

And some are already withdrawn from ScotRail service. Whether they are paying for them, or there's contract issues, you've never said, or have avoided answering.
But the fact remains, ScotRail aren't running every set they have this Section 54 on.

Out of the 175 vehicles in the ScotRail HST fleet covered by the current lease and Section 54 agreement, only 6 are no longer covered - the vehicles written off at Carmont. Everything else remains on lease.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Probably worth having a look at the RAIB report after the Lavington tree collision:

This is a report from 2010 that only dismissed improvements on the basis that it was not cost-effective. In other words RAIB dismissed the prospect of safety improvements as it appeared (at the time) that HSTs would be replaced by the Intercity Express Programme within 10 years. Hence the risk could be mitigated by the pending withdrawal of the trains within probably 10 years (hence "even if continued use for another 15 years is assumed").

The prospect of ScotRail keeping them on until 2030+ was not expected at that point. This forces us to re-evaluate the previous conclusion, as the risk here is no longer mitigated. Rather than having a life of 15 years at most (but probably less), if some posters on here are to be believed the HSTs could theoretically have a lifespan until 2035, 25 years beyond the Lavington incident. The idea that the risk was only acceptable because the trains were 'on their way out' may have been acceptable in 2010 - is it still acceptable?

I don't share your interpretation of that RAIB report. I think it actually confirms my argument that the cabs are unfit.

That seems a very fair and balanced conclusion to me. The HST cab self evidently is not going to be to current standards, but that does not make it unsafe. A bit more realism rather than the usual pile-in that we get on here wouldn't go amiss...

What is the usual pile-in???

Over the last few months there has been a lot of obtuse thinking from so many enthusiasts, up to and including accusing ScotRail staff of sabotaging the HST toll-out out of spite, both on this forum and elsewhere. Any and every suggestion that the HST may not be perfect is met with a volley of criticism and conflicting narratives.

I've tried to lay out the issue here as clearly as possible. This should not be personal.

 

[Prime586]

Unless train designers were hiding in a cave, surely the effects of a head on collision with an object and the effect on the cab could have been foreseen in the 1970s?

There's a excerpt from a BBC Schools programme about plastic manufacturing methods featuring footage showing the cabs under construction at Crewe. It mentions that they were only designed to withstand collisions with birds (a 4lb bird at a speed of 125mph). It also mentions that steel and aluminium were rejected primarily due to manufacturing cost reasons.

(See also this technical paper from BR's Technical Centre in Derby)

The only steel reinforcement in the moulding was around the bottom edge, where they had to bolt to the underframe. I wonder if any thought at all was given to including vertical reinforcement up the A-pillars and around the screen (as is commonly done on GRP car bodyshells, to provide rollover protection). That would have required the steel 'cage' to be welded in a jig before being added tp the inner cab mouldings during the layup process. This would have brought a small weight penalty, but I expect would also have had led to a significant manufacturing cost increase.

A contemporary Reliant or Lotus would have a bodyshell constructed in basically the same way, but they would at least have a sacrificial crumple zone between the nose and the driver (which only had to be designed to pass a 30mph crash test).

 

[HSTEd]

According to https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/evolution-of-car-safety-features

Unless train designers were hiding in a cave, surely the effects of a head on collision with an object and the effect on the cab could have been foreseen in the 1970s?

Because, unlike cars, trains have a sophisticated system that prevents the vast majority of impacts from occurring.

Very few casualties have resulted from impacts on HST cabs, so I don't think you can claim the mitigation is unreaonable

 

[TreacleMiller]

The structure of the front end structure HST is easily reinforceable at low cost, which is suprising given its never actually been done. Its arguably easier than modifications to new stock that suffer from poor impact protection.

There is simply no way the HST would be considered fit for pupose today. They should have been withdrawn a decade ago, alas not.

 

[najaB]

My point is that the money can be found if the politicians want to find it.

And what do you suggest the Scottish Government cut in order to fund HST replacement?

 

[Falcon1200]

As I said before, it would help if members here write to their MP and in Scotland, their MSP and tell them that you want the funding of the railways to be increased

That letter/email would also need to specify which area(s) of Government funding are to be reduced, and/or how much extra tax the writer is prepared to pay, so that funding of the railways can be increased.

 

[Alanko]

What do we actually expect to be done about vegetation though? For some reason there seems to be a view in this country that touching trees is sacrilege, even those that are clearly inappropriately placed. So whatever NR do is going to be wrong to someone. Then there’s the plenty of trees which aren’t owned by NR because they are outside the railway boundary.

I don't agree with this bit. In terms of tree cover we are far behind Finland, Sweden (which I expected), Portugal and Spain (which I didn't) when comparing European countries. People find all sorts of spurious reasons to remove mature trees, including supposedly sustainable urban regeneration in the case of Plymouth town centre. Home owners get fed up with leaves landing on their cars, so use the 'roots might be damaging mg house' excuse to fell larger trees in gardens. This country is peculiarly anti-tree, if it isn't a patch of semi-native woodland in the middle of nowhere. Even the much loved Sycamore Gap tree stood out in the landscape because other trees had supposedly been removed in the vicinity.

On the other hand, there are so many locations around the railway network where you can't now recreate those classic Eric Treacy photographs of trains passing through crisp, clipped cuttings or over neat embankments. Tangles of saplings and detritus make the same shots virtually impossible today. It is surprising how quickly vegetation takes hold as well.


I see trees adjacent to railway lines as similar to the RAAC issue in hospitals and schools. It could have been well managed through strategically planned interventions over a twenty year period or so. Instead the can was kicked down the proverbial road, so we now have a large inventory of public buildings with failing roofs, and sections of the railway network cut off by fallen trees every time it gets a bit windy. There isn't enough money in the pot to effectively and proactively manage either issue, just act reactively once bad things happen.

And what do you suggest the Scottish Government cut in order to fund HST replacement?

Any additional money they were planning to sling at that pair of unfinished ferries languishing in Port Glasgow.

 

[43096]

The structure of the front end structure HST is easily reinforceable at low cost

Is it? How do you know?

, which is suprising given its never actually been done. It’s arguably easier than modifications to new stock that suffer from poor impact protection.

The owners have looked at it in the past - obviously they have concluded that it isn’t practical, at least economically.

 

[najaB]

Any additional money they were planning to sling at that pair of unfinished ferries languishing in Port Glasgow.

Sad to say, even optimistically speaking (for trains) or pessimistically speaking (for ferries), the additional amount needed to complete them (or to completely abandon them and build two new from scratch) wouldn't stretch far enough to fund a new fleet of 30 bi-mode trains.

 

[VP185]

I don't share your interpretation of that RAIB report. I think it actually confirms my argument that the cabs are unfit.

I think you need to re-read the RAIB report then.

No train cab in service today fully protects the driver.

 

[HSTEd]

Is there no formal process for ASLEF to (try to) have 43s declared unsafe by some regulatory body, such that they could refuse to drive them but still get paid?

Not really, no.

And I imagine if such a body exists it would open many cans of worms.

 

[craigybagel]

Sad to say, even optimistically speaking (for trains) or pessimistically speaking (for ferries), the additional amount needed to complete them (or to completely abandon them and build two new from scratch) wouldn't stretch far enough to fund a new fleet of 30 bi-mode trains.

Not to mention the fact those two ferries are desperately needed. The SNP may have spectacularly botched that project, but it doesn't change the fact that CalMac need new ferries.

 

[TUC]

Because it met the required standards of the time. You are judging 1970s engineering with 2023 standards.

But the unanswered question for me is not the 1970s vs now, but rather 2003 vs 2023. 20 years ago there was a much greater safety consciousness than in the 1970s. If there was a significant issue with HSTs wouldn't it have arisen sometime in the past 20 years?

 

[43066]

"When training on HSTs, I asked the instructor where the end of the crumple zone was. "About a foot behind your head," was the response."

To be fair you’re in the crumple zone on 22xs, also. However there’s still a lot more protection against impacts of this type.

Over the last few months there has been a lot of obtuse thinking from so many enthusiasts, up to and including accusing ScotRail staff of sabotaging the HST toll-out out of spite, both on this forum and elsewhere. Any and every suggestion that the HST may not be perfect is met with a volley of criticism and conflicting narratives.

Fully agreed. Ultimately the people getting misty eyed over HSTs aren’t the people who have to operate them. Doubtless some enthusiasts would want them to remain in service forevermore.

No train cab in service today fully protects the driver.

Nobody has suggested that any do? However there’s a big difference between 1970s standards and what is considered acceptable today. No other industry operates vehicles whose design and crashworthiness standards date from the 1970s, to my knowledge.

Because, unlike cars, trains have a sophisticated system that prevents the vast majority of impacts from occurring.

There is no system that can completely guard against impacts of the type we are discussing, from trees or other foreign objects on the railway line. Why do you think new build trains are subject to stringent crashworthiness standards!?

But the unanswered question for me is not the 1970s vs now, but rather 2003 vs 2023. 20 years ago there was a much greater safety consciousness than in the 1970s. If there was a significant issue with HSTs wouldn't it have arisen sometime in the past 20 years?

Because 20 years ago is almost half way between the HST’s introduction and now? Because on the occasions these concerns were previously considered (notably in 2010, as noted above) it was never contemplated that the stock would remain in service until 2030 or later?

 

[BrianW]

Is it possible to have a small quick rough and ready study done of alternatives 'going forward', rather than often uninformed, biased or opinionated knee-jerks? maybe such has been done. Quick, because the currently expected demise of the HST is not that far off. We're now 230 postings on and, IMHO, not much further on.
IF the HST cab is unsafe, what are the alternatives now?

1. Bin them off forthwith; and replace with what, when, at what cost.etc?
2. Carry out modifications (major OR minor) with consequences meantime (Fewer trains in service for 'a while'?)
3. (Selective) vegetation removal- worst first...
4. Ameliorate ('Pay off'?) driver concerns?
5. Turn blind eye/ denial
6. Plan for replacement, by when?
7. Something else ...

Are figures available for deaths/major injuries/ consequential costs for alternative forms of transport? and for railway staff and customers?

IIRC the HST design was much lauded 'back in the day'- was resistance to tree strike a design criterion? Was it rushed to cover for tree failing APT? That was then.

I could have a tree fall on my house, or as I'm walking in the park, or a vehicle might run me down on the street...

I feel for the driver and all those with heightened anxieties

 

[43066]

1. Bin them off forthwith; and replace with what, when, at what cost.etc?
2. Carry out modifications (major OR minor) with consequences meantime (Fewer trains in service for 'a while'?)
3. (Selective) vegetation removal- worst first...
4. Ameliorate ('Pay off'?) driver concerns?
5. Turn blind eye/ denial
6. Plan for replacement, by when?
7. Something else ...

6. Make a commitment to ASLEF of a removal date ASAP, and replacement with ex EMR 222s, which should start to come available in 2025, and match the number of vehicles required. This should mean removal within the next eighteen months to two years is possible.

If that date slips for some reason, stop the fleet at that point regardless, and make up the slack with the existing fleet as far as possible.

 

[Krokodil]

Where are you going to find the money to lease those ex-EMR 222s while still paying the lease for the HSTs?

If you withdraw the fleet (say 40 passenger vehicles in use daily, plus those on exam) with no replacement how many people are you going to leave stranded because they can't get on a wedged 158 and the next train isn't for two or three hours? Are you going to put them on road coaches? I wonder what sort of driver protection road coaches have.