• 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!

ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Macwomble

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2016
Messages
335
Location
Hamilton West
Personally, I can't wait for HST to come into use on Scotrail. Comfort should be a whole lot better than the crowded 170 I had recently from Glasgow to Aberdeen & the even more crowded 2 car 158 I had for the return journey.

Given the recent safety record of railways, in general, I don't think many of us have too much to worry about when travelling by HST.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

brel york

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2011
Messages
653
Location
the plant
Work currently under way on scotrail hst Trailer cars ,TS coaches to become TSL (they retain a lavatory)TS Coach will have a bike rack in the the place of the working toilet , the disused toilet at the other end will stay disused, confusing or what lol
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,065
Location
Macclesfield
These are relating to cab crashworthiness though.
Oh aye, undoubtedly: That the HST cab modules are essentially glass reinforced plastic crumple zones is somewhat unfortunate for the man, or woman, up front, but in the unlikely event of a collision the passenger should benefit to some degree in the first instance from there being a thwacking great lump of locomotive up front. In early HST derailments on the ECML (no deaths ;)), the mark 3s were complimented on their structural integrity and the ability of the buckeye couplers to keep the carriages upright and in line. The idea posted on the previous page that an HST might just fold up as soon as it comes into contact with a unit is laughable.
 
Last edited:

marks87

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2010
Messages
1,609
Location
Dundee
Personally, I can't wait for HST to come into use on Scotrail. Comfort should be a whole lot better than the crowded 170 I had recently from Glasgow to Aberdeen & the even more crowded 2 car 158 I had for the return journey.

Agreed; they can't come soon enough. Not just for capacity but overall comfort. I know it's an argument that's been done to a death, but 170s simply aren't suitable for what are ostensibly "InterCity" services.

Incidentally, I've not been keeping up to date with developments recently. What's the potential issue with cycle stowage?
 

380101

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Messages
1,001
Work currently under way on scotrail hst Trailer cars ,TS coaches to become TSL (they retain a lavatory)TS Coach will have a bike rack in the the place of the working toilet , the disused toilet at the other end will stay disused, confusing or what lol

They plan to use one of the toilets as the storage cupboard for the emergency couplers and other equipment. This is required due there not being a usual guards compartment like there is currently. The new guards "office" is going to be located next to the buffet bar/kitchen area.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,100
Oh aye, undoubtedly That the HST cab modules are essentially glass reinforced plastic crumple zones is somewhat unfortunate for the man, or woman, up front. The idea posted on the previous page that an HST might just fold up as soon as it comes into contact with a unit is laughable.
But when an HST met a class 47 (at St Phillips Marsh?) didn't the 47 come off worst? Although the 47 cab is steel sheet on a steel frame I don't think the structure is particularly massive. I saw a replacement cab being built on an original jig about 25 years ago and remember the frame seemed to be angle iron. Maybe I just didn't notice big steel tubes that were there too.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,692
I do travel on them, quite regularly but it always gets me worried because of the high number of fatalities occurred when HST incidents have happened in the past.

5 People per day die in road accidents in the UK. Therefore i can naturally assume you do not drive or ever get in a car?

Many incidents happen on pavements so you do not walk?

Many people die going for a crap? So are you heavily constipated?

As a male of your age you are statistically most likely to die from suicide (as is the case for most males up to the age of about 35). So i assume you receive regularly counselling to mitigate this risk?

You really need to understand relative risk. Everything is risky. Breathing is risky, as you do not know if Carbon Monoxide is present. But we put in controls to mitigate those risks. The mk3s are sufficiently crashworthy, in addition the chances of crashes are so unlikely that it is very rare to even test them. A voyager has not hit a freight train head on yet to find out if it is crashworthy, so unless you have a mechanical engineering background i doubt you are even qualified to comment on the relative crashworthiness of the mk3 compared to newer stock.

Sweeping statements like that ones you make are not helpful on public forums which anyone can read.
 

brel york

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2011
Messages
653
Location
the plant
They plan to use one of the toilets as the storage cupboard for the emergency couplers and other equipment. This is required due there not being a usual guards compartment like there is currently. The new guards "office" is going to be located next to the buffet bar/kitchen area.
Yes the guard will be in the TGFB (A Coach)
 

MG11

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2017
Messages
638
5 People per day die in road accidents in the UK. Therefore i can naturally assume you do not drive or ever get in a car?

Many incidents happen on pavements so you do not walk?

Many people die going for a crap? So are you heavily constipated?

As a male of your age you are statistically most likely to die from suicide (as is the case for most males up to the age of about 35). So i assume you receive regularly counselling to mitigate this risk?

You really need to understand relative risk. Everything is risky. Breathing is risky, as you do not know if Carbon Monoxide is present. But we put in controls to mitigate those risks. The mk3s are sufficiently crashworthy, in addition the chances of crashes are so unlikely that it is very rare to even test them. A voyager has not hit a freight train head on yet to find out if it is crashworthy, so unless you have a mechanical engineering background i doubt you are even qualified to comment on the relative crashworthiness of the mk3 compared to newer stock.

Sweeping statements like that ones you make are not helpful on public forums which anyone can read.
We are all aware that rail travel is relatively safe, thank you. What people are saying here is that if an accident did happen, HSTs would not perform well, compared to MK4s, Vogayers/Meridians or even Pendolinos.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,692
We are all aware that rail travel is relatively safe, thank you. What people are saying here is that if an accident did happen, HSTs would not perform well, compared to MK4s, Vogayers/Meridians or even Pendolinos.

No someone said they did not fail safe on a HST. That is not speculative.
 

delt1c

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2008
Messages
2,125
I do travel on them, quite regularly but it always gets me worried because of the high number of fatalities occurred when HST incidents have happened in the past.
If i was worried about "the high number of fatalities occurred" then personally i would not use that form of transport.
Once again I ask please provide us with the facts that makes this form of transport so dangerous compared to others.
I am sure others on the forum would appreciate this information to safeguard themselves , also I am sure the TOC's would be very grateful for this information.
What amazes me is that I have used HST's regularly since their introduction and have never suffered as much as a cut finger.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,929
Location
Nottingham
They plan to use one of the toilets as the storage cupboard for the emergency couplers and other equipment. This is required due there not being a usual guards compartment like there is currently.
Why not put that equipment in the former guard/parcel area in one of the power cars?
 

Northhighland

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2016
Messages
606
We are all aware that rail travel is relatively safe, thank you. What people are saying here is that if an accident did happen, HSTs would not perform well, compared to MK4s, Vogayers/Meridians or even Pendolinos.
Think you need to provide some evidence for such a sweeping statement. Do not think this is a statement that is supported by much evidence.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,719
Location
North
The Grayrigg accident was unique, because the Pendolino tipped over. Unless passengers are physically strapped to their seats, then even the most crashworthy and solid train would have fatalities and/or serious injuries in an accident like that. If you look at images of the Great Heck tragedy, which is similar to Southall, as the train had a head on collision with a freight train also, the MK4 coaches retained their structure much better than the MK3s.

For an example on a different type of collision, look at images of when a HST hit a tree branch (FGW) and compare it to when a Class 222 hit a steel crane in Leicestershire last year. Both were at similar speeds and both involved contact with the upper cab area of the train. The HST ended up with the tree inside the cab, yet the 222 structure prevented the crane, which is considerably heavier than a branch, from entering the interior of the cab, and unit 222005 was back in service in no time at all.

The Mk4 did not stand up as being more crashworthy than a Mk3 in the Heck accident. The coaches that contacted the class 66 were ripped open like a sardine can causing unbelievable injuries to those in First Class sitting in a window seat adjacent to the other track.
 

Far north 37

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2011
Messages
1,951
IMG_0921.PNG
Think you need to provide some evidence for such a sweeping statement. Do not think this is a statement that is supported by much evidence.
Totally agree with you have travelled on many mark 3 coaches over the years and have never felt unsafe a simple google will provide you with evidence and facts such as this but hey ho why let facts get in the way.
 

Far north 37

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2011
Messages
1,951
We are all aware that rail travel is relatively safe, thank you. What people are saying here is that if an accident did happen, HSTs would not perform well, compared to MK4s, Vogayers/Meridians or even Pendolinos.
Well MK4s didnt perform any better at hatfield or great heck and voyagers and meridians havent been involved in any major accidents if iirc so what are you basing your evidence on here.
 

Paul Kerr

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
143
The Grayrigg accident was unique, because the Pendolino tipped over. Unless passengers are physically strapped to their seats, then even the most crashworthy and solid train would have fatalities and/or serious injuries in an accident like that. If you look at images of the Great Heck tragedy, which is similar to Southall, as the train had a head on collision with a freight train also, the MK4 coaches retained their structure much better than the MK3s.

For an example on a different type of collision, look at images of when a HST hit a tree branch (FGW) and compare it to when a Class 222 hit a steel crane in Leicestershire last year. Both were at similar speeds and both involved contact with the upper cab area of the train. The HST ended up with the tree inside the cab, yet the 222 structure prevented the crane, which is considerably heavier than a branch, from entering the interior of the cab, and unit 222005 was back in service in no time at all.

I disagree with you on several points in your previous few posts here.

1. Grayrigg Crash- The Pendolino involved in Grayrigg crashed down an embankment and if I recall correctly the fatality occurred in the leading driving trailer because the vehicle was turned end to end, throwing the passengers around inside. A similar crash occurred at Forteviot in 1982 involving a Class 47 and MK2a and d coaches. Admittedly the speed was slightly less (70mph if I recall) but the loco took the brunt of the impact and the passenger compartments on all coaches remained intact despite most of them crashing down an embankment (as happened at Grayrigg), so despite the carnage there were no fatalities. Had the Pendolinos been designed with power cars like the HST with no passengers in the leading vehicle it's highly probable nobody would have died at all.

2. Colwich Junction- At Colwich, which you mentioned in a previous post, not a single passenger died (sadly one of the drivers did perish) but the coaches involved (a mixture of MK1, 2f and 3 stock) stood up remarkably well to the impact. Yes 2 of the MK3's from the Liverpool train sustained very heavy body and frame damage but it was a very violent head on collision and if you look at the photos the passenger compartment (although twisted off true in one of the vehicles) actually stayed intact on both coaches.

3. Ladbroke Grove- At Ladbroke Grove, a 120mph+ combined speed head on crash, although one of the FO coaches was engulfed by the ensuing fire, the main passenger compartment remained structurally intact on this vehicle, as it did with all the other HST vehicles involved. The body of the Class 165 leading car failed catastrophically which led to the vast majority of the deaths and the fire that took other lives on the HST, so the MK3 design was not at fault here.

4. Southall- At Southall, the reason why one of the coaches buckled on the HST was because a) it was weakened by heavy impact damage and gouging all the way down its right side from striking the freight wagons and b) the front end of the coach was pinned under a wagon that had impacted an electrification mast and as a result got trapped between the wagon and the buffet car. As a result of those 2 factors the coach buckled but all other coaches (despite heavy impact damage on a few of them) remained structurally intact. There is a documentary posted online from the late 1990's which pieced together how the collision progressed and how the coach structurally failed.

For the Ufton Nervet crash, I'm not sure what caused the buffet car to fail structurally like it did and I will need to research that one more. It's highly probable that it was affected by impact damage on the side of the coach that collapsed and got pinned or compressed by the coaches behind in a similar way to the Southall crash. But regardless, the MK3's have an excellent crash safety record overall. Hopefully we never see a serious crash on a Meridian or Voyager but the jury is still out for me on their crashworthiness, especially in a head on collision.

One point to close on- I remember another crash involving MK3's at similar speed to Grayrigg. A train of MK3 sleepers derailed at 95mph on the Morpeth Curve. The passenger compartments on all the sleeping cars remained intact and only 2 injuries were sustained (minor ones at that).

So to say that the MK3's have a poor record is not true in my mind. They were well designed when they were built and for me they are overall a better design than the vast majority of the subsequent coaches and multiple unit saloons that have followed them (including the Voyager and Meridians in my opinion).
 

47271

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2015
Messages
2,983
I know that I said move on, but I've been intrigued by the very long period of time between the introduction of the mk3 coach and any fatality occurring within one. I've checked the accident reports - and sadly there are a lot of them generally from 1976 onwards - and I think that it is Southall, so 21 years into the service life of the design. Pretty incredible.

There was the Maidenhead fire in September 1995, but the one death was caused by an uncontrolled evacuation and a passenger hit by another train. But I think that this was the very first example of anyone losing their life while travelling on an HST.

I think that we should add Polmont (1984) to Paul Kerr's list. An Edinburgh-Glasgow mk3 push pull set derailed at speed and 13 people were killed, but it's worth noting that all fatalities were in the leading mk2 DBSO.
 
Last edited:

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,773
let's not forget that thanks to the improvements made to maintenance and signalling systems as well as other safety initiatives we've now gone an astonishingly long period without passenger fatalities on the mainline rail network- indeed the only passenger fatalities in recent years on any rail network in the UK have been on light rail that lacked the safety systems, staff management systems and build standards of the mainlines. "crashworthiness" is important, but in safety terms it's close to PPE, which as anyone involved in safety management at work should know is what you use when you can't otherwise control and minimise a risk sensibly. It's good to have, but all the other factors contribute to making reliance on crash worthiness something you shouldn't be worrying about.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,302
For the Ufton Nervet crash, I'm not sure what caused the buffet car to fail structurally like it did and I will need to research that one more. It's highly probable that it was affected by impact damage on the side of the coach that collapsed and got pinned or compressed by the coaches behind in a similar way to the Southall crash.
At Ufton Nervet I think a detached bogie became embedded in the ballast and this compromised the structural integrity of the vehicle as the bogie was hit by the buffet. As the buffet was being propelled by its and following vehicles momentum, this caused catastrophic failure of the vehicle structure. In many ways the failure was similar to the TF at Southall, just a different object causing it.
 

Highland37

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
1,259
How many bike spaces will there be and where will they be? Scotrail previously said "at least 20" but are being pretty poor in pretending that they haven't decided to reduce that number.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,221
I believe the problem will be that they're in the space in the engines, and will be only useful for through traffic. Tough if you want to cycle the back roads of the Spey valley.
 

Highland37

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
1,259
Didn't they know that?

You could easily have 10-15 bikes end to end and then 6 or so in the train itself for the intermediate stations. It's perfectly normal in the rest of Europe.
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
We are all aware that rail travel is relatively safe, thank you. What people are saying here is that if an accident did happen, HSTs would not perform well, compared to MK4s, Vogayers/Meridians or even Pendolinos.

Again I beg to differ, Colwich Junction proves how well Mk3s can perform in a crash. Great Heck and Ufton are not directly comparable.

Mk3s have a damn good record. How well would a Pendo have performed in Southall? We'll never know because fo TPWS and from lessons learned meaning that a train would be taken out of service without a functioning AWS/TPWS.

How well would a 90 and a rake of Mk3s performed at Greyrigg? I suspect not anywhere near as bad as you think. Yes more modern coaches will be slightly better. However the relative safety of the railway as a whole is important. The reason being since Clapham, since Southall, since Ladbroke Grove, since Hatfield, Since Great Heck, since Greyrigg things have been changed.

Signal wiring is checked more thoroughly preventing a likely recurrence of Clapham. TPWS has been introduced that will mitigate against the likes of Ladbroke Grove and Southall. Track maintenance has vastly improved which means it is far less likely that a rail will shatter or points will fail, level crossings are slowly being removed, reducing the likelihood of another Ufton.

These are all things that improve safety for everyone on any type of stock, and getting these improements in are far more important, because old stock is something that will always be around. The newest BR stock is late mid life and the oldest privatisation stock is well into its second decade. Standards for stock change, but old stock isn't summarily withdrawn. Therefore the key factor isn't just improving new stock, it is making cultural changes and improvements to systems that improve safety whatever stock you are travelling in.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
916
At Ufton Nervet I think a detached bogie became embedded in the ballast and this compromised the structural integrity of the vehicle as the bogie was hit by the buffet. As the buffet was being propelled by its and following vehicles momentum, this caused catastrophic failure of the vehicle structure. In many ways the failure was similar to the TF at Southall, just a different object causing it.

Spot on. The best example is a cardboard kitchen roll tube.

Press it at each end and nothing happens. Put a small hole in the middle and it will fold at the point the hole was made.

I have said for years that the central partitions that were removed from the GW Mk3 should have never been taken out.

They were made of steel for a reason.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
916
The Mk4 did not stand up as being more crashworthy than a Mk3 in the Heck accident. The coaches that contacted the class 66 were ripped open like a sardine can causing unbelievable injuries to those in First Class sitting in a window seat adjacent to the other track.

Considering Heck was a combined 160+ mph collision (highest ever in the UK), the Mk 4 came out pretty well.
 

Northhighland

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2016
Messages
606
personally, I would rather be in a HST in a collision than a 170. So for me the Mk3 is safer than what we have. Don't see anyone posting any evidence to say they are unsafe, much opinion but no evidence especially if you consider the number of passenger miles in the last 40 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top