Scotrail HST serious tree strike avoidable- ASLEF.

[DanNCL]

I think plenty already have done.

There has been a large increase in frequency (and two new operators) on the Scottish inter-city coach network in recent years.

Free nationwide bus travel for under-22s.

The general unreliability of the rail network (weather related shut downs / speed restrictions / breakdowns / cancellations / strikes etc) and the ever-increasing fares.

The Inter7City route trains are significantly less busy than they were pre-Covid.

A change to 158s would be a very retrograde step for passenger comfort.

Indeed so a further deterioration in service quality is the last thing the railway needs right now.

 

[800Travel]

Milton Keynes is also the home of the National Operations Centre (NOC) which oversees all Network Rail routes, although routes have a lot of their own responsibility of course. They can mobilise for major incidents, e.g. advising RAIB and ORR (in conjuction with the relevant route control)

There is one national helpline number 24/7 - 03457 11 41 41. I believe this goes to a central point who then inform the relevant NR route. If someone didn't know what number to call (which public may not from their home) it is likely they'd find this one. I am not sure who answers it, but I'd hazard a guess its a team at Milton Keynes / NOC.

Is there any link to a list of emergency numbers for local areas please? Or is it just that one for the public?

 

[68000]

Is there any link to a list of emergency numbers for local areas please? Or is it just that one for the public?

Route Control numbers are listed in the Periodic Operating Notice. Members of the public will have no idea that these exist though, link to PDFs below

National Electronic Sectional Appendix - Network Rail

The National Electronic Sectional Appendix (NESA) contains detailed information useful to operators about network capability, as well as a considerable amount of other data. NESA is an electronic data source with significant advantages over a hard copy publication. These include: Across the...

www.networkrail.co.uk

 

[Horizon22]

Route Control numbers are listed in the Periodic Operating Notice. Members of the public will have no idea that these exist though, link to PDFs below

National Electronic Sectional Appendix - Network Rail

The National Electronic Sectional Appendix (NESA) contains detailed information useful to operators about network capability, as well as a considerable amount of other data. NESA is an electronic data source with significant advantages over a hard copy publication. These include: Across the...

www.networkrail.co.uk

And also it's not something you want to be broadcast too widely with the risk of nuisance calls. Not to mention in such a disruption this will just come up as a random external number, which will not be the top of anyone's priority list for answering / a call back.

 

[68000]

On the actual incident, have ASLEF done an evaluation on which stock would have handled that tree collison better than the HST?

 

[JJmoogle]

I have to say the decision by Scotrail to get HSTs for its new flagship intercity service has to be one of the most shortsighted farces of my lifetime(on the railway) I can't help but feel this continued and building anger from drivers was forseeable if blinkers hadn't been on about running a nationalised 'Inter7city' with the classic 'Intercity' train.

Plenty more 158s available from Wales.

If they where going to take anything from Wales as an interim I suspect they'd sooner go for the 175 fleet that's entirely sitting in storage right now.

 

[357]

There's a big ASLEF meeting in Perth this Sunday with all HST driving depots invited. There seems to be a lot of anger amongst staff about not only the shambolic response by Network Rail, but anger that the HST still seems to be the only show in town according to Transport Scotland.
I hope that the drivers vote to boycott these heaps of scrap and we get a reliable intercity service using 158s or 170s. Enough is enough.

Fancy some class 180s...?

On the actual incident, have ASLEF done an evaluation on which stock would have handled that tree collison better than the HST?

Speaking from my own driving experience - pretty much anything withstands tree collisions better than a HST cab.

 

[Falcon1200]

And also it's not something you want to be broadcast too widely with the risk of nuisance calls.

Indeed. The Bridge Strike number has certainly been used for non-emergency matters, including one evening a host of calls from people on a car 'treasure hunt'.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Fancy some class 180s...?


Speaking from my own driving experience - pretty much anything withstands tree collisions better than a HST cab.

Speaking from my experience of seeing the effects on different types of rolling stock, I would say that the 158 cab is not as survivable as an HST cab. It really doesn’t absorb the forces well enough and the survival space is limited. A cl.170 or later build is what ASLEF should be going for.

 

[VP185]

There's a big ASLEF meeting in Perth this Sunday with all HST driving depots invited. There seems to be a lot of anger amongst staff about not only the shambolic response by Network Rail, but anger that the HST still seems to be the only show in town according to Transport Scotland.
I hope that the drivers vote to boycott these heaps of scrap and we get a reliable intercity service using 158s or 170s. Enough is enough.

If that’s the case, we will be pleased to take the HSTs back in the West Country!

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Yeah we’ll swap some 800s and have HSTs back on Paddingtons.

 

[Iskra]

I have to say the decision by Scotrail to get HSTs for its new flagship intercity service has to be one of the most shortsighted farces of my lifetime(on the railway) I can't help but feel this continued and building anger from drivers was forseeable if blinkers hadn't been on about running a nationalised 'Inter7city' with the classic 'Intercity' train.


If they where going to take anything from Wales as an interim I suspect they'd sooner go for the 175 fleet that's entirely sitting in storage right now.

Firstly, nobody could have predicted two accidents.

Secondly, is it the HST to blame or is Network Rail who failed at Carmont and appear to have mishandled this one as well if the above reports are to be believed?

Is the HST being unfairly scapegoated, while the real issues rumble on..?

 

[matchmaker]

There's a big ASLEF meeting in Perth this Sunday with all HST driving depots invited. There seems to be a lot of anger amongst staff about not only the shambolic response by Network Rail, but anger that the HST still seems to be the only show in town according to Transport Scotland.
I hope that the drivers vote to boycott these heaps of scrap and we get a reliable intercity service using 158s or 170s. Enough is enough.

Have you been on a Scotrail 158 recently? I have. Dire clapped out heap.

 

[VP185]

Firstly, nobody could have predicted two accidents.

Secondly, is it the HST to blame or is Network Rail who failed at Carmont and appear to have mishandled this one as well if the above reports are to be believed?

Is the HST being unfairly scapegoated, while the real issues rumble on..?

Every train has a weak point, any impact with a train at its weak point is going to put the driver at risk of serious injury.

No one is to blame. The tree could have fallen minutes in front of the train.

 

[JJmoogle]

Firstly, nobody could have predicted two accidents.

Secondly, is it the HST to blame or is Network Rail who failed at Carmont and appear to have mishandled this one as well if the above reports are to be believed?

Is the HST being unfairly scapegoated, while the real issues rumble on..?

This is true that those two specific accidents couldn't have been predicted, however the weakness of the HST relative to more modern stock has been known for decades at this point as prior accident reports evidence, Scotrail now have them, in front line service, so when an accident does occur, it's bad, this was predictable.

I love them, but Scotrail should have ordered new trains, it would have been less of a (deadly and tragic) farce.

 

[Iskra]

This is true that those two specific accidents couldn't have been predicted, however the weakness of the HST relative to more modern stock has been known for decades at this point as prior accident reports evidence, Scotrail now have them, in front line service, so when an accident does occur, it's bad, this was predictable.

I love them, but Scotrail should have ordered new trains, it would have been less of a (deadly and tragic) farce.

I don’t think any train would have come out of Carmont well.

Presumably, they didn’t order new for a reason and apparently passengers wanted HST’s.

 

[JJmoogle]

I don’t think any train would have come out of Carmont well.

Presumably, they didn’t order new for a reason and apparently passengers wanted HST’s.

Would probably have come out better though and that's the point.
The class 390 at Grayrigg faired much better than the HST accidents around that time period because things had moved on in the 30 odd years between those trains.

I'm not quite sure why they didn't order new, it's probably make for an interesting long read investigative piece, saying it's 'what the passangers wanted' when there's a possibility passangers will be left with nothing because drivers might refuse to drive them on safety grounds, what where they thinking.

 

[Iskra]

Would probably have come out better though and that's the point.
The class 390 at Grayrigg faired much better than the HST accidents around that time period because things had moved on in the 30 odd years between those trains.

I'm not quite sure why they didn't order new, it's probably make for an interesting long read investigative piece, saying it's 'what the passangers wanted' when there's a possibility passangers will be left with nothing because drivers might refuse to drive them on safety grounds, what where they thinking.

I’m not convinced- a new train would probably be heavier, making the forces in a drop worse in that specific scenario, and it could well have meant passengers in the lead vehicle too, instead of crew-only.

 

[JJmoogle]

I’m not convinced- a new train would probably be heavier, making the forces in a drop worse in that specific scenario, and it could well have meant passengers in the lead vehicle too, instead of crew-only.

Even if it had been heavier the advances made in the intervening decades in increasing the survivability and structural integrity of rail vehicles means they would have been tested, instead the HST was, with predictable results.

 

[Iskra]

Even if it had been heavier the advances made in the intervening decades in increasing the survivability and structural integrity of rail vehicles means they would have been tested, instead the HST was, with predictable results.

That’s just an untested assumption.

 

[JJmoogle]

That’s just an untested assumption.

There are multiple accident investigstion reports that have covered these in great detail, including Carmont.

Of course we cannot know exactly what would have occured had it been the safety systems employed on a modern train in that incident, but that's precisely the point, the HST doesn't have them, as detailed in many reports, because it's old now.

In paticular the fact the cab offers absolutely nothing, not even a gesture of survivability for the driver is why their union here is seriously considering not driving the train.

 

[Iskra]

There are multiple accident investigstion reports that have covered these in great detail, including Carmont.

Of course we cannot know exactly what would have occured had it been the safety systems employed on a modern train in that incident, but that's precisely the point, the HST doesn't have them, as detailed in many reports, because it's old now.

In paticular the fact the cab offers absolutely nothing, not even a gesture of survivability for the driver is why their union here is seriously considering not driving the train.

Yes, but as I said; a modern train at Carmont would be heavier, therefore increasing the forces involved (possibly beyond what a modern train could withstand) and would probably have passengers in the lead carriage, which could both well be more dangerous to more people in that specific situation.

 

[JJmoogle]

Yes, but as I said; a modern train at Carmont would be heavier, therefore increasing the forces involved (possibly beyond what a modern train could withstand) and would probably have passengers in the lead carriage, which could both well be more dangerous to more people in that specific situation.

The RAIB report into Carmont also suggests it could have been possible that the leading carriage would not have fallen off due to strongler coupler and bogie design keeping the train together though, they considereded it 'more likely than not' that the outcome of that incident would have been better had the train involved been built to more modern crash standards.

It's sobering reading, I'm sure their upcoming one will be too.

 

[CarrotPie]

In reponse to the back-and-forth above (too mamy messages to quote), paragraph S74 of the RAIB report says:

The cab was subjected to severe impact conditions and became detached from the power car. The impact conditions were significantly beyond those in which even modern cabs are designed to provide protection for occupants. (my bold)

The gist of the report seems to be: "If a more modern train had been involved, it would have performed better. However, it is unlikely that better performance would have make a notable difference to the outcome.

 

[JJmoogle]

In the specific confext of the cab in Carmont, aye, I do think it's important to note the report (paragraphs 528-535) does suggest that the incident would have played out differently especially in regards to vehicle scatter and survival space for passangers with modern standards.

 

[CarrotPie]

In the specific confext of the cab in Carmont, aye, I do think it's important to note the report (paragraphs 528-535) does suggest that the incident would have played out differently especially in regards to vehicle scatter and survival space for passangers with modern standards.

But this thread is about cab safety, not that of the saloons and vestibules.

 

[JJmoogle]

But this thread is about cab safety, not that of the saloons and vestibules.

But the HST has no cab safety, which is why the drivers are angry?

It didn't even have a crash structure to have forces exceeding its design tested against it.

Edit.

To try and bring that round to something nearer the point of the thread, the HST as far as I understand, was never engineered to hit a tree, it was born in a different time, only a few years after the end of steam, however in the past 50 years trees, and the risk of trains hitting them, has grown significantly, and that is a risk which the HST is unsuitable for.

 

[Somewhere]

Priority and emergency calls terminate existing ones

No, they don't.

 

[bramling]

Would probably have come out better though and that's the point.
The class 390 at Grayrigg faired much better than the HST accidents around that time period because things had moved on in the 30 odd years between those trains.

Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree with the general view, I’m not sure comparisons between accidents are particularly helpful, as the circumstances will always be different. Carmont in particular was quite exceptional in terms of the circumstances.

I'm not quite sure why they didn't order new, it's probably make for an interesting long read investigative piece, saying it's 'what the passangers wanted' when there's a possibility passangers will be left with nothing because drivers might refuse to drive them on safety grounds, what where they thinking.

Certainly with hindsight it has turned out to be a very bad decision.

 

[43096]

In paticular the fact the cab offers absolutely nothing, not even a gesture of survivability for the driver is why their union here is seriously considering not driving the train.

That cannot be left unchallenged. It is arrant nonsense to say there is no survivability. The driver in the latest incident survived - with minor injuries - an 80mph collision with a tree. There were standards for crashworthiness in 1976 that the trains met - you are saying that they offer no protection. That is factually wrong.

The RAIB report into Carmont also suggests it could have been possible that the leading carriage would not have fallen off due to strongler coupler and bogie design keeping the train together though, they considereded it 'more likely than not' that the outcome of that incident would have been better had the train involved been built to more modern crash standards.

It's sobering reading, I'm sure their upcoming one will be too.

If, if, if… There’s an alternative scenario where a stronger coupler means the whole lot goes over the bridge and ends up in a burnt out pile on the embankment.