The building of locos that prohibited passengers in the leading vehicles of trains

Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by Nick82, 31 May 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nick82

    Nick82 Member

    Messages:
    326
    Joined:
    20 Feb 2014
    Good afternoon guys,
    I am currently carrying out some research regarding the building that prohibited passengers in the leading vehicles of trains. When the class 43's and class 91's were built obviously they have no accommodation to hold passengers during travel. It is to my understanding that when the 91's where in the process of manufacture they were rules prohibiting this, hence the DVT to replicate the 91's in the push mode. As we know now we have the class 220/221 and the 180's ect have accommodation for passengers in the leading cars. So my question is what has changed and where can I find a good source of information on this.

    Many thanks in advance
     
  2. Ianigsy

    Ianigsy Member

    Messages:
    243
    Joined:
    12 May 2015
    The rule regarding passengers in the leading vehicle of a train travelling at over 100mph was, I believe, a consequence of the Polmont derailment where the human cost of the accident was greater than it might otherwise have been due to the force of the initial impact being taken by a DBSO with the 47/7 propelling at the rear of the train.

    15-20 years on, units like the 175s and 180s were constructed with all powered vehicles (so the weight is distributed across the train, rather than having the comparatively lighter carriages being pushed by a heavier locomotive) and you'll notice if you're travelling in one of the Coradia or Voyager units that the leading half of the first car will generally consist of airline seating with the back to the direction of travel, so that in the event of a sudden stop for whatever reason, seated passengers will be initially pushed back into their seats rather than thrown forwards.
     
  3. 55z

    55z Member

    Messages:
    135
    Joined:
    21 Nov 2014
    In 220-222 units the seating at the ends are always backward facing in part of the coach as it is considered safer for passengers to be backward facing in case of a collision in some cases there is a crush zone at the end toilets etc (390's).
     
  4. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,018
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    The toilets are at the inner end of the 390s and 22x units. There is a staff area behind the cab in each case - not sure if it is structurally weaker to form a crush zone but it was probably argued to reduce the risk as fewer people would be in the area most prone to damage in a collision.

    I've an idea the end coaches in a 222 have about 50% of seats facing each way. Must remember to look next time I use one!
     
  5. lincolnshire

    lincolnshire Member

    Messages:
    688
    Joined:
    12 Jun 2011
    The Blue Pullman also had a seated area in the front & rear coach. It just remind me last night on BBC 4 ( Monday 01/06/15 @ 22-00) and it was travelling at 90 mph.

    It looked a good sight travelling down the track, pity it didn,t survive.
     
  6. LNW-GW Joint

    LNW-GW Joint Established Member

    Messages:
    10,171
    Joined:
    22 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Mold, Clwyd
    It's not obvious how the class 350 and (under test) class 387 managed to clear the structural regulations to run at 110mph with no impact-absorbing "nose" or restriction on passenger placement.
    The next generation of European EMUs will be designed for 190kph operation (118mph).
    Will that be allowed in the UK?
    Our obsession with blunt ends and corridor connections might not be possible at that speed (thankfully), forcing a class 395-type front end.
     
  7. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,018
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    The restriction of passengers in front vehicles was only applied to trains going above 100mph, mainly because there were hundreds of multiple units of various types running at up to that speed with no obvious signs of carnage. Collisions are so rare these days that it's hard to justify measures like that.
     
  8. WillPS

    WillPS Established Member

    Messages:
    2,306
    Joined:
    18 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Certainly this is the case in the First Class end.
     
  9. wensley

    wensley Established Member

    Messages:
    2,010
    Joined:
    29 Jun 2008
    Location:
    On a train...somewhere!
    On a 180 the luggage compartment between the driving cab and passenger saloon forms a crumple zone and is designed to absorb the impact in the event of a collision.
     
  10. gimmea50anyday

    gimmea50anyday Established Member

    Messages:
    2,161
    Joined:
    8 Jan 2013
    Location:
    Durham
    My understanding is this.

    The 180 along with the 22x series and the 390's have no passenger seating in the front 1/3 of the carriage, then the second 1/3 the first few rows are unidirectional with the backs leading. This was a design requirement to overcome regulations of the time. This is why its in this area where the cycle/baggage/train managers office/kitchen or galley are fitted. The 800's also follow this design principle. There was also a further restriction which had to be overcome for the 220's as trains doing over 100mph had to have a mininum 5 car formation. I am unsure what was done, I think they either had to prove the braking capability, or fit additional braking as a redundancy should the brakes fail in one coach for example.

    How the 350's have gotten around this i cant say. I will speculate and suggest that as they were built for 100mph running the restrictions didnt apply, and as 110 is a modification rather than as built. It could also be that 110 is the new ceiling speed for the regulations in light of improvements in design and technology.
     
  11. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,018
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Probably based on risk assessment. TPWS and other measures have reduced the rate of high speed collisions and modern stock has other crashworthiness features that make them more survivable.
     
  12. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,317
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    fTPE's 185s are 100mph trains with seating in both directions immediately behind the driving cab in coach A... They were introduced in 05-06...
     
  13. talltim

    talltim Established Member

    Messages:
    1,772
    Joined:
    17 Jan 2010
    But they aren't rated to over 100mph so restrictions have never applied
     
  14. gimmea50anyday

    gimmea50anyday Established Member

    Messages:
    2,161
    Joined:
    8 Jan 2013
    Location:
    Durham
    Exactly. 442's are also 100mph! :D
     
  15. ExRes

    ExRes Established Member

    Messages:
    1,939
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2012
    Location:
    Devon (Ex Sussex)
    Indeed, I believe they've entered the Guiness Book of Records as the first train capable, on a regular basis, to reach 100 Mentions Per Hour

    ;)
     
  16. 40129

    40129 Member

    Messages:
    248
    Joined:
    23 May 2014
    What would have happened if the APT project had been successful and a production version introduced in the 1980s?

    I ask this because IIRC the leading car of the APT-P were fully seated.
     
  17. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,018
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    The APT project included an Automatic Train Protection system known as C-APT. I believe HMRI always saw the ban on passengers in the leading vehicle above 100mph as only applying where ATP was not provided. Hence TPWS, which achieves around 70% of the safety benefits of ATP, could be used to justify relaxing the ban.
     
  18. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,377
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    I thought I'd research this online a bit this morning.

    The 'ban' on passengers (and catering crew) from the whole of the leading vehicle, as written in the railway group standards of the day was negotiable with HMRI. This is often the case when the actual text is found. (Compare with the regular posts where 'banned' is used rather than 'not yet cleared' to justify the inability to use certain stock wherever.)

    Interestingly, the oft quoted '⅓ rule' cannot be found in the standards either; they went directly from no passengers or catering staff being allowed in the leading vehicle, to the complete paragraph being removed from the standard. The dates of the various issues quoted definitely imply that it was the modern fast 125 mph EMU/DMU classes that caused the removal of the requirement. The text as written would have meant an empty carriage at both ends of a four car 125 mph DMU of class 22X? So the minimum train length would have had to be at least 2+4 or 5 for useful purposes. IMHO the important thing is that a single unmanned DVT was probably an acceptable idea on the other end to a loco, but the move towards distributed traction makes a DVT on both ends start to look very uneconomical and indeed a bit ridiculous.

    So going back to RGS GM/RT 2100 Issue 1 of 1994, and Issue 2 of 1997
    you find this paragraph:

    The next issue of the RGS, version 3 of Oct 2000, completely removes paragraph 4.8, and by Issue 4 section 3 a re-arrangement of sections brings in paragraph 3:

    Issue 5 (current) 2012 is fairly similar to issue 4. With no access to British Standards we cannot see the text, but I believe the EN means they are a European harmonised standard; and we know that passengers in leading vehicles are common in modern European stock.

    I suggest therefore that the amendment dates of the RGSs show that the designers/builders of the 22X and 395 must have gone to HMRI and negotiated for, and had accepted, a proposal that passengers would not travel in the leading ⅓ of the driving vehicle, that seats would be mostly back to direction of travel in the leading car, and significantly they must also have gained an acceptance that catering staff could now travel nearer the driver in safety.

    HMRI having accepted that design for new classes, the RSSB then took the pragmatic view to remove the restriction on anyone travelling anywhere in the leading carriage.

    Please note, I haven't linked to all 5 versions of the RGS that I mention - if anyone wants to read them just change the final digit in the URLs as necessary, i.e. 1-5.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2015
  19. sprinterguy

    sprinterguy Established Member

    Messages:
    8,789
    Joined:
    4 Mar 2010
    Location:
    Macclesfield
    Production versions of the APT would have had either a power car at each end of the train, or a driving van trailer at one end similar to the Intercity 225s.
     
  20. Western Lord

    Western Lord Member

    Messages:
    258
    Joined:
    17 Mar 2014
    If those regulations specify 160km/hr, that means any train doing 100 mph is in breach of them. 160km/hr is only 99 mph, just as 200km/hr is only 124 mph. So have our speed limits been reduced? Or is this a case of "oh well it's near enough"! Anybody for an Inter-City 124?
     
  21. AndyW33

    AndyW33 Member

    Messages:
    294
    Joined:
    12 Aug 2013
    Isn't there also the fact that at the time the MK4/91s were being designed there was still Red Star Parcels traffic in some volume and a reasonable amount of mail travelled by passenger train. As a result it suited the railway quite well to have a vehicle at the end of the train which replicated the carrying capacity of the Brake 2nds, Brake 1sts, and full brakes in previous generations of stock. In the same way the HSTs have space in the power cars which is today used for bikes but was once used for parcels and mail.
    By the time the 180, 22x and 390 classes were on the drawing board Red Star was gone and mail was confined to dedicated trains, so it was worth doing the research to find a safe solution for end vehicles acceptable to HMRI.
     
  22. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,377
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    Almost certainly. When the Mk4 DVTs were being designed it's highly likely no-one ever asked the question because of what you point out.
     
  23. jopsuk

    jopsuk Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,140
    Joined:
    13 May 2008
    Good stuff swt_passenger. With regards BS EN 15227, I can't see any reference to a version pre-2008, though there does seem to be prEN 15227:2005 (pr indicates a draft standard) which was then adopted in 2008 That would explain why the requirements were removed from the RGS when they were removed- there was a EN developed that the authorities here will have had input on and felt met or superseded the requirements of the RGS
     
  24. gimmea50anyday

    gimmea50anyday Established Member

    Messages:
    2,161
    Joined:
    8 Jan 2013
    Location:
    Durham
    Sooo, what you are basically saying is that where the crumple zones are in the confines of the galley etc, catering staff are dispensable to save the punters backs??? :o

    Glad i left the catering grades to become a guard then! Safer at the back!!! XD


    On a serious note, its quite interesting finding this stuff out and seeing train development over the years, especially in light of recent accidents at polmont (the cow) Heck and Grayrigg and noting how the trains performed under those conditions.. But then i am quite often glued to the telly when Aircrash is shown on National Geographic!
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2015
  25. Emblematic

    Emblematic Member

    Messages:
    555
    Joined:
    14 Aug 2013
    This point is specifically covered in the group standards, for instance:

    [​IMG]

    In other words, near enough! :)
     

    Attached Files:

    • G1.PNG
      G1.PNG
      File size:
      39.1 KB
      Views:
      152
  26. cjmillsnun

    cjmillsnun Established Member

    Messages:
    2,601
    Joined:
    13 Feb 2011
    C-APT was NOT ATP. It was a method of giving the driver information about the route ahead (speed limits and junctions). It used passive (non powered) transponders. The signalling was done using the Mk1 eyeball and AWS just like any other train on BR.
     
  27. edwin_m

    edwin_m Veteran Member

    Messages:
    11,018
    Joined:
    21 Apr 2013
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Thanks for the information - so roughly equivalent to the TASS system fitted for Pendolinos.
     
  28. cjmillsnun

    cjmillsnun Established Member

    Messages:
    2,601
    Joined:
    13 Feb 2011
    Without the tilt control yes. Tilt on APTs was controlled entirely by on-train systems.
     
    Last edited: 6 Jun 2015
  29. alexl92

    alexl92 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,317
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2014
    Just out of interest, how much use does the luggage van of a DVT actyally get these days? Could that be converted to a bit more seating to increase train capacity, like a DBSO?
     
  30. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,171
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Redcar
    East Coast make a good amount of use of them for bicycles and large items of luggage.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page