• 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!

Was the Pendolino worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
The IC70 seats are a bit like marmite people either love them or detest them!

Remember the versions fitted with headrests on CEPs and BEPs which would periodically detach and hit you on the neck?!
 
Joined
24 Jun 2014
Messages
432
Location
Derby
There were only Mk3b FOs on the WCML, no Standard vehicles, though those indeed did have the APT style First Class seats which were very nice, as well as a different (less intense) style of lighting more like that on 442s.

Were there any Mk 3b SOs?

From memory, apart from the braked ended vehicles - which I thought were also fist class - weren't all 3b coaches FOs?
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
5,209
The Pendolino only needs to be looked at in 2007 with the Lakes crash at 100m/h and you can see how strong the design is. An older train would have resulted in far more fatalities.
 
Joined
24 Jun 2014
Messages
432
Location
Derby
The mk3Bs were the FOs, the 3 BFOs and the DVTs

Despite what Wikipedia says, I'd never thought of the DVTs as Mk 3Bs; they came along later, and the FOs and BFOs were built as a single batch - and weren't the last few HST trailers built at Derby Litchurch Lane at the same time?
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
The Pendolino only needs to be looked at in 2007 with the Lakes crash at 100m/h and you can see how strong the design is. An older train would have resulted in far more fatalities.
Hmm!

It ain't necessarily so!

Once an accident has started to happen then the outcome depends on the circumstances pertaining at the time. The Pendolino coaches weren't seriously damaged by the stanchions holding the overhead wires up. The Mk 4 coach in the Hatfield crash was. Over the past 45 years the Mark 3 coach has held up pretty well for a design which originated in the late 1960s.

The outcome of a crash could well depend on the crash starting a half a second sooner or later. One should also consider the result of one crash to be anecdata, to be confident in one's conclusions one would need to examine the results of several crashes.

The first lines of defence on the railway are the signalling system and the quality of maintenance - if these work as intended then, one hopes, the integrity of the vehicles should never be put to the test.
 
Joined
31 Jan 2020
Messages
345
Location
Inverness
Hmm!

It ain't necessarily so!

Once an accident has started to happen then the outcome depends on the circumstances pertaining at the time. The Pendolino coaches weren't seriously damaged by the stanchions holding the overhead wires up. The Mk 4 coach in the Hatfield crash was. Over the past 45 years the Mark 3 coach has held up pretty well for a design which originated in the late 1960s.

The outcome of a crash could well depend on the crash starting a half a second sooner or later. One should also consider the result of one crash to be anecdata, to be confident in one's conclusions one would need to examine the results of several crashes.

The first lines of defence on the railway are the signalling system and the quality of maintenance - if these work as intended then, one hopes, the integrity of the vehicles should never be put to the test.
In the accident report following Grayrigg the strength of the double-skin Pendolino bodyshell was credited with preventing the stanchions from penetrating into the passenger compartment, neither did the bodyshell deform leading to decreased survival space.

The crashworthiness performance of the train
605 Overall, the crashworthiness performance of the class 390 Pendolino avoided, almost completely, a number of hazards such as multiple cases of passengers not being contained by the windows, loss of survival space and penetration of the passenger compartment by external structures, all of which have been known to cause fatal and serious injuries in past accidents
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Despite what Wikipedia says, I'd never thought of the DVTs as Mk 3Bs; they came along later, and the FOs and BFOs were built as a single batch - and weren't the last few HST trailers built at Derby Litchurch Lane at the same time?

The rolling stock library was what I was going by with reference to the DVTs, I suppose they had to classify them as something and as Mk3A had been superseded by Mk3B it made sense to classify them as that.

I think you’re about the BFOs and FOs being built alongside the last HST batch, which BR was hoping wasn’t to be the last batch but was in the end.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
In the accident report following Grayrigg the strength of the double-skin Pendolino bodyshell was credited with preventing the stanchions from penetrating into the passenger compartment, neither did the bodyshell deform leading to decreased survival space.
Yes, but as I said it depends on the accident.

The double-skinned extruded aluminium leading coach of the Class 165 involved in the Ladbroke Grove accident almost completely disintegrated because of the energy being dissipated in that accident. Most of the fatalities were in that coach.

There was only ten years between the two designs and both use the same technology in their bodies - welded, extruded aluminium planks.

My point stands - it's not the fall that kills, but the stop.
 
Joined
31 Jan 2020
Messages
345
Location
Inverness
Yes, but as I said it depends on the accident.

The double-skinned extruded aluminium leading coach of the Class 165 involved in the Ladbroke Grove accident almost completely disintegrated because of the energy being dissipated in that accident. Most of the fatalities were in that coach.

There was only ten years between the two designs and both use the same technology in their bodies - welded, extruded aluminium planks.

My point stands - it's not the fall that kills, but the stop.
Yes, I agree entirely, the circumstances are the main factor. But the range of possible outcomes is heavily dependant on the integrity of vehicles involved.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Yes, I agree entirely, the circumstances are the main factor. But the range of possible outcomes is heavily dependant on the integrity of vehicles involved.
But, as I've pointed out several times upthread, you can't draw this sort of conclusion from a single event.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
Yes, I agree entirely, the circumstances are the main factor. But the range of possible outcomes is heavily dependant on the integrity of vehicles involved.
Another accident which involved a vehicle with a body made of double skinned extruded aluminium planks was that at Potters Bar in 2002. This killed seven people.

Out of the three accidents in the UK that I can recall which involved vehicles with this method of construction people were killed in all three. The circumstances of the crashes were different in all three cases.

Railway accidents in the UK are thankfully infrequent. This means that the data sets are small and as a result it is difficult to draw any generalised conclusions as to whether the design or the sequence of the accident is more significant in determining the number of injuries or fatalities. However looking back over a longer period the data suggest that the introduction of monocoque bodies has had a beneficial effect on survival rates compared to earlier coaches built with an unstressed lightweight body on a heavy underframe. Monocoque tubes are very strong in end-on collisions, which railway accidents tend to be, but can collapse if the impact is to the side.

The outcome of any accident depends very strongly on the deceleration rates to which the vehicles and their occupants are exposed, for example see the Eschede accident in Germany in 1998. 101 people were killed in what were, and are, very strong coaches - if they were hit from the end. These hit a bridge abutment sideways.
 

37057

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2009
Messages
422
Railway disasters are fortunately few and far between but other minor collisions do occur more frequently. I once saw a photo of a 390s windscreen that had resisted the impact of a breeze block that was suspended from an overbridge, I doubt any driver would rather be in an 87 in that case!
 
Joined
31 Jan 2020
Messages
345
Location
Inverness
But, as I've pointed out several times upthread, you can't draw this sort of conclusion from a single event.
You can come to the conclusion that some trains are built stronger than others, or are better suited to protecting passengers without any event at all. It's entirely possible to evaluate and compare structural strength, as well as the influence of other variables on passenger survivability. For example we know that the Pendolino's structure is stronger than that of older designs (Mk3, Mk2 etc), that the couplings and bogie connections are stronger.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
You can come to the conclusion that some trains are built stronger than others, or are better suited to protecting passengers without any event at all. It's entirely possible to evaluate and compare structural strength, as well as the influence of other variables on passenger survivability. For example we know that the Pendolino's structure is stronger than that of older designs (Mk3, Mk2 etc), that the couplings and bogie connections are stronger.
But nobody has made that argument. The people who are asserting that the Pendolino is better in an accident are doing so entirely on the evidence of the one serious accident it has had.

Greater structural strength doesn't always mean survivability. In fact modern trains are designed to deform in a controlled way in an end-on collision, which absorbs collision energy, and in that sense the Pendolino has lower structural strength than a Mk3 coach. The inspector's report into Grayrigg did however point out that this provision wasn't significant, as it wasn't an end-on collision. There's also a very plausible theory that Great Heck would have been more survivable had the body not been strongly connected to the bogies. The impact with the Land Rover lifted the body and the bogie connections meant that this also lifted a bogie causing the derailment.
 
Joined
31 Jan 2020
Messages
345
Location
Inverness
But nobody has made that argument. The people who are asserting that the Pendolino is better in an accident are doing so entirely on the evidence of the one serious accident it has had.

Greater structural strength doesn't always mean survivability. In fact modern trains are designed to deform in a controlled way in an end-on collision, which absorbs collision energy, and in that sense the Pendolino has lower structural strength than a Mk3 coach. The inspector's report into Grayrigg did however point out that this provision wasn't significant, as it wasn't an end-on collision. There's also a very plausible theory that Great Heck would have been more survivable had the body not been strongly connected to the bogies. The impact with the Land Rover lifted the body and the bogie connections meant that this also lifted a bogie causing the derailment.
I think they're also asserting it on the basis that it's widely acknowledged to be a stronger design. However there was one engineer earlier in the thread who seemed to have some involvement with the Pendolinos who suggested that Grayrigg provided engineering evidence that their coaches were a step ahead of legacy coaches.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I think they're also asserting it on the basis that it's widely acknowledged to be a stronger design. However there was one engineer earlier in the thread who seemed to have some involvement with the Pendolinos who suggested that Grayrigg provided engineering evidence that their coaches were a step ahead of legacy coaches.
Yes, and I disagreed with them at the time. They just asserted that greater survivability in one accident proved something in itself. Which as far as I'm concerned proves very little. I've also pointed out that Mk3 coaches have survived several derailments at similar speeds with similar protection of the passengers. Agreed Mk3s have also been severely damaged in other accidents, but for all we know a Pendolino could have a similar accident with similar damage levels tomorrow.

Anyway, we all know the reason the Pendolino was so relatively unscathed at Grayrigg was because the driver steered it to safety. It must be true, Richard Branson said so.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
There was a bad crash between a Pendolino (CP Alfa Pendular) and a track maintenance vehicle yesterday in Portugal (near Coimbra), with the Pendolino being derailed.
There were 2 people killed (apparently crew on the maintenance train) several injuries.
This would be a train with similar vehicle characteristics to a 390, and constructed at the same factory (Savigliano).
Speed was said to be 190km/h (118mph).
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,716
Location
Glasgow
I‘m fairly sure the mk 3 DVT’s were based on the international coach rather than being 3b’s.

The 3 BFO’s were built for pullman services prior to the DVT’s being built.


They generally appear listed as part of the 3B batch and that's certainly their type code. All I can actually be sure of design-wise is that they were to a profile designed to match with both Mk2f and Mk3 vehicles without looking incongruous, certainly the BREL Internationals are quite distinct to either Mk2 or Mk3 vehicles.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The differences between Mk3a and Mk3b were essentially about the interior fit-out, so the DVT doesn't really belong to one or the other as it doesn't have passenger accommodation.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,445
Location
Yorkshire
The differences between Mk3a and Mk3b were essentially about the interior fit-out, so the DVT doesn't really belong to one or the other as it doesn't have passenger accommodation.
The bodyside profile of the DVT is the same as the international coaches.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
But nobody has made that argument. The people who are asserting that the Pendolino is better in an accident are doing so entirely on the evidence of the one serious accident it has had.

Greater structural strength doesn't always mean survivability. In fact modern trains are designed to deform in a controlled way in an end-on collision, which absorbs collision energy, and in that sense the Pendolino has lower structural strength than a Mk3 coach. The inspector's report into Grayrigg did however point out that this provision wasn't significant, as it wasn't an end-on collision. There's also a very plausible theory that Great Heck would have been more survivable had the body not been strongly connected to the bogies. The impact with the Land Rover lifted the body and the bogie connections meant that this also lifted a bogie causing the derailment.
From memory didn't the biggest problems start when the derailed leading bogie passed over the points. If it hadn't been derailed by that point a wedged landrover might have derailed it over the points anyway.

The speed difference on impact with both trains having already slowed was 142mph for a glancing head on.

The energy absorption rate is very critical for how structure behave (especially aluminium ones given the strain rate dependency of aluminium deformation compared to steel) and Greyrigg was pretty generous for energy absorption rate unlike Heck, Hatfield, Potters Bar and many of the others around that time.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
From memory didn't the biggest problems start when the derailed leading bogie passed over the points. If it hadn't been derailed by that point a wedged landrover might have derailed it over the points anyway.
Possibly - we'll never know.
From memory didn't the biggest problems start when the derailed leading bogie passed over the points. If it hadn't been derailed by that point a wedged landrover might have derailed it over the points anyway.

The speed difference on impact with both trains having already slowed was 142mph for a glancing head on.

The energy absorption rate is very critical for how structure behave (especially aluminium ones given the strain rate dependency of aluminium deformation compared to steel) and Greyrigg was pretty generous for energy absorption rate unlike Heck, Hatfield, Potters Bar and many of the others around that time.
Great Heck was doubly unlucky in being deflected by the points into the path of the oncoming freight train. The energy in that impact was far in excess of anything that might be absorbed by any conceivable "crumple zone" and had it been a Pendolino the leading coach (which would have had passengers) would most likely have disintegrated as completely as the 165 at Ladbroke Grove, a similar structure in a similar impact scenario.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
I think they're also asserting it on the basis that it's widely acknowledged to be a stronger design. However there was one engineer earlier in the thread who seemed to have some involvement with the Pendolinos who suggested that Grayrigg provided engineering evidence that their coaches were a step ahead of legacy coaches.
As I wrote in the 'Class 230' thread since 2008 all new designs have to meet the relevant requirements of the European standard EN 15227 Railway applications - Crashworthiness requirements for rail vehicles. Structural requirements for railway vehicle bodies are defined in EN 12663.

This means that currently manufactured stock for use in Europe (including the UK) is designed and tested to common standards which are applicable to new designs of:
  • locomotives,
  • driving vehicles operating in passenger and freight trains;
  • passenger rail vehicles operating in passenger service such as trams, metros or mainline trains
While the Pendolino predates these standards by a few years the standards are based on the accumulated knowledge of the railway administrations and manufacturers across Europe so designs prepared in the decade or so before the EU made the standards mandatory will be very close to meeting them.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, as Jane Austen wrote in another context, that newer designs are better than older one in ensuring survival space for drivers, train crew and passengers in the event of an accident. But standards and specifications cannot cover every single set of circumstances so outcomes will remain to a large extent a matter of chance.

But it remains that not stopping quickly gives the best outcomes...:)
 

S-Car-Go

Member
Joined
19 Mar 2019
Messages
222
In Italy, the 155mph ETR600's and ETR610 'new pendolino' - are running on the 300km/h (186mph) high-speed lines at 250km/h - (155mph) for part of their journeys. IS the Uk Pendolino's 140mph capability just software limited from the basic 155mph design?
It has a 140mph design speed, and I'm sure it it was very possible to be spec'd at 155mph by Alstom. But there were a few prohibitive things:
• Wouldn't want the increased track wear that 155 would cause, suspension would need mods.
• Additional power supply demand & cost for increased speed.
• Mods to pantographs and overhead line tensions.
• Need in-cab signalling for 140+ mph.
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
There has been significant improvements in computer modelling over the past decades as computing power increases. Same thing with cars- compare a car from the '90s with one from the '00s and one from the '10s- there's been progressive improvement in crash performance. It's worth pointing out that some of that improvement has also come from improved production techniques such as laser welding.

I have no doubt that the Pendolino has a better crash protection than a Mk.3. The technology has moved on. That does not mean that a Pendolino is better in every situation.

The Pendolinos have, along with the improvements made to the WCML, completely revolutionised the route. I live in Manchester- my friends, who are not interested in the railway whatsoever, know what a Pendolino is and like them. Part of that is due to Virgin's excellent advertising, but that only works when the product is good. The only time I've driven to London recently have been since the start of the Covid pandemic, where public transport is best avoided if possible. That kind of says it all.
 

Railperf

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
2,923
Managed to ride a few 397's recently at the Northern end of the route to compare with 390's.
From a performance point of view - what I can see is that the Pendolino's are barely any slower over the first few miles - maybe 10 seconds maximum in boost mode. Then their ability to run at enhanced speeds 15-20 mph over the non tilt rolling stock yields as much as a full minute advantage from Penrith to Carlisle for example and that is only 18 miles or so, with probably only 12 to 14 miles running at enhanced speeds once you take out the acceleration and braking zones.

I was talking to a Class 397 driver who claims to have test driven the 397's at 125mph and he claims that was done largely over the straighter sections of route. it is understood that Network Rail have to deliver some infrastructure enhancements to make 125mph possible on a day to day basis - though it wasn't clear what that would be - most probably some track realignment and increasd cant. Not sure if signal re-siting is needed as the 397's probably have brakes as good as the Pendolino's.
The current WTT is interesting though as the sectional running times are 4.5 mins slower for 397s than Pendolinos between Preston and Carlisle, yet the overall running time including station dwells is exactly the same over that stretch for both trains - 1 hour 18 mins. So Pendolino's are being assigned longer dwell times and station stops -probably for pathing purposes - remembering there are slower services using the line such as Northerns's services to Windermere and Barrow using 100mph stock that share the two-track WCML from Preston Northbound.
in that case- the extra performance seems wasted! But the WCML is clearly a far busier route than it was in 2004 when Pendolino's were being introduced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top