• 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!

Watford train crash 1996

Status
Not open for further replies.

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,651
According to the new EMU handbook by platform five publishing two class 321s were involved and new coaches were built in 1997... Which is several years after the 321s were built

Where were they built? Were they designed exactly the same?

319418 and 321420 were involved both now working for great northern... 321420 was formed from new vehicles taking the same numbers as those written off
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,723
Location
Epsom
The new vehicles were carbon copies to the exact original specification.

321 418 consists of all the undamaged original vehicles; 321 420 is completely new build.

I am not sure where the replacement vehicles were built, but the originals were all built at York.
 

MK Tom

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
2,421
Location
Milton Keynes
At least one driving trailer was built using the original spare vehicle, and a new spare vehicle now resides at Doncaster.

This is somewhat similar to how new C-stock vehicles were built in 2006 after the London bombings, some three to four decades after the rest of the class.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,660
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
At least one driving trailer was built using the original spare vehicle, and a new spare vehicle now resides at Doncaster.

This is somewhat similar to how new C-stock vehicles were built in 2006 after the London bombings, some three to four decades after the rest of the class.

Does beg the question, why was a replacement vehicle not constructed for the class 365 driving car written off at Potters Bar?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
9,993
Different approaches are taken for different incidents where vehicles are destroyed. Ready availability of the tooling to build a replacement is a key aspect, along with the form of construction and how "co-operative" the original manufacturer is with it (obviously not a problem with BR trains built in BR workshops).

Even with similar circumstances there can be different ways of doing things. For example, on the Southern Electric in WW2 a significant number of both the 2-car 2BIL and the 4-car express 4COR were destroyed. The 2-car units were replaced by a new build of units to post-war different design, numbered separately, while the 4-car express unit vehicles were replaced like-for-like, same car units in the same set numbers, in a way that you would never know which were pre- or post-war construction.

There was considerable surprise at the number of Pendolino cars written off in the Grayrigg derailment, given the scale of damage actually incurred, and comparing this to other accidents of this scale.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,992
There was considerable surprise at the number of Pendolino cars written off in the Grayrigg derailment, given the scale of damage actually incurred, and comparing this to other accidents of this scale.
Could possibly have strengthened one or two more 9-car 390's to 11-car formations with the vehicles?
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
Does beg the question, why was a replacement vehicle not constructed for the class 365 driving car written off at Potters Bar?

By then, the 365 no longer met regulations and a new build driving car would not be covered under grandfather rights.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,719
Location
Nottingham
There was considerable surprise at the number of Pendolino cars written off in the Grayrigg derailment, given the scale of damage actually incurred, and comparing this to other accidents of this scale.

I wonder if that had something to do with the deformable body ends, which didn't save any lives (the report said so) but perhaps were deformed beyond economic repair?

The 455 car that was squashed by a cement mixer falling off a bridge was replaced by a bodyshell they found somewhere that was left over from the class 210.
 
Last edited:

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
904
Remember that the class 325's were being built around that time so it would have been very easy to built new body shells as they were identical apart from the cabs..
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,511
Location
Redcar
I wonder if that had something to do with the deformable body ends, which didn't save any lives (the report said so) but perhaps were deformed beyond economic repair?

That's my understanding. Whilst they didn't appear to be particularly badly dinged up by the accident the way they were designed to deal with the stresses of an accident meant that it would be very expensive (and difficult) to make them safe to use again. I also believe this is linked to the way that the 390 vehicles were constructed as well (something to do with extruding aluminium rather than welding I think).
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
9,993
By then, the 365 no longer met regulations and a new build driving car would not be covered under grandfather rights.
Then you order a "heavy repair" rather than a new build.

Regarding having to write off Pendolino vehicles that look pretty much intact but are in fact beyond repair, that's just poor design which has failed to take repairability into account. There are Mk 3 vehicles, particularly from their early days on the WCML, which sustained a much harder smash than Grayrigg, still protected everyone inside nicely, and were repaired afterwards. These things happen from time to time and some designers seem more aware of this than others, and some purchasers less able than others to spot the error at the design stage. Deformable body ends are fine, but thought should be given to how to replace them when they have served their deforming purpose.
 
Last edited:

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,765
Location
Herts
The new vehicles were carbon copies to the exact original specification.

321 418 consists of all the undamaged original vehicles; 321 420 is completely new build.

I am not sure where the replacement vehicles were built, but the originals were all built at York.

Some of 321 420 was "new" - from memory - the second vehicle came off worse with body impact. (I will not go into details - but was closely involved in the mishap and recovery of the service) - the repair work was done at Wolverton. Some 310's were hired in for a while from Central Trains - then a 322 for about a year.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,596
Location
Croydon
Then you order a "heavy repair" rather than a new build.

Regarding having to write off Pendolino vehicles that look pretty much intact but are in fact beyond repair, that's just poor design which has failed to take repairability into account. There are Mk 3 vehicles, particularly from their early days on the WCML, which sustained a much harder smash than Grayrigg, still protected everyone inside nicely, and were repaired afterwards. These things happen from time to time and some designers seem more aware of this than others, and some purchasers less able than others to spot the error at the design stage. Deformable body ends are fine, but thought should be given to how to replace them when they have served their deforming purpose.

Deformable areas of vehicles does not affect the railways alone. Modern cars are designed to deform at the ends and the result is they are more likely to be a write off after moderate collisions that older cars might merely have needed a new bumper for.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,668
Location
Scotland
Regarding having to write off Pendolino vehicles that look pretty much intact but are in fact beyond repair, that's just poor design which has failed to take repairability into account.
Or it's a good design that takes into account the fact that accidents of any type are are rare, so trades reduced repairability after an infrequent minor accident for increased energy dissipation in an infrequent major accident.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
904
...and for some reason it's painted in Barbie livery, something the rest of fGE's 321's never received. A test perhaps?

Pic: http://www.mattypsrailwaypics.com/uploads/9/3/9/5/9395206/9886513_orig.jpg

A quick look at that picture tells me that that may have been one of the damaged vehicles that has been "sort of" repaired.

I had a look through the magazines I have from the time but can not find any mention of new bodies being built.

I still think that the "new" 321 shells came from the 325 line..

The 325's are, after all, 319/321's with different cabs and the windows plated over. The last all steel body from York was the 321/9 so must have been built at Derby.

As far as I know there is no way of repairing extruded aluminium panels.

On a 170 you can just bolt on a new side panel between the doors but on a pendo it would mean replacing the whole body length panel.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,284
Location
Isle of Man
Regarding having to write off Pendolino vehicles that look pretty much intact but are in fact beyond repair, that's just poor design which has failed to take repairability into account.

Writing something off doesn't mean it can't be repaired, it just means that it's uneconomical to repair it. Obviously Alstom still had the jigs set up for the Pendolino as they were able to build new ones for Virgin, so that will affect whether it is more economical to repair or replace. I imagine most of the train could have been repaired, and relatively easily, but that it was cheaper to ask Alstom to build new carriages.

It's the same with cars. It isn't that modern cars are harder to repair, it's that depreciation together with the lower cost of newer cars means that it's often cheaper to write off and replace than repair.
 
Last edited:
Joined
27 Feb 2007
Messages
276
that's just poor design which has failed to take repairability into account.

Or a deliberate ploy to steer the TOC towards buying a new vehicle/train which is likely to be more lucrative for the manufacturer than repairing a damaged one.
 

NSE

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Messages
1,727
A quick look at that picture tells me that that may have been one of the damaged vehicles that has been "sort of" repaired.

I had a look through the magazines I have from the time but can not find any mention of new bodies being built.

I still think that the "new" 321 shells came from the 325 line..

The 325's are, after all, 319/321's with different cabs and the windows plated over. The last all steel body from York was the 321/9 so must have been built at Derby.

As far as I know there is no way of repairing extruded aluminium panels.

On a 170 you can just bolt on a new side panel between the doors but on a pendo it would mean replacing the whole body length panel.

Which is why the earlier suggestion of replacing the damaged 365 with a 325 car wouldn't work. Its not a networker body.
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
Then you order a "heavy repair" rather than a new build.

Regarding having to write off Pendolino vehicles that look pretty much intact but are in fact beyond repair, that's just poor design which has failed to take repairability into account. …

One of the things with a modern monocoque energy absorbing design is that they are intended to "look pretty much intact", but there are hidden parts of the structure which deform in addition to the visible damage. Once those areas have deformed, the structural integrity is gone unless you find every single one and replace them perfectly to their "as new" state. It's not necessarily even as simple as cutting off the ends and welding new ones on, as there could be small amounts of structural damage along the entire length of the vehicle. Another feature of monocoque design is that anything which has twisted (rather than crushed) in the process of absorbing the energy can't just be straightened, as doing so leaves you with a structure that is still weaker than designed. Monocoque designs are excellent for achieving maximum strength for the weight, but any serious deformations, twisting, over-stressing, etc compromises the strength of the entire vehicle, and very easily becomes so costly to repair that it's just more economic to scrap and build new.

It's a trade off between excellent crash survivability, repairability, weight, and cost. The demonstrated survivability is excellent design, and the inability to repair tells you very little about the quality of the design. If you wanted a design offering that level of crash survivability as well as repairability, it would very likely need to be much heavier and more expensive. The safety benefits combined with the infrequency of major damage makes it a reasonable design choice.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,660
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
One of the things with a modern monocoque energy absorbing design is that they are intended to "look pretty much intact", but there are hidden parts of the structure which deform in addition to the visible damage. Once those areas have deformed, the structural integrity is gone unless you find every single one and replace them perfectly to their "as new" state. It's not necessarily even as simple as cutting off the ends and welding new ones on, as there could be small amounts of structural damage along the entire length of the vehicle. Another feature of monocoque design is that anything which has twisted (rather than crushed) in the process of absorbing the energy can't just be straightened, as doing so leaves you with a structure that is still weaker than designed. Monocoque designs are excellent for achieving maximum strength for the weight, but any serious deformations, twisting, over-stressing, etc compromises the strength of the entire vehicle, and very easily becomes so costly to repair that it's just more economic to scrap and build new.

It's a trade off between excellent crash survivability, repairability, weight, and cost. The demonstrated survivability is excellent design, and the inability to repair tells you very little about the quality of the design. If you wanted a design offering that level of crash survivability as well as repairability, it would very likely need to be much heavier and more expensive. The safety benefits combined with the infrequency of major damage makes it a reasonable design choice.

All of that is perfectly acceptable, however with this form of construction there should be some spare bodyshells constructed. In the case of Potters Bar an entire 4-car train was lost when only one vehicle received significant damage - my understanding is two of the remaining vehicles were not damaged at all, and a third only slightly. I'm not convinced the form of construction made any difference in this case, as I doubt a steel vehicle would have been reconstructed following a severe 100 mph derailment.

Regardless of the costs of replacement, in the long term this has left the railway one unit down, if one additional 365 were available today then this would likely be one further peak-time train lengthened from 4 to 8 or 8 to 12 carriages. I can think of a number of working into and out of KX where this extra capacity would be welcome.

On the subject of 365526, does anyone know where the surviving car is now located? I presume it is retained as a spare bodyshell.
 
Last edited:
Joined
27 Feb 2007
Messages
276
there should be some spare bodyshells constructed

At whose expense? The travelling public? An altruistic and not-too-concerned-about-profit ROSCO? Should Network Rail also contribute in case their track/infrastructure causes the damage/destruction?
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,992
At whose expense? The travelling public? An altruistic and not-too-concerned-about-profit ROSCO? Should Network Rail also contribute in case their track/infrastructure causes the damage/destruction?
I didn't know a spare Class 321 bodyshell had been built, but there was a spare Class 158 bodyshell (used in the 1990s) and a spare Class 165 bodyshell (not sure what happened to that one) built.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
Remember that the class 325's were being built around that time so it would have been very easy to built new body shells as they were identical apart from the cabs..

This was my thought earlier in the year when the spare got moved to Doncaster. They are the only similar build at the time. Infact, the spare shell has the inner end gangway blocked up in the same way as the 325 vehicles.

...and for some reason it's painted in Barbie livery, something the rest of fGE's 321's never received. A test perhaps?

It was to illustrate how the 360s would look when delivered IIRC.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
904
I didn't know a spare Class 321 bodyshell had been built, but there was a spare Class 158 bodyshell (used in the 1990s) and a spare Class 165 bodyshell (not sure what happened to that one) built.

IIRC there was 2 spare 158 shells. One was used to replace the car destroyed at stockport in 1992-3 (the new one using the same number 52861 IIRC) The other was still at Crewe works in original livery till recently I believe.

I think the "spare" 165 shell was infact a prototype shell, built to iron out any problems before full production started (same was done for the 465's). Both were prob scrapped when ABB shut York works..

On the subject of 390 shells. There was an article in Todays Railways Europe in 2013 showing the production of the new 390 sets and extra coaches in Italy. There was one pic of a 390 car with a major hole in it right about were the Virgin logo would be (hit by forklift I think).

Wonder if it was fixed or scrapped??
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top