Completely agree. There are one or two people posting some incredibly bizarre, illogical views about how 'dangerous' certain trains are, yet if those people travel in almost any road vehicle they are far more likely to come to harm than if they had travelled on one of the trains they consider 'death traps'. But do they call their own vehicles 'death traps'? No? Well, they should do, by their own logic!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
What Happened to all the Slam door trains?
- Thread starter northernrail2009
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
RichmondCommu
Established Member
For what its worth every car I've owned has been considerably safer than a Mk1 coach. That didn't stop me using slammers to commute into Waterloo but after the Clapham disaster I never felt entirely safe. However, like many others I had little or no choice. The good news is that modern trains are far safer than their predecessors and that has to be a good thing.
Last edited:
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Interesting, considering you're also trusting:
- the guy who did your MOT for you
- the guy who you bought your car second-hand from, to make sure it wasn't falling apart
- those group of pedestrians who look like they might jump out in front of you
- the person driving the car coming the other way
- the person who taught you how to drive, that they taught you the correct way!
- the people who built your car and built the robots that built your car
- the people who built the road surface, bridges, structures etc
etc etcif you think about it, with the regular checks that take place on the railways, a lot less can theoretically (and in real life!) go wrong
I don't honestly think the vast majority of people would consider any of those elements when undertaking a journey at the wheel of their car, with the exception of the pedestrians and other drivers. The point really is that when you use the road you are venturing out into an environment where you must take responsibility for yourself and, to a degree, others. When you board a train you sit down (if you're lucky!) and read the paper/stare out of the window/blast offensive crap music out of your headphones etc, and give no thought to the mechanics of your journey - it is simply somebody else's job to get you where you are going.
Try telling the Police that the condition of your car is the responsibility of the guy who MOT'd it last month, or the bloke you bought it from last year!
Harbon 1
Member
Mk4s had two major accidents, should they be labeled 'death traps'?
'A British Rail carriage is statistically the safest place to be' and I'm guessing that was written whilst the slammers were still going.
'A British Rail carriage is statistically the safest place to be' and I'm guessing that was written whilst the slammers were still going.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
No, because the design of the Mk4's was not a contributing factor to the loss of life.
No because unlike the Mk1s the strength of the Mk4s was identified as being a reason that the casualties were so low (in comparison with previous accidents). Mk3s have also been praised in the aftermath of accidents for their structural integrity helping to minimise casualties, indeed the only major criticism I can recall is in the choice of window material being on the weak side (toughened glass in all windows rather than just emergency egress windows and laminated glass everywhere else).
I think we're in the realms of cloud cuckoo land here. Given all of the uncontrolled/unknown factors operating on the public highway, there is no way any car is safer than any train.
John55
Member
So a train doing 70 mph driven into the path of a train doing 120mph is a safer place to be than my Volvo driving down the road at 30 mph?
Please don't make ridiculous generalisations.
The train is considerably less likely to come into the path of another train doing 120mph than your volvo is likely to come into the path of a truck doing 70mph.
Rich McLean
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,706
The Signalling system is designed to prevent collisions. If the block section on the track is occupied ahead, the signal will show danger, and if a train passes it, the brakes come on. In a car, if you through a set of traffic lights on red, there are no emergency breaks.
The fact is, trains and the rail infrastructure have far far more safety systems than a car, which thus makes them safer. If we are comparing the age and design of old trains to new cars, then yes, those cars would be built to a higher safety standard, but you are missing the point that with all the safety systems on the railway, it beats the car in overall safety
The fact is, trains and the rail infrastructure have far far more safety systems than a car, which thus makes them safer. If we are comparing the age and design of old trains to new cars, then yes, those cars would be built to a higher safety standard, but you are missing the point that with all the safety systems on the railway, it beats the car in overall safety
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I suspect we agree that Mk3 and Mk4 carriages are safer than Mk1 carrieges.
But I believe that it does not follow that Mk1 carriages are less safe than cars. The fact that Mk1s could be replaced by a safer coach does not necessarily mean it was the sole justification for doing so. If that was the case I suggest the money could have been better spent on road safety. The fact is the coaches were old anyway and needed replacement for all sorts of reasons. Railways are inherently safer so there is less need to rely on the vehicle on the railway being as crashworhty as a road vehicle.
The result of a lorry colliding with a modern car would be very similar to the worst results of two 1950s/1960s mark one coaches colliding at the same speed but the road collision is more likely to happen is it not ?.
The slammers were replaced because they were worn out old technology. If they were so dangerous they would have been replaced earlier in their roughly 45 year life.
But I believe that it does not follow that Mk1 carriages are less safe than cars. The fact that Mk1s could be replaced by a safer coach does not necessarily mean it was the sole justification for doing so. If that was the case I suggest the money could have been better spent on road safety. The fact is the coaches were old anyway and needed replacement for all sorts of reasons. Railways are inherently safer so there is less need to rely on the vehicle on the railway being as crashworhty as a road vehicle.
The result of a lorry colliding with a modern car would be very similar to the worst results of two 1950s/1960s mark one coaches colliding at the same speed but the road collision is more likely to happen is it not ?.
The slammers were replaced because they were worn out old technology. If they were so dangerous they would have been replaced earlier in their roughly 45 year life.
Yorksrob is not making "ridiculous generalisations" but is actually stating what is statistically factual. If there's a ridiculous post here, it's not by him!
Statistically, you are more likely to come to harm in your car than in any train, and that is indisputable fact. Let's say I decide to do a railtour next Saturday that is 300 miles on a Mk1. That will be statistically much safer than you taking a 300 mile trip in your car, even if your car is a relatively safe model and even if the car is driven well.
John55
Member
Statistics are generalised information covering for example every road journey made in the UK in a given year or every rail journey. They tell you nothing about a particular journey or a particular vehicle in which you travel. From statistics you can quite fairly state the probability is that a journey on a train is safer than the same journey in a car. But you cannot state any journey in a train is safer than any journey in a car or that any train is safer than any car.
The comment I did not like was "Given all of the uncontrolled/unknown factors operating on the public highway, there is no way any car is safer than any train." I then gave an example of a train which was unsafe compared to any car to illustrate my thinking.
The comment above was the third of three very poorly thought out statements by the poster who to me appeared to be trying to justify an anti-car viewpoint without thinking about what he was saying having adopting a "rail must be good, car must be bad" mind set. I dislike this kind of attitude as it leads to people forgetting to think through the risks involved in any activity and assuming things. For a very real and relevant example of assumption killing people see this article from Modern Railways in 2000. http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/s...VE/INF SRCS 2000/Informed Sources 10 2000.htm
I have no doubt that travelling by train is much safer than by car but there will be road journeys were you are in a safe vehicle on a safe road with a safe driver were the risk is lower than for the worst case train journey.
The risk of death in a car is only 3 to 4 times greater for a car user than for a train user (depending on how you express it)*. So it is unreasonable to expect every aspect of train travel to be safer than every aspect of road travel.
*Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2011 - DfT
The competence of the driver is only one aspect though. Even in a "safe" vehicle on a "safe" road, you are still at the mercy of other road users. This is why the train (certainly in this country) is always safer.
John55
Member
Please read my post.
I have.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Given that your natural habitat is apparently the standard class compartment of a Mk 1 'slammer' it's inevitable that your judgment is going to be clouded. After what I witnessed on the 12.12.88 there was no doubt in my mind that the Volvo that I owned at time was a damn sight safer than the train I caught that morning. To argue against the facts does you no favors.
Although I would most certainly agree that todays railways are safer than travelling by road, to try and suggest that the Mk 1's were safe is absolute nonsense. British Rail's excellent safety record is the only reason why your beloved Mk 1's did not send more customers to their graves.
I would argue that it is your judgement that is clouded.
For your entire argument to work, you have to look at one aspect of transport alone (build of vehicle) and ignore all of the others, such as signalling, professionalism (or lack in the case road transport) of drivers, maintenance of vehicles etc.
Has it not occured to you that British Rail's excellent safety record (from expertise garnered over more than a century of running a railway) is one of the reasons why the railway, then as now, is and was safer than any part of the public highway.
Feel free to continue arguing that black is white, if it makes you feel better when you drive onto a highway with barely any safety systems..
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Four paragraphs and you have not mentioned the safety record of the Mk 1's, not to mention that the signalling system was completely screwed on the 12.12.88 (who's to say that it wouldn't happen again?) As I have already stated, if it wasn't for British Rail's excellent safety record the Mk 1's would have taken even more lives. You may conveniently choose to ignore this but many others haven't. To paper over the facts as you continue to do beggars belief. There is nothing wrong with showing enthusiasm for certain trains but ignoring the facts is plain wrong.
At no stage in this thread have I ever denied that more modern trains are structurally safer in an accident than older ones (Mk1's included).
At no time have I ever suggested that Mk 1's should have been replaced by new Mk 1's or any train not build to modern crashworthyness standards at the end of their time.
What beggars belief is that some people are incapable of accepting that even if the railway were entirely composed of Mk 1 carriages, it would still be a far safer form of transport than the public highway. Modern trains are safer in terms of crashworthyness than Mk1's. That is a fact. Mk 1's were safer in terms of crashworthyness than the wooden framed coaching stock that they replaced. That is also a fact.
None of these facts add up to the railway being "unsafe" either when Mk 1's were around or before. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, drivel.
It's not Yorksrob who is "ignoring the facts"!
It is unlikely that a signalling error of the sort that occurred at Clapham Jn will occur again.
However I can absolutely guarantee (sadly) that cars will crash tomorrow, and even cars that you may well consider "safe" will not be able to fully protect their occupants (however safe you consider them to be), and people will lose their lives as a result.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
And yet you still continue to avoid the principal issue here; was the design of the Mk 1's a contributing factor in the disaster that led to the deaths of 35 customers? Please remember that you are not a member of the cabinet and lets put a stop to all this spin; a yes or no answer is all that is required here.
I agree entirely Yorkie. And that's pretty much all I have left to say on the matter.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
So in other words you refuse to accept the fact that the Mk 1's were unsafe. Well they do say that love is blind.
But do you accept that cars, including yours, are unsafe?
Are you actually disagreeing that statistically I'm safer doing a day out on a Mk1 railtour than you are doing a day out, covering the same mileage, by car?
RichmondCommu
Established Member
But do you accept that cars, including yours, are unsafe?
How do you define unsafe? My current car (an Audi) has to my knowledge not been responsible for the death of any person's through a design fault.
Last edited:
Harbon 1
Member
Clapham wasn't due to a 'design fault'; the signals failed
richa2002
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 2,282
Hmm, crash an Audi at 90mph or a Mk1 at 90mph? I don't fancy your chances of surviving in either to be honest.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
But I don't drive at 90 mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes, but the Mk 1's were not strong enough in protecting passengers from injury / death.
And your car is?
If so, why do so many people die on the roads, even in modern cars?
- Status