What Happened to all the Slam door trains?

[RichmondCommu]

And your car is?

If so, why do so many people die on the roads, even in modern cars?

Yes, my car (an Audi) has an excellent safety record. As does my wife's, which my twins are now learning to drive in. I'm not questioning the safety of the railway network, only that of the Mk 1 'slammers'. If you'd bothered to read my other posts you would have already realised that in general I agree that rail travel is a very safe method of transport. Its the 'slammers' that I have a problem with.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'm sure most people would rather be in a modern train than in a MK1 carriage during a crash, but then what's the chance of a train crash compared to a car crash?

The likelyhood of a MK1 carriage being in a fatal collision these days is quite slim. There aren't many MK1s on the mainline compared with 10 years ago. Stock out on the mainline will be protected by TPWS in the traction which is monitored with OTMR. It will also have some kind of secondary locking to reduce the chance of someone falling out of a partially-closed door. Preserved stock is limited to 25mph on preserved railways due to most preserved railways operating under a light railway order.

Even under BR, the passenger fatality rate was still lower than that for the roads, even though the designs and procedures contained elements which we would now consider to be unsafe. Someone earlier in this thread said that the rulebook is written in the blood of those killed in railway accidents. Arguably so are the blueprints and specifications for the modern trains!

 

[bronzeonion]

Crashes don't happen often enough on the railways to warrant such strict measures on crash worthiness. These days there are so many safety systems to protect the train if the driver makes a mistake or in the worst case scenario falls unconcious/dies etc. The only thing that would cause a crash would be bad track condition or if the driver isolotes safety systems.

 

[BestWestern]

Crashes don't happen often enough on the railways to warrant such strict measures on crash worthiness. These days there are so many safety systems to protect the train if the driver makes a mistake or in the worst case scenario falls unconcious/dies etc. The only thing that would cause a crash would be bad track condition or if the driver isolotes safety systems.

Generally yes, but not always. TPWS, which is the primary safety system likely to actively actively prevent an accident, is not present at all signals. Indeed there was a Categoary A SPAD some months ago in which a train passed a non-TPWS fitted signal at danger, and continued into the next section which was already occupied by another train. It was only an emergency radio broadcast which alerted the Driver to their error, and as any crew will tell you it is only pot luck if such a broadcast is actually remotely intelligible due to the often very poor reception. There could very easily have been a collision that day. Thankfully it's unlikely, but it isn't impossible.

 

[sprinterguy]

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.

The vast majority of mark 1 vehicles were not responsible for the death of any person either (And as has been said, the Clapham Junction collision was due to signal failure). They trundled through their entire lives without incident or mishap. The odds are high, nigh on certain I would think, that other cars of the same make and model as yours will have been involved in fatal accidents.

 

[jopsuk]

The "Death traps" post was a little OTT, I will admit.

But regardless of that, if they hadn't been withdrawn, I seriously doubt that the bulk of the slam door commuter stock would still be as reliable. At the very least, Central Door Locking would have had to have been fitted (as pointed out over and over again, misuse was dangerous to more than just the person misusing the door) so you'd have lost the dubious "benefits" there, replaced by a system with many possible points of failure (especially on suburban stock). The intensive use would have taken its toll, with frames approaching the end of their fatigue lives. And rather than a modern-looking commuter system around London, we'd have something resembling a giant heritage theme park.

 

[AndyLandy]

Firstly, it's completely ridiculous to assume you can categorise all modes of transport as either "safe" or "unsafe". It's not a binary choice. Mark 3 coaches are much more crash-worthy than Mark 1s, so they're "safer", but if you dropped a 747 on top of an HST set, I doubt it'd survive.

Safety is clearly a combination of both minimising risk and minimising the impact of untoward events. A modern car might be more crash-worthy than a Mark 1 carriage, but the risk of an accident occuring is still far greater on the public highways.

There have been some high-profile accidents on the railways, but these will always be subject to reporting bias. If a train crash kills scores of people, it's newsworthy at a national level. The car crashes that claim a few lives every day are rarely reported outside their local sphere.

In summary, you're much safer in a Mk1 slammer than a car.

 

[richa2002]

But I don't drive at 90 mph.

But you are purely comparing the innate safety of each vehicle rather than the manner/environment they are used in? That's the only way I can see you even attempting to justify thinking that your car is safer than travelling in a Mk1 coach day in, day out. As soon as you you take into account the manner and environment each vehicle is used in, there is literally no doubt that the Mk1 will always come on top as you are many more times likely to experience a fatal crash in your Audi than a Mk1.

 

[RobShipway]

But you are purely comparing the innate safety of each vehicle rather than the manner/environment they are used in? That's the only way I can see you even attempting to justify thinking that your car is safer than travelling in a Mk1 coach day in, day out. As soon as you you take into account the manner and environment each vehicle is used in, there is literally no doubt that the Mk1 will always come on top as you are many more times likely to experience a fatal crash in your Audi than a Mk1.

As Richard has pointed out using a Mk1 coach is safe, in the same way that under the safety regulations it is still safe to travel in a 747-100, even though it has less safety equipment onboard than the more recent 747-400.

Safety whether it is a 747 or Mk1 carriage is down to how the equipment is used and how often. Most Mk1 stock on the network, is either used by railtours on occasions or is in use by Network Rail as far as I am aware, but I am sure that I will be corrected on that point.

 

[transmanche]

Of course what we mean by the safety of a particular vehicle (either mk1 carriage or Audi car) is made of two distinct things:

• The likehood of a collision in the system that the vehicle operates
• The survivability of a collision in that vehicle

Now I think it's clear that the mk1 carriage will win on the first count.

And the second will depend greatly on the type and speed of the collision. But without subjecting a mk1 carriage to an equivalent of the EuroNCAP tests, I don't think we'll ever get a conclusive answer.

 

[DXMachina]

I drive a Volvo too

Given the choice of crashing at 70mph in my 14-foot-long Volvo or in a 64-foot-long Mk1 I'd take the train any time

Crumple zones - bigger it is, the more damage and energy-absorption can happen away from the important, vulnerable human cargo.

 

[ainsworth74]

Crumple zones - bigger it is, the more damage and energy-absorption can happen away from the important, vulnerable human cargo.

Pretty sure that Mk1s don't have crumple zones or at least areas that we'd recognise as being specifically designed to fail and protect the passenger compartment.

 

[transmanche]

Given the choice of crashing at 70mph in my 14-foot-long Volvo or in a 64-foot-long Mk1 I'd take the train any time.

Crumple zones - bigger it is, the more damage and energy-absorption can happen away from the important, vulnerable human cargo.

"No-one survived in the forward one-third length of the leading coach of the moving train, and the injuries were mainly attributed to compression of the passenger space."

"It is a recurring tribute to the safety of rail travel that it is consistently an order of magnitude greater than road travel. The casualties in this serious accident were essentially confined to two of twenty-four coaches (recognising that the third train contained no passengers), and the lesson of the event is that the integrity of passenger space should never be breached by disintegration of the main containing structure."

Appendix G para 16 and para 18 of the Hidden Report into the Clapham Junction Rail Accident.

 

[Smudger105e]

There is still one currently residing in the shed at Clapham:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40172673@N03/7471559130/

Why wasn't it renumbered 7717?

 

[Peter Sarf]

If there had not been the knee jerk reaction to rush replacememnt of the Mk1 based stock we might have had a more steady replacement of stock. As it was there was a rush to replace it all by the promised 2000 (?) deadline. This stretched the capacity of the train manufacturing industry and new designs got rushed out. There then followed a lean period which the same manfacturers have to survive. We should have spread the work over a longer period of time. Then perhaps the Junipers might have done better and we would not have opened up the doors to foreign competition.

EDIT:
I removed my rant to a new thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1219412#post1219412.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why wasn't it renumbered 7717?

I think 7717 was its old number. Got renumbered to fit in with all the newer stock and to incorporate its class number. But you are right - for that vintage livery it would have been 7717. Have to say I dont recall the window surrounds being like that. The livery looks a bit unfamiliar but might be the very first colours it had. I remember the all blue livery on SUBs, HAPs(?) and EPBs but it was always blue with a grey window band when I saw the VEPs, BEPs, CEPs, BIGs & CIGs.

 

[90019]

Then perhaps the Junipers might have done better and we would not have opened up the doors to foreign competition.

Weren't the Junipers built in Hungary?

 

[yorksrob]

I think 7717 was its old number. Got renumbered to fit in with all the newer stock and to incorporate its class number. But you are right - for that vintage livery it would have been 7717. Have to say I dont recall the window surrounds being like that. The livery looks a bit unfamiliar but might be the very first colours it had. I remember the all blue livery on SUBs, HAPs(?) and EPBs but it was always blue with a grey window band when I saw the VEPs, BEPs, CEPs, BIGs & CIGs.

I believe the first 20 or so VEP's built for the Bournemouth electrification (along with the REP-TC's) originally came out in all over blue for a short time. The subsequent builds (BIL & HAL replacement and HAP displacement) came straight out in blue/grey.

(I agree with the rant BTW).

 

[The Ham]

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.

Most cars are unlikely to have been responsible for the death of any person through a design fault, as someone once said "it's the nut behind the steering wheel that causes most accidents in cars".

The loss of the Mark 1's could be about as much to do with safety as cars having air bags. By changing there will be some lives saved but the vast majority of time the change will not noticed by most people and in fact safety starts being seen as a secondary reason as the more modern vehicles have other benefits which their users notice all the time.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Weren't the Junipers built in Hungary?

No. It was a forest in Scotland .

I thought Washwood Heath, Birmingham but your making me wonder if I am correct .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe the first 20 or so VEP's built for the Bournemouth electrification (along with the REP-TC's) originally came out in all over blue for a short time. The subsequent builds (BIL & HAL replacement and HAP displacement) came straight out in blue/grey.

(I agree with the rant BTW).

Oh gosh forgot the REPs & TCs, it was a nice version of all over blue btw.

(I was kind to this thread and moved the rant incase you/anyone was wondering)

 

[The Ham]

No. It was a forest in Scotland .

I thought Washwood Heath, Birmingham but your making me wonder if I am correct .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_458 states:
"The South West Trains (SWT) Class 458 (or 4JOP) outer-suburban electric multiple units were built by Alstom at Washwood Heath between 1998 and 2002"

 

[Peter Sarf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_458 states:
"The South West Trains (SWT) Class 458 (or 4JOP) outer-suburban electric multiple units were built by Alstom at Washwood Heath between 1998 and 2002"

Phew - Thanks.

 

[90019]

I'm sure I recall something about Hungary, but perhaps I'm thinking of something else.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh gosh forgot the REPs & TCs, it was a nice version of all over blue btw.

My only memories of the all over blue era are of a very grubby looking version on some departmental units (which was still 100 times prettier than hideous Connex grey/yellow ).

 

[BestWestern]

My only memories of the all over blue era are of a very grubby looking version on some departmental units (which was still 100 times prettier than hideous Connex grey/yellow ).

Oh but didn't the crews look smart in their circus waistcoats and comedy hats?!

 

[yorksrob]

Oh but didn't the crews look smart in their circus waistcoats and comedy hats?!

I must admit, the waistcoats were very dashing

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm sure I recall something about Hungary, but perhaps I'm thinking of something else.

IIRC that was a new C-Stock set built to replace those that were bombed in July 2005

 

[Oildropper]

Was one of the reasons for phasing out the slammers becuase they didn't have collection/holding tanks for the toilets as well?? Egahm's level crossings are certainly cleaner since their demise!

 

[jopsuk]

I don't think so- the 317/321 fleets (among others) have no holding tanks.

 

[BestWestern]

Was one of the reasons for phasing out the slammers becuase they didn't have collection/holding tanks for the toilets as well?? Egahm's level crossings are certainly cleaner since their demise!

I don't think that would have been a major issue in the early-mid 2000's when they were being phased out, it would only have become a matter requiring attention if the units had remained in use for another ten years or so. Much poop still gets dumped on the track up and down the network!

 

[RichmondCommu]

The vast majority of mark 1 vehicles were not responsible for the death of any person either (And as has been said, the Clapham Junction collision was due to signal failure). They trundled through their entire lives without incident or mishap. The odds are high, nigh on certain I would think, that other cars of the same make and model as yours will have been involved in fatal accidents.

Can I suggest that you make the effort to read a copy of the Hidden report before commenting on the Clapham rail disaster? As one of the survivors on that fateful morning of the 12.12.88, take it from me that those mark 1 vehicles failed to protect their passengers and undoubtedly increased the death toll. Take a look at the pictures taken that day and maybe you will come round to my point of view. Either that or PM me for a personal account of how robust the mark 1 coaches were that morning.