ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[kkong]

Have the mini-HSTs been tested on the Inverness route yet?

Oops, never mind.

 

[reddragon]

HSTs should have been removed from the National Rail network when Voyagers were introduced. HSTs are un-crashworthy, slow, bumpy and very old fashioned now, Elton John & Kiki Dee were in the charts when they were introduced!

HSTs, well Mk 3s have proven themselves to have excellent crashworthyness in real crashes with minimal casualties, they are faster than class 800s on diesel and hold the diesel world speed record and ride better than voyagers & class 800s.

I'd prefer to keep the HSTs with new doors and let Scotrail have the class 800s if it wasn't for the electrification.

 

[MG11]

HSTs, well Mk 3s have proven themselves to have excellent crashworthyness in real crashes with minimal casualties, they are faster than class 800s on diesel and hold the diesel world speed record and ride better than voyagers & class 800s.

I'd prefer to keep the HSTs with new doors and let Scotrail have the class 800s if it wasn't for the electrification.

Crashworthiness is my main concern regarding HSTs. Southall proved that, although the MK3s are an improvement on earlier stock, they are still easily twisted, and such twisting sadly caused loss of life.
I know that the HSTs will not acheive their top speeds with ScotRail, but it's more of a case of them being exposed tomthe risk by other units on e network. Even if the HST is stood still, on the National Rail network, it is at risk of being hit by another train, which could prove pulverising for the HST stock. I kniw that rail crash statistics or low, but IF an incident did occur, I fear the vehicles may not protect passengers as well as other stock.

 

[reddragon]

Crashworthiness is my main concern regarding HSTs. Southall proved that, although the MK3s are an improvement on earlier stock, they are still easily twisted, and such twisting sadly caused loss of life.
I know that the HSTs will not acheive their top speeds with ScotRail, but it's more of a case of them being exposed tomthe risk by other units on e network. Even if the HST is stood still, on the National Rail network, it is at risk of being hit by another train, which could prove pulverising for the HST stock. I kniw that rail crash statistics or low, but IF an incident did occur, I fear the vehicles may not protect passengers as well as other stock.

The mark 4s fared worse in crashes, as did a class 165 versus a HST. 90t of power car each end helps!

The lack of crashes in the latest units prevents any real world rather than theoretical comparisons.

 

[AndrewE]

Crashworthiness is my main concern regarding HSTs. Southall proved that, although the MK3s are an improvement on earlier stock, they are still easily twisted, and such twisting sadly caused loss of life.
I know that the HSTs will not acheive their top speeds with ScotRail, but it's more of a case of them being exposed tomthe risk by other units on e network.Even if the HST is stood still, on the National Rail network, it is at risk of being hit by another train, which could prove pulverising for the HST stock. I kniw that rail crash statistics or low, but IF an incident did occur, I fear the vehicles may not protect passengers as well as other stock.

I very much doubt that Mk3s are "easily twisted" but (leaving that aside) everyone on board any of the trains involved in a crash is at
far less risk of injury or death than if they had been travelling by any other mode of transport, apart from walking on a footpath through a field perhaps.

 

[43096]

Crashworthiness is my main concern regarding HSTs. Southall proved that, although the MK3s are an improvement on earlier stock, they are still easily twisted, and such twisting sadly caused loss of life.
I know that the HSTs will not acheive their top speeds with ScotRail, but it's more of a case of them being exposed tomthe risk by other units on e network. Even if the HST is stood still, on the National Rail network, it is at risk of being hit by another train, which could prove pulverising for the HST stock. I kniw that rail crash statistics or low, but IF an incident did occur, I fear the vehicles may not protect passengers as well as other stock.

I can't decide if you are a troll or just generally clueless.

Go and have a look at photos of the 1986 Colwich Junction crash - 100mph near head on collision - and explain the crashworthiness of Mark 3s.

By your logic, does this mean that all A320s are unsafe? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

 

[BRX]

I can't decide if you are a troll or just generally clueless.

This is what I've been wondering too!

My understanding is that the Mk 3 is regarded as having a very good level of crashworthiness.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Crashworthiness is my main concern regarding HSTs. Southall proved that, although the MK3s are an improvement on earlier stock, they are still easily twisted, and such twisting sadly caused loss of life.
I know that the HSTs will not acheive their top speeds with ScotRail, but it's more of a case of them being exposed tomthe risk by other units on e network. Even if the HST is stood still, on the National Rail network, it is at risk of being hit by another train, which could prove pulverising for the HST stock. I kniw that rail crash statistics or low, but IF an incident did occur, I fear the vehicles may not protect passengers as well as other stock.

Disagree, the HST coach being twisted was the equivalent of a car being manipulated by a skip. The skip will always win. It could've been a 390 involved and the result will be the same. Mk3s aren't perfect, and aren't quite as safe as some more modern stock, but there are much worse places to be if the **** hits the fan.

 

[mcmad]

Mk3s aren't perfect, and aren't quite as safe as some more modern stock, but there are much worse places to be if the **** hits the fan.

I suppose the issue is that given most of the 'not modern' stock is being pensioned off in the next 5 or so years, what exactly will be left that is less safe than a mk3?

There will be some 156/8 around but their relative crashworthness is largely untested, next oldest? 170's???

I'm not disagreeing that a mk3 isn't a bad place to be when it all goes wrong but realistically it must be getting towards the bottom of the pile now

 

[edwin_m]

There has been some concern about the structural integrity of the early welded aluminium 158s and Networkers, as the welding technique used by Brel at the time resulted in some weakening of the metal around the welds. The disintegration of the Networker coach at Ladbroke Grove could be seen as evidence of that, although that probably wasn't survivable regardless of structure and the steel DVT at Great Heck didn't do much better. However as mentioned there are so few collisions these days that it shouldn't really be a concern. The "Star" units and I presume the Averntra have their main body sections bolted instead of welded together, and Hitachi use friction stir welding which apparently doesn't have this sort of problem.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

HSTs should have been removed from the National Rail network when Voyagers were introduced. HSTs are un-crashworthy, slow, bumpy and very old fashioned now, Elton John & Kiki Dee were in the charts when they were introduced!

I agree totally.

 

[GusB]

I agree totally.

I doubt you would be agreeing totally if they provided the FULL first-class service. Or would it need a Virgin logo stuck on the side in order to completely meet your expectations?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I doubt you would be agreeing totally if they provided the FULL first-class service. Or would it need a Virgin logo stuck on the side in order to completely meet your expectations?

No, I just don’t hate Voyagers. HSTs are nice but pretty ancient and I feel unsafe on them because of how uncrashworthy they are.

Ignoring the Virgin comment.

 

[Domh245]

HSTs are nice but pretty ancient and I feel unsafe on them because of how uncrashworthy they are.

How did you get to the station the last time you used an HST (or any train for that matter)?

 

[GusB]

Yes, HSTs are fairly old, but they've all now been re-engined to an extent that they're considered to be modern trains. As far as the coaches are concerned, any train can be refurbished to bring it into line with "modern" trains. Perhaps they don't stand up to our modern standards as far as crashworthiness is concerned, but any object travelling at high speed hitting another is bound to have some catastrophic consequences, whether it was built in 1976 or 2006. What's important is that lessons are learned in order to prevent any collisions happening in the first place.

 

[najaB]

HSTs are nice but pretty ancient and I feel unsafe on them because of how uncrashworthy they are.

If you feel unsafe in a HST you must be a quivering wreck when you're on a bus or in a car.

 

[AndrewE]

HSTs are ... pretty ancient and I feel unsafe on them because of how uncrashworthy they are.

Fake news! (aka lies, crap or bull****)
Our juvenile contributors don't seem to have any concept of relative risk, or any idea how many million (billion, 10s of billions?) of passenger miles must have been travelled on Mk 3 stock with relatively few injuries. I agree that is partly down to the rest of the railway safety system, but there is enough evidence to show that you are better off in a train, especially something post-Mk1 than any road or light rail vehicle if there is a prang of some sort. I would challenge you to find anything not on a railway line that is anywhere near as crashworthy!

 

[philthetube]

The powercars aren't getting sanders. A new driver's seat, forward facing CCTV camera and modifications to incorporate a traction interlock circuit (for the power doors) are the only modifications. We've been told that sanders won't be necessary because the short sets won't weigh as much as the VTEC 2+9s so adhesion "won't be an issue"...

I admit I don't really know what I am talking about on this one but I would have thought that a heavy train would do better than a lighter one on slippery rails

 

[delt1c]

No, I just don’t hate Voyagers. HSTs are nice but pretty ancient and I feel unsafe on them because of how uncrashworthy they are.

Ignoring the Virgin comment.

Could you give us the facts that you base your post on, profesional investigations, official papers and links.
I gather then if you feel that HST's are so unsafe you don't travel on them or MkIII's, if so how do you know they are nice trains?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Could you give us the facts that you base your post on, profesional investigations, official papers and links.
I gather then if you feel that HST's are so unsafe you don't travel on them or MkIII's, if so how do you know they are nice trains?

I do travel on them, quite regularly but it always gets me worried because of the high number of fatalities occurred when HST incidents have happened in the past.

 

[47271]

Unless anyone has an example I've forgotten, did the mk3 coach as used in HSTs not operate without a single passenger fatality between 1976 and the mid 1990s, and possibly even nothing before Southall? And this was in an era when trains crashed far more often than they do now. So I think we need to get this in perspective.

Probably the best reference for this discussion is the official report into the 2004 Ufton level crossing crash. There are several points made which recognise that the mk3 doesn't meet modern standards, so those worrying about this have a tiny argument to make I suppose.

But remember the last passenger fatality we had was in 2007, and that was on a Pendolino.

 

[MG11]

Unless anyone has an example I've forgotten, did the mk3 coach as used in HSTs not operate without a single passenger fatality between 1976 and the mid 1990s, and possibly even nothing before Southall? And this was in an era when trains crashed far more often than they do now. So I think we need to get this in perspective.

Probably the best reference for this discussion is the official report into the 2004 Ufton level crossing crash. There are several points made which recognise that the mk3 doesn't meet modern standards, so those worrying about this have a tiny argument to make I suppose.

But remember the last passenger fatality we had was in 2007, and that was on a Pendolino.

The Grayrigg accident was unique, because the Pendolino tipped over. Unless passengers are physically strapped to their seats, then even the most crashworthy and solid train would have fatalities and/or serious injuries in an accident like that. If you look at images of the Great Heck tragedy, which is similar to Southall, as the train had a head on collision with a freight train also, the MK4 coaches retained their structure much better than the MK3s.

For an example on a different type of collision, look at images of when a HST hit a tree branch (FGW) and compare it to when a Class 222 hit a steel crane in Leicestershire last year. Both were at similar speeds and both involved contact with the upper cab area of the train. The HST ended up with the tree inside the cab, yet the 222 structure prevented the crane, which is considerably heavier than a branch, from entering the interior of the cab, and unit 222005 was back in service in no time at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do travel on them, quite regularly but it always gets me worried because of the high number of fatalities occurred when HST incidents have happened in the past.

A number of those accidents have involved closing speeds that a Pendolino wouldn't stand up to either.

 

[najaB]

I admit I don't really know what I am talking about on this one but I would have thought that a heavy train would do better than a lighter one on slippery rails

Same amount of tractive effort available, less dead load to move = less likely to slip and slide.

 

[najaB]

I do travel on them, quite regularly but it always gets me worried because of the high number of fatalities occurred when HST incidents have happened in the past.

NUmber of people killed last year in accidents involving HSTs: 0
Number of people killed last year in transport accidents not involving a HST: 1764

You really need to find something else to worry about.

 

[47271]

Anyway, the Ufton report makes it official that HSTs are slightly less crashworthy than modern stock. Point noted, can we move on to discuss Scotrail HSTs please?

 

[BRX]

Number of people killed last year in transport accidents not involving a HST: 1764

And 24,000 seriously injured.

 

[Domh245]

For an example on a different type of collision, look at images of when a HST hit a tree branch (FGW) and compare it to when a Class 222 hit a steel crane in Leicestershire last year. Both were at similar speeds and both involved contact with the upper cab area of the train. The HST ended up with the tree inside the cab, yet the 222 structure prevented the crane, which is considerably heavier than a branch, from entering the interior of the cab, and unit 222005 was back in service in no time at all.

It is worth pointing out that a) a trussed steel structure is far more likely to deform than a massive lump of wood.

and b) the crash methods for a class 43 are likely to have been far less stringent than those used for the mk3s. The power car (not carrying any passengers) was essentially seen as a large and complicated energy absorbing structure to protect the coaches, as far as I'm aware

 

[sprinterguy]

Same amount of tractive effort available, less dead load to move = less likely to slip and slide.

There's a difference between weight of train and weight of the locomotive, though, hence why the designers of steam locomotives put so much thought into ensuring that sufficient weight was carried by the driving axles, to ensure maximum adhesion. Lightweight units such as the 323s are notoriously skittish in low adhesion conditions. In general, more weight on the driving axles, rather than behind the drawbar, does improve adhesion.

For an example on a different type of collision, look at images of when a HST hit a tree branch (FGW) and compare it to when a Class 222 hit a steel crane in Leicestershire last year. Both were at similar speeds and both involved contact with the upper cab area of the train. The HST ended up with the tree inside the cab, yet the 222 structure prevented the crane, which is considerably heavier than a branch, from entering the interior of the cab, and unit 222005 was back in service in no time at all.

Hardly comparable, as the tree branch was across the width of the cab, while the conveyor arm that struck the 222 was closer to a sideswipe incident. Had the conveyor been across the full width of the 222 cab, it would have been a showstopper.

As noted above, the safety of rail travel relative to other popular modes is such that the marginal difference in structural integrity between a mark 3 and a modern unit such as a Voyager is statistically insignificant when it comes to day to day train travel.

 

[AndrewE]

I feel unsafe on them because of how uncrashworthy they are.

If you feel unsafe in a HST you must be a quivering wreck when you're on a bus or in a car.

... I am surprised you dare even leave the house! You obviously don't know that a surprisingly high proportion of road deaths and injuries are actually to pedestrians on the pavement.

Hardly comparable, as the tree branch was across the width of the cab, while the conveyor arm that struck the 222 was closer to a sideswipe incident. Had the conveyor been across the full width of the 222 cab, it would have been a showstopper.

As noted above, the safety of rail travel relative to other popular modes is such that the marginal difference in structural integrity between a mark 3 and a modern unit such as a Voyager is statistically insignificant when it comes to day to day train travel.

These are relating to cab crashworthiness though. I don't know if the passenger accommodation has been improved as much as the cabs, but even if it hasn't I'm not going to worry about it (it may not have needed to be, I suppose.)