ASLEF circular to members on 'legacy traction' and its safety.

[hexagon789]

Doing the rounds on other forums, a circular to members regards the safety of legacy rolling stock - HSTs get the main mention, but also 'legacy traction' - i.e. BR-era with reference to of course Carmont and the lack of recommendations of the report being implemented.

I'm not looking for a debate on whether ASLEF are right or not, more whether this is likely to have the impact it might imply.

Are we genuinely likely to see drivers refuse to take not only HSTs but other 1980s/early-90s fleets after August?

Or is this ASLEF wording something strongly to stress the perceived lack of change by the Government, Network Rail etc?

If this does happen, the potential implications for many train sevices across Great Britain are huge.

TO: ALL BRANCHES, REPS AND HEALTH AND SAFETY REPS Fellow Members, RE: RAIB REPORT INTO THE CARMONT RAIL CRASH In their March session the Executive Committee gave consideration to a report from Executive Committee Member, District No.7 dated 10th March 2022 and a report from District Organiser District No.2 dated 9th March 2022 regarding the RAIB report into the Carmont Rail Crash. The Executive Committee dealt with the matter by adopting the following resolution; 311/496 “That the reports be adopted, and the General Secretary be instructed to make the necessary arrangements for the following to be actioned:  That ASLEF demands that the ORR to begin the immediate process of withdrawal of HST’s from service across the entire rail network by 12th of August 2023.  That ASLEF demands the ORR initiate an immediate industry review of crashworthiness standards of all rolling stock in service today and insist that classes of train or locomotive that do not meet minimum standards of crashworthiness be modified or be given a timescale for withdrawal.  That ASLEF demands the ORR ensure that going forward there are regular reviews of the crashworthiness of legacy rolling stock to take into account the “state of the art” at the time of the review, and the introduction of any new cab equipment.  That ASLEF seeks changes to legislation to meet the demands made in these recommendations and campaigns to do the same.  That the RSSB initiate research on the design, specification and effectiveness of lifeguards with a view to specifying a new standard that would prevent the derailment of trains in scenarios such as the one experienced at Carmont.  That in line with the RAIB report ASLEF calls for the RSSB to review its previous research on the fitting of secondary impact protection devices for train drivers (including seatbelts) in the light of the circumstances of Carmont, future train accident risk (including derailment) and the capabilities of current technology.  That in consultation with relevant stakeholders the RSSB evaluates the case for fitting specific secondary impact protection devices into new and existing trains; and where justified and incorporate requirements for improved protection measures into standards for train driving cabs.  The RSSB to initiate a workstream for the introduction of robust rules and standards in relation to route proving criteria. Further that the General Secretary be instructed to raise the issue of:  The fitment of Guard Rails with Network Rail.  Bogie retention concerns with the ORR and all relevant TOCs.  Fuel tank battery fire risk with the ORR all relevant TOCs. Further that ASLEF calls for:  A full public enquiry into the Carmont rail crash.  The removal of Alex Hynes as Managing Director of Scotland’s Railway.  The ORR and Crown Prosecution Service to pursue prosecutions of Network Rail and Abellio Scotrail for corporate homicide/manslaughter in relation to the deaths caused by the Carmont rail crash. All Branches and Reps be advised.” Please bring the contents of this circular to the attention of your members Yours in solidarity MICK WHELAN General Secretary

 

[JonathanH]

Are we genuinely likely to see drivers refuse to take not only HSTs but other 1980s/early-90s fleets after August?

As a matter of interest, where is the line drawn on this?

Are, for example, all post-privatisation considered 'safe' for this purpose? Is a Networker pootling around the SE metro lines more dangerous to the driver than a Turbostar running at 100mph?

Could a compromise just be that ASLEF agree to these trains continuing to run but at slower speeds?

 

[Ianigsy]

One of the things I was taught as an insurance underwriter years ago was that unless it was built yesterday, no house meets modern construction standards, and I suspect trains are the same - the standards are always moving forwards. There’s a reasonable point in there when you have 1970s built trains still in service, however you might also find that the driver of a 37 is better placed in a collision than the driver of a modern unit.

I’m not sure that the CPS are in the habit of taking orders from ASLEF, though!

 

[cf111]

I’m not sure that the CPS are in the habit of taking orders from ASLEF, though

Indeed not. In any case, it would be the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service who would be responsible for prosecuting anyone or anything in relation to Carmont. The ORR wouldn't even be able to raise criminal proceedings in Scotland as private prosecutions, that is those not undertaken by COPFS, are so rare as to be unheard of in the current era. The ORR could of course report the matter to COPFS, much like the HSE do in Scotland.

Regardless of any other court proceedings, there will at some point need to be a Fatal Accident Inquiry as two of the very sad deaths at Carmont were the guard and the driver, who were acting in the course of their employment when they died.

 

[RobShipway]

Indeed not. In any case, it would be the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service who would be responsible for prosecuting anyone or anything in relation to Carmont. The ORR wouldn't even be able to raise criminal proceedings in Scotland as private prosecutions, that is those not undertaken by COPFS, are so rare as to be unheard of in the current era. The ORR could of course report the matter to COPFS, much like the HSE do in Scotland.

Regardless of any other court proceedings, there will at some point need to be a Fatal Accident Inquiry as two of the very sad deaths at Carmont were the guard and the driver, who were acting in the course of their employment when they died.

Carmont though was caused by landslip falling on to the tracks, prior to the HST arriving. I do not want to pre - judge any fatal accident report, but from photos and maps that I have seen the falling of landslip could have happened in front of any stock that was operating on the route. The issue I believe was more down as to how Network Rail, deemed that section safe prior to the HST travelling by Carmont. Was any checks made of the route, prior to the HST travelling the route for possible loose landfall?

Whilst it is sad about the two deaths of the driver and guard of the HST set at Carmont, would a class 170 have been any safer in hitting the same amount of landfall?

As a matter of interest, where is the line drawn on this?

Are, for example, all post-privatisation considered 'safe' for this purpose? Is a Networker pootling around the SE metro lines more dangerous to the driver than a Turbostar running at 100mph?

Could a compromise just be that ASLEF agree to these trains continuing to run but at slower speeds?

I cannot see how lower speeds would be agreeable to ASLEF.

The issue for me, is unless there is proof that both Network Rail and Scotrail where aware of possible landfall around Carmont and made no checks on the route prior to the HST travelling, then there is no manslaughter case that can be taken to court. But I am not a legal person. If checks had been made by Network Rail, which either had not been informed to either Scotrail or the crew of the HST service, then yes you would have the ability to take both parties to court.

The one point I would agree with is that drivers of trains should be made to wear seat belts in their cabs, no matter what the speed the train is travelling. If this means retro fitting of seat belts into the HST's then so be it. People have to be wearing seat belts in cars when travelling and seat belts are worn by both passengers plus crew when planes take off or land. I would go as far to say that seat belts should also be provided to passengers on trains, no matter what the speed. I believe that if seat belts for passengers had been supplied both in the past and current, then the death rate would not be so high. This would also mean that you do not have people standing in the aisles though on trains that are packed, due to the safety or find a way for those passengers standing to be safe should the train crash.

 

[yorksrob]

How do you define "a minimum standard of crashworthiness" ?

OK, we clearly do define a minimum standard as a mk1 doesn't meet it in today's world, but by what mechanism does a vehicle which currently meets the minimum standard cease to meet it ?

Of course, it has to be acknowledged that any precipitous withdrawal of rolling stock without replacement would be detrimental to passengers, the industry and ultimately members of ASLEF if resulting service cuts drive passengers away.

Given the various headwinds, I think the HST is sadly probably done for, however on the subject of the wider pool of rolling stock, I would be wary of ushering in a pro-active mechanism for someone to progressively raise the bar at which rolling stock is considered unsafe. It will take on a life of its own and have unintended consequences for all of us.

 

[The Puddock]

Carmont though was caused by landslip falling on to the tracks, prior to the HST arriving. I do not want to pre - judge any fatal accident report, but from photos and maps that I have seen the falling of landslip could have happened in front of any stock that was operating on the route. The issue I believe was more down as to how Network Rail, deemed that section safe prior to the HST travelling by Carmont. Was any checks made of the route, prior to the HST travelling the route for possible loose landfall?

Whilst it is sad about the two deaths of the driver and guard of the HST set at Carmont, would a class 170 have been any safer in hitting the same amount of landfall?


I cannot see how lower speeds would be agreeable to ASLEF.

The issue for me, is unless there is proof that both Network Rail and Scotrail where aware of possible landfall around Carmont and made no checks on the route prior to the HST travelling, then there is no manslaughter case that can be taken to court. But I am not a legal person. If checks had been made by Network Rail, which either had not been informed to either Scotrail or the crew of the HST service, then yes you would have the ability to take both parties to court.

The one point I would agree with is that drivers of trains should be made to wear seat belts in their cabs, no matter what the speed the train is travelling. If this means retro fitting of seat belts into the HST's then so be it. People have to be wearing seat belts in cars when travelling and seat belts are worn by both passengers plus crew when planes take off or land. I would go as far to say that seat belts should also be provided to passengers on trains, no matter what the speed. I believe that if seat belts for passengers had been supplied both in the past and current, then the death rate would not be so high. This would also mean that you do not have people standing in the aisles though on trains that are packed, due to the safety or find a way for those passengers standing to be safe should the train crash.

I may be wrong but I think the intention of this thread isn’t to dissect the various causes of the Carmont accident yet again, which have been discussed at length elsewhere but to speculate on the chaos that may be unleashed if in two months time ASLEF directs its members not to drive any trains older than some arbitrary date as a result of their extremely unrealistic demands not being met.

One thing I would say, though, is that extensive research was carried out by RSSB into the use of seatbelts on trains after the Ufton Nervet crash in 2004, which concluded that it would be likely to kill more people than it would protect. Indeed, in the Carmont accident the driver’s seat in the leading powercar was ripped off its mountings and forced backwards through the engine room door in the bulkhead, becoming embedded in the brake frame. The driver was thrown nearly 50 metres from where the powercar landed. The forces involved were enormous and it’s a mistake to think that a seatbelt would have had any effect on the outcome for the driver.

 

[cf111]

Whilst it is sad about the two deaths of the driver and guard of the HST set at Carmont, would a class 170 have been any safer in hitting the same amount of landfall?

No, I wouldn't want to be be at the sharp end of any train hitting that landslip, or frankly anywhere on that train regardless of formation, but the relative survivability of alternative rolling stock could well be one of the questions considered by the Sheriff at the FAI. The primary function of an FAI is to see if there are any improvements that should be made after a fatal accident. I imagine though, as you say, that the primary focus will be on the events leading up to the HST meeting the landslip and the maintenance regime regarding drainage.

It will be some years before one commences in any any case but there will have to be one at some point as it is compulsory under the law of Scotland after someone dies in the course of their work duties.

 

[JamesT]

How do you define "a minimum standard of crashworthiness" ?

OK, we clearly do define a minimum standard as a mk1 doesn't meet it in today's world, but by what mechanism does a vehicle which currently meets the minimum standard cease to meet it ?

Of course, it has to be acknowledged that any precipitous withdrawal of rolling stock without replacement would be detrimental to passengers, the industry and ultimately members of ASLEF if resulting service cuts drive passengers away.

Given the various headwinds, I think the HST is sadly probably done for, however on the subject of the wider pool of rolling stock, I would be wary of ushering in a pro-active mechanism for someone to progressively raise the bar at which rolling stock is considered unsafe. It will take on a life of its own and have unintended consequences for all of us.

Isn’t that what the RSSB are for? They set the standards for construction of rolling stock that operates on the GB network. https://www.rssb.co.uk/who-we-are/timeline-of-our-story implies that the result of major accidents often feeds into future requirements. So the minimum standard for a new vehicle have progressively risen and will presumably continue to do so.

The Mk1 stock was prohibited through an Act of Parliament, the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, which did for the slam doors. Similarly vehicles that didn’t meet PRM TSI were banned though legislation, though with the ability to grant exemptions.

It would be unreasonable to expect existing stock to instantly meet currently standards whenever a new one is issued. But allowing stock to forever make use of grandfather rights is also wrong. I don’t know what kind of work you do, but I’m sure you’d want your employer to mitigate a potential health and safety risk when their attention is brought to it, as is their legal obligation.

Though given that improving driver protection in HST cabs was a recommendation from the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, perhaps there does need to be more of a stick to compel the industry?

 

[yorksrob]

Isn’t that what the RSSB are for? They set the standards for construction of rolling stock that operates on the GB network. https://www.rssb.co.uk/who-we-are/timeline-of-our-story implies that the result of major accidents often feeds into future requirements. So the minimum standard for a new vehicle have progressively risen and will presumably continue to do so.

The Mk1 stock was prohibited through an Act of Parliament, the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, which did for the slam doors. Similarly vehicles that didn’t meet PRM TSI were banned though legislation, though with the ability to grant exemptions.

It would be unreasonable to expect existing stock to instantly meet currently standards whenever a new one is issued. But allowing stock to forever make use of grandfather rights is also wrong. I don’t know what kind of work you do, but I’m sure you’d want your employer to mitigate a potential health and safety risk when their attention is brought to it, as is their legal obligation.

Though given that improving driver protection in HST cabs was a recommendation from the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, perhaps there does need to be more of a stick to compel the industry?

That is an interesting point. Were any works ever carried out to HST cabs after Ladbroke Grove ?

As an example, say through this process it's decided that a substantial proportion of the BR DMU fleet is deemed insufficient and has to be withdrawn. This at the same time that Gmt doesn't want to build new DMU's because of its climate commitment, doesn't want to electrify because of the cost and the alternatives (battery, hydrogen etc) aren't up to it yet ? Is the railway then subjected to a damaging drip of fleet driven service cuts.

 

[Snow1964]

In my limited knowledge of legal under Scottish system. Might be a requirement to go to court because of a death, but negligible chance of a successful prosecution.

Basically asking if it was foreseeable that an embankment that had been there over 100 years would suddenly collapse on the line ahead of the train. Then were there other factors that could have allowed negligence such as left a building for years to rot so eventually collapsed, probably not as work was done on the drains (even if it was done badly), and never going to be able to put the person who designed the culvert and embankment in the dock as they are long dead.

If ASLEF are aiming to improve standards of structural strength then making silly resolutions demanding type of train is withdrawn within 3 months (even if it means axing services because there is no replacement) seems bonkers way of going about it

 

[irish_rail]

Carmont though was caused by landslip falling on to the tracks, prior to the HST arriving. I do not want to pre - judge any fatal accident report, but from photos and maps that I have seen the falling of landslip could have happened in front of any stock that was operating on the route. The issue I believe was more down as to how Network Rail, deemed that section safe prior to the HST travelling by Carmont. Was any checks made of the route, prior to the HST travelling the route for possible loose landfall?

Whilst it is sad about the two deaths of the driver and guard of the HST set at Carmont, would a class 170 have been any safer in hitting the same amount of landfall?


I cannot see how lower speeds would be agreeable to ASLEF.

The issue for me, is unless there is proof that both Network Rail and Scotrail where aware of possible landfall around Carmont and made no checks on the route prior to the HST travelling, then there is no manslaughter case that can be taken to court. But I am not a legal person. If checks had been made by Network Rail, which either had not been informed to either Scotrail or the crew of the HST service, then yes you would have the ability to take both parties to court.

The one point I would agree with is that drivers of trains should be made to wear seat belts in their cabs, no matter what the speed the train is travelling. If this means retro fitting of seat belts into the HST's then so be it. People have to be wearing seat belts in cars when travelling and seat belts are worn by both passengers plus crew when planes take off or land. I would go as far to say that seat belts should also be provided to passengers on trains, no matter what the speed. I believe that if seat belts for passengers had been supplied both in the past and current, then the death rate would not be so high. This would also mean that you do not have people standing in the aisles though on trains that are packed, due to the safety or find a way for those passengers standing to be safe should the train crash.

Nonsense I'm afraid. Being able to jump out of the seat quickly is crucial if need be when a tree (or similar) comes through the cab front (as happened near Westbury several years ago) . Driver being able to jump out of seat meant he only got a broken wrist and was not killed. Similarly I'm pretty sure if I saw I was about to be in a collision, id jump out the seat and try to get to back of or even out of the cab if possible. Seatbelts would only delay my escape. They would probably cost more lives than they would save in terms of train drivers. The railway is a very different place to the roads.

 

[Bantamzen]

What stock would actually count as 'legacy'? Would it basically mean anything other than the recent procured in the last few years by various TOCs? Sorry if the answer is obvious, I'm just not sure what scale of stock this would involve.

 

[RobShipway]

I may be wrong but I think the intention of this thread isn’t to dissect the various causes of the Carmont accident yet again, which have been discussed at length elsewhere but to speculate on the chaos that may be unleashed if in two months time ASLEF directs its members not to drive any trains older than some arbitrary date as a result of their extremely unrealistic demands not being met.

One thing I would say, though, is that extensive research was carried out by RSSB into the use of seatbelts on trains after the Ufton Nervet crash in 2004, which concluded that it would be likely to kill more people than it would protect. Indeed, in the Carmont accident the driver’s seat in the leading powercar was ripped off its mountings and forced backwards through the engine room door in the bulkhead, becoming embedded in the brake frame. The driver was thrown nearly 50 metres from where the powercar landed. The forces involved were enormous and it’s a mistake to think that a seatbelt would have had any effect on the outcome for the driver.

Fair comment and thank you for the info.

No, I wouldn't want to be be at the sharp end of any train hitting that landslip, or frankly anywhere on that train regardless of formation, but the relative survivability of alternative rolling stock could well be one of the questions considered by the Sheriff at the FAI. The primary function of an FAI is to see if there are any improvements that should be made after a fatal accident. I imagine though, as you say, that the primary focus will be on the events leading up to the HST meeting the landslip and the maintenance regime regarding drainage.

It will be some years before one commences in any any case but there will have to be one at some point as it is compulsory under the law of Scotland after someone dies in the course of their work duties.

It maybe me and know that there is possibly not enough Network Rail staff to do this, but I always thought that any of the railway routes around the country has an inspection overnight, especially if there has been issues or engineering work has taken place. That being said, there is some routes around the country that I believe need to be checked on a nightly basis after the last train has travelled at night and before the first train in the morning. A good example would be the Settle & Carlisle route, where there many potential issues that could stop trains travelling the route should they occur. I would say that it is the same with the line through Carmont and many other routes around the UK, where there are potential dangers. I suspect that it is these sort of things that Aslef are looking to be put in place, if they are not there already.

Though given that improving driver protection in HST cabs was a recommendation from the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, perhaps there does need to be more of a stick to compel the industry?

I thought he changes recommended due to Ladbroke Grove, had been implemented into First Great Western/GWR HST cabs?

Nonsense I'm afraid. Being able to jump out of the seat quickly is crucial if need be when a tree (or similar) comes through the cab front (as happened near Westbury several years ago) . Driver being able to jump out of seat meant he only got a broken wrist and was not killed. Similarly I'm pretty sure if I saw I was about to be in a collision, id jump out the seat and try to get to back of or even out of the cab if possible. Seatbelts would only delay my escape. They would probably cost more lives than they would save in terms of train drivers. The railway is a very different place to the roads.

Fair point and as others have mentioned, it is possibly safer for passengers, though I still think that trains should not be allowing so much in the way of passengers standing.

In my limited knowledge of legal under Scottish system. Might be a requirement to go to court because of a death, but negligible chance of a successful prosecution.

Basically asking if it was foreseeable that an embankment that had been there over 100 years would suddenly collapse on the line ahead of the train. Then were there other factors that could have allowed negligence such as left a building for years to rot so eventually collapsed, probably not as work was done on the drains (even if it was done badly), and never going to be able to put the person who designed the culvert and embankment in the dock as they are long dead.

If ASLEF are aiming to improve standards of structural strength then making silly resolutions demanding type of train is withdrawn within 3 months (even if it means axing services because there is no replacement) seems bonkers way of going about it

Whilst in a way I agree with your comment, the railway industry have had many years in getting the issues that Aslef have raised resolved and many where raised well before the incident at Carment I believe?

Part of the issue to me as an outsider to the railway industry seems to be the time that it takes to have a report on an incident and then to have anything from that report implemented into existing or any new stock. The final report for any incidents taking anything from 2 to 10 years to complete. Yes, there is an initial report usually within days of an incident and there is update reports from the RAIB, with the RSSB doing its reporting as well. Now I am not sure if it is correct, but the wiki link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehaven_derailment into the Stonehaven Derailment states, that after reading the final report Transport Scotland setup a steering group to drive safety improvements in Scotland in March 2022. However, come July 2022 that steering group still had not met up to go over the issues raised in the RAIB final report. If the steering group, still has not met up over almost a year later, then you can quite understand Aslef frustration at wanting to make sure it's members are safe as it would seem to them that those that should be taking the recommendations of the RAIB seriously are not doing so.

I note from the previously mentioned wiki article, that Aslef requested a public enquiry into the accident at the Scottish Trades Union Conference back in April 2022. Has the public enquiry occurred?

It is also noted in the Wiki link, that the National Union of Rail, maritime and Transport Workers criticised the fact that the Steering group had not met up come July 2022. So will we be getting a similar comment from them with regards the use of existing Scotrail stock?

 

[JamesT]

I thought he changes recommended due to Ladbroke Grove, had been implemented into First Great Western/GWR HST cabs?

Reading https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/collision-between-train-1c84-and-a-tree-at-lavington-wiltshire (which I think someone else mentioned earlier), in paragraph 74 which my device won’t let me copy it says that following Ladbroke Grove it was deemed unreasonably difficult to improve the cabs for driver protection.

 

[John Bishop]

If ASLEF are aiming to improve standards of structural strength then making silly resolutions demanding type of train is withdrawn within 3 months (even if it means axing services because there is no replacement) seems bonkers way of going about it

Point of order- they haven’t just come out with this demand, SR and the SG were officially informed last March 2022 of this request.
Whilst not being present at any of the steering group meetings, I think it’s safe to say ASLEF are less than impressed with the progress being made on the issues identified.

 

[Snow1964]

Point of order- they haven’t just come out with this demand, SR and the SG were officially informed last March 2022 of this request.
Whilst not being present at any of the steering group meetings, I think it’s safe to say ASLEF are less than impressed with the progress being made on the issues identified.

Isn't the steering group Transport for Scotland
Does it therefore only affect members working for Transport for Scotland (thinking of legislation against secondary action outside the dispute)

 

[HSTEd]

What stock would actually count as 'legacy'? Would it basically mean anything other than the recent procured in the last few years by various TOCs? Sorry if the answer is obvious, I'm just not sure what scale of stock this would involve.

I expect it would encompass everything from the pre-privatisation era.

The chaos from the resulting service cuts would be something to behold.

 

[XAM2175]

Point of order- they haven’t just come out with this demand, SR and the SG were officially informed last March 2022 of this request.
Whilst not being present at any of the steering group meetings, I think it’s safe to say ASLEF are less than impressed with the progress being made on the issues identified.

As far as you know and/or can say, what amount of progress would have been satisfactory by this point?

 

[DanNCL]

My own view is that ASLEF can get stuffed. They’ve been driving these trains without issue for years, there’s only been one fatal accident in the last 15 years, and there’s already plans to see off the vast majority of the remaining ex BR stock, the only ex BR stock I can think of without any replacement plans are the 323s, some of the 15xs, the 16xs and the ScotRail HSTs (which I suspect is the real issue here), everything else ex BR already has something planned to replace it even if that’s currently only a plan on a piece of paper.

ASLEF should be careful what they wish for here too. The DFT could easily agree to get rid of all “legacy” stock and interpret that to mean all stock that isn’t capable of Driver Only Operation.

End of the day, ASLEF don’t get to unilaterally decide that a train which is safe all of a sudden isn’t.

As for impact, I could see a legal challenge if ASLEF even tried to stop their members from taking “legacy” traction.

 

[John Bishop]

My own view is that ASLEF can get stuffed. They’ve been driving these trains without issue for years, there’s only been one fatal accident in the last 15 years, and there’s already plans to see off the vast majority of the remaining ex BR stock, the only ex BR stock I can think of without any replacement plans are the 323s, some of the 15xs, the 16xs and the ScotRail HSTs (which I suspect is the real issue here), everything else ex BR already has something planned to replace it even if that’s currently only a plan on a piece of paper.

ASLEF should be careful what they wish for here too. The DFT could easily agree to get rid of all “legacy” stock and interpret that to mean all stock that isn’t capable of Driver Only Operation.

End of the day, ASLEF don’t get to unilaterally decide that a train which is safe all of a sudden isn’t.

As for impact, I could see a legal challenge if ASLEF even tried to stop their members from taking “legacy” traction.

I think we need to remind ourselves of the wording of the ASLEF statement as some here seem to think that they are going to be boycotting every legacy traction types.

“ASLEF demands the ORR initiate an immediate industry review of crashworthiness standards of all rolling stock in service today and insist that classes of train or locomotive that do not meet minimum standards of crashworthiness be modified or be given a timescale for withdrawal”.

The above statement seems perfectly reasonable to me coming from a union whose primary interest is to ensure the safety and well-being of their members. This doesn’t mean they are going to all of a sudden stop driving every type of legacy traction. The only exception to that of course is the HST which they have given due notice for.

Your logic of because theres only been 1 accident in x number of years means that it’s okay, despite the fact that there are clear safety concerns regarding HST for it to continue in service as normal. How do you know there won’t be a similar incident happen today or tomorrow? Can anyone guarantee that it won’t? I don’t think so.

I suspect that ASLEF will boycott the HSTs until the modifications to the lifeguards have taken place and even then there will be a push to withdraw them from service as soon as possible thereafter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2023 ==

As far as you know and/or can say, what amount of progress would have been satisfactory by this point?

I don’t speak for ASLEF nor have any involvement with their LLC or EC but I suspect that they would be looking for a commitment from SR/ SG for a firm order for new/ alternative rolling stock to replace the HSTs with a date set for delivery. The fact that hasn’t happened and the SG seem to be insisting that the HSTs hold out till the end of the contract and that fact no modifications have taken place yet I would say is most likely the reason.

August is still a bit away so who knows what might happen between now and then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My own view is that ASLEF can get stuffed. They’ve been driving these trains without issue for years, there’s only been one fatal accident in the last 15 years, and there’s already plans to see off the vast majority of the remaining ex BR stock, the only ex BR stock I can think of without any replacement plans are the 323s, some of the 15xs, the 16xs and the ScotRail HSTs (which I suspect is the real issue here), everything else ex BR already has something planned to replace it even if that’s currently only a plan on a piece of paper.

"My own view is that the campaigners about Grenfell Tower can get stuffed. People have lived in those flats without issue for years, there's only been one fatal accident involving spread between flats in the last 15 years..."

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to point out that something needs to be done. Had it not been for COVID, that train would have been full and we'd have been looking at a death toll possibly reaching 100.

It is, with trains, in my view valid to say "we'll stop them hitting stuff" (TPWS having been the big step in that direction in recent years), but that means something will need to be done to seriously reduce the risk of landslips, which have caused a number of derailments (e.g. that LM Class 350) in recent years.

 

[John Bishop]

"My own view is that the campaigners about Grenfell Tower can get stuffed. People have lived in those flats without issue for years, there's only been one fatal accident involving spread between flats in the last 15 years..."

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to point out that something needs to be done. Had it not been for COVID, that train would have been full and we'd have been looking at a death toll possibly reaching 100.

It is, with trains, in my view valid to say "we'll stop them hitting stuff", but that means something will need to be done to seriously reduce the risk of landslips, which have caused a number of derailments (e.g. that LM Class 350) in recent years.

Precisely! It’s such a non argument to come out with. Climate change conditions in recent years with freak weather events have most likely increased the chances of another Carmont happening. In the last 2 years I’ve seen landslip events lineside which have never had any previous history and such areas weren’t on the high risk register. It seems anything is possible these days.

 

[43066]

I think we need to remind ourselves of the wording of the ASLEF statement as some here seem to think that they are going to be boycotting every legacy traction types.

“ASLEF demands the ORR initiate an immediate industry review of crashworthiness standards of all rolling stock in service today and insist that classes of train or locomotive that do not meet minimum standards of crashworthiness be modified or be given a timescale for withdrawal”.

The above statement seems perfectly reasonable to me coming from a union whose primary interest is to ensure the safety and well-being of their members. This doesn’t mean they are going to all of a sudden stop driving every type of legacy traction. The only exception to that of course is the HST which they have given due notice for.

Your logic of because theres only been 1 accident in x number of years means that it’s okay, despite the fact that there are clear safety concerns regarding HST for it to continue in service as normal. How do you know there won’t be a similar incident happen today or tomorrow? Can anyone guarantee that it won’t? I don’t think so.

I suspect that ASLEF will boycott the HSTs until the modifications to the lifeguards have taken place and even then there will be a push to withdraw them from service as soon as possible thereafter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2023 ==


I don’t speak for ASLEF nor have any involvement with their LLC or EC but I suspect that they would be looking for a commitment from SR/ SG for a firm order for new/ alternative rolling stock to replace the HSTs with a date set for delivery. The fact that hasn’t happened and the SG seem to be insisting that the HSTs hold out till the end of the contract and that fact no modifications have taken place yet I would say is most likely the reason.

August is still a bit away so who knows what might happen between now and then.

"My own view is that the campaigners about Grenfell Tower can get stuffed. People have lived in those flats without issue for years, there's only been one fatal accident involving spread between flats in the last 15 years..."

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to point out that something needs to be done. Had it not been for COVID, that train would have been full and we'd have been looking at a death toll possibly reaching 100.

It is, with trains, in my view valid to say "we'll stop them hitting stuff" (TPWS having been the big step in that direction in recent years), but that means something will need to be done to seriously reduce the risk of landslips, which have caused a number of derailments (e.g. that LM Class 350) in recent years.

Two very sensible responses above.

It strikes me that ASLEF are being more than reasonable here, both in terms of accepting grandfathering for many years, but also in not wanting to see that carrying on forever.

Of course that will put noses out of joint among enthusiasts who want to see HSTs carry on forever, but the railway isn’t run for enthusiasts…

 

[eldomtom2]

I think we need to remind ourselves of the wording of the ASLEF statement as some here seem to think that they are going to be boycotting every legacy traction types.

“ASLEF demands the ORR initiate an immediate industry review of crashworthiness standards of all rolling stock in service today and insist that classes of train or locomotive that do not meet minimum standards of crashworthiness be modified or be given a timescale for withdrawal”.

The above statement seems perfectly reasonable to me coming from a union whose primary interest is to ensure the safety and well-being of their members.

Maybe, but there's an awful lot of bluster in the statement as well about prosecuting Network Rail for manslaughter and the like...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two very sensible responses above.

It strikes me that ASLEF are being more than reasonable here, both in terms of accepting grandfathering for many years, but also in not wanting to see that carrying on forever.

Of course that will put noses out of joint among enthusiasts who want to see HSTs carry on forever, but the railway isn’t run for enthusiasts…

It does strike me that it'd be absolutely fine if ScotRail put in an order* for replacements in the next few months they'll be fine driving them until those replacements are delivered, even if that's a few years off if that replacement was to be new-build. As electrification is on the horizon anyway, this does fit quite well with the long term plans.

* Even if that's simply committing to taking the 222s as a medium term replacement.

 

[Mag_seven]

Please can discussion in this thread be confined to ASLEF's circular on legacy rolling stock.

I've split off some posts that were discussing infrastructure inspections to this thread:

Should Network Rail undertake regular overnight inspections of 'high risk' track sections

Moderator note - split from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/aslef-circular-to-members-on-legacy-traction-and-its-safety.249602/ "My own view is that the campaigners about Grenfell Tower can get stuffed. People have lived in those flats without issue for years, there's only been one...

www.railforums.co.uk

thanks all

 

[The Puddock]

It does strike me that it'd be absolutely fine if ScotRail put in an order* for replacements in the next few months they'll be fine driving them until those replacements are delivered, even if that's a few years off if that replacement was to be new-build.

That may be your interpretation of the situation, but it is wrong. The ASLEF circular is stating that they want ORR to mandate all HSTs be withdrawn from operating on the network by 12th August. The circular definitely doesn't say that they will be satisfied with a plan to eventually replace them whenever it's convenient for the TOCs involved - and it's worth noting that ScotRail isn't the only operator that is affected by this.

 

[John Bishop]

Since the Carmont accident, we’ve seen absolutely zero change to the HSTs in an operational and safety sense. SR and the SG are not going to put their hand in their pockets to cough up for a new or replacement fleet if they don’t have to which is precisely why ASLEF have drawn a line in the sand to force the issue. If they did nothing, then the fleet would still be in service right up to the end of lease agreement point.

Im absolutely certain ASLEF know exactly what they’re doing here and other than another accident, it’s the only way to force the SG‘s hand in tackling the issue.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The circular definitely doesn't say that they will be satisfied with a plan to eventually replace them whenever it's convenient for the TOCs involved - and it's worth noting that ScotRail isn't the only operator that is affected by this.

Clearly ASLEF haven’t understood that either, as another of their “demands” was that the boss of Scotrail resign/be sacked.

The whole thing reads like a member of their NEC has a bee in their bonnet and nothing more.

I have some sympathy- the HST cabs are made of fibreglass and the crumple zone is where the driver sits- but I think even the most modern trains would have had similar results at Carmont due to the nature of that incident.