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!
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: ==
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.
The statement also says “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”
Demanding that an entire fleet of trains is removed from the network in little over two months is unreasonable when they are safe enough for continued use in the medium term (next few years). No dispute that the HSTs need to go, but two months isn’t a realistic time frame when they haven’t even began the process of obtaining replacements.
Grenfell really isn’t comparable. There’s a realistic expectation that an entire tower block isn’t going to suddenly go up in flames and it's not for the user (the residents) to ensure this is the case but the building owner. On the other hand, it’s a known fact that transportation accidents can and sadly do occasionally happen. If this had been a road accident, ie a coach had hit an obstruction, the driver lost control and the vehicle came off the road and down an embankment, nobody would have bat an eyelid. That said there's also a realistic expectation that a train isn't going to tumble down an embankment, but the solution here should be to make sure that it's almost impossible for the accident to occur in the first place. It should be for Network Rail to ensure such accidents are almost impossible, it shouldn't be for the train operators to ensure that their trains are designed to withstand the potential consequences of Network Rail not looking after the infrastructure adequately or not inspecting the line before allowing it to reopen after severe weather (as was the case at Carmont).
Can assure you that’s not the case from me. I’m well aware of the need to replace the HSTs for many different reasons and I'm supportive of any reasonable and realistic proposals to replace them, in other words actually replacing them rather than withdrawing them without replacement.
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.
And this is what prompted my remarks about ASLEF "getting stuffed", the expectation to suddenly find replacements for them in just over two months or to withdraw them all without replacement on 12th August and leave in particular Scotland but to a lesser extent also XC and GWR with a shortage of trains, and the resulting disruption that would cause for the public and in turn worsening of an already poor image much of the public have of the railway.
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.
This isn't strictly true as all remaining HSTs in England will now be gone by the end of the year bar a very small quantity in reserve; before Carmont there hadn't been any plans for XC or GWR to replace or withdraw their HSTs.
In the case of the Scottish sets, if the replacements were to be new build it would take until 2026 or 2027 for replacements to enter service, as being a public sector company ScotRail would have to put it out to an open competitve tender and can't go direct to any of the manufactures for replacements. 222s are potentially available from some point next year but failing that there isn't any realistic alternative to new build for replacing ScotRail's HSTs unless they were to be replaced by 75mph Sprinters or chronically unreliable Coradias.
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.
"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."
could be easily interpreted in one of two ways.
1. That the process of withdrawal of HSTs from service must be begun by 12th August 2023 or ideally sooner (in my view very reasonable);
2. That all HSTs must be withdrawn from service by 12th August 2023, with the process of that withdrawal starting immediately.
(1) is very reasonable and I'd fully agree with it, e.g. to ensure that either an order for replacements is in place on that date, or that the 222s or anything else suitable becoming spare are signed for by that date and brought in as they become available, (2) is cloud cuckoo land, and if they're pushing for that then I'd be tempted to play hardball and get the publicity machine going to make them look unreasonable if they do blacklist them.
Do we have a reference from anywhere, e.g. another ASLEF publication that clarifies for certain which it is? It is quite possible, of course, that this wording is quite deliberate in order that reasonable people read it as (1) and so stay on side but they can, come the evening of 11th August, fall back on them really having meant (2).
Can assure you that’s not the case from me. I’m well aware of the need to replace the HSTs for many different reasons and I'm supportive of any reasonable and realistic proposals to replace them, in other words actually replacing them rather than withdrawing them without replacement.
Well you can see why your suggestion that ASLEF should “get stuffed” might make others put you in that category .
Ultimately whether replacement stock is available or not isn’t ASLEF’s problem. Arguably it isn’t reasonable they they’re still being used in Scotland in the first place, and could be there for many years after they’ve been withdrawn elsewhere.
Grenfell really isn’t comparable. There’s a realistic expectation that an entire tower block isn’t going to suddenly go up in flames and it's not for the user (the residents) to ensure this is the case but the building owner. On the other hand, it’s a known fact that transportation accidents can and sadly do occasionally happen. If this had been a road accident, ie a coach had hit an obstruction, the driver lost control and the vehicle came off the road and down an embankment, nobody would have bat an eyelid. That said there's also a realistic expectation that a train isn't going to tumble down an embankment, but the solution here should be to make sure that it's almost impossible for the accident to occur in the first place. It should be for Network Rail to ensure such accidents are almost impossible, it shouldn't be for the train operators to ensure that their trains are designed to withstand the potential consequences of Network Rail not looking after the infrastructure adequately or not inspecting the line before allowing it to reopen after severe weather (as was the case at Carmont).
Both train crashes and tower block fires are rare events, but the risk of either can never be completely eliminated. Hence we have relevant design standards dealing with crash worthiness and fire safety.
It’s difficult to think of any other industry which takes the approach of the railway here - could anyone seriously imagine UK airlines wanting to operate 1970s aircraft, or National Express wanting to run 1970s coaches up until the 2030s?
"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."
could be easily interpreted in one of two ways.
1. That the process of withdrawal of HSTs from service must be begun by 12th August 2023 or ideally sooner (in my view very reasonable);
2. That all HSTs must be withdrawn from service by 12th August 2023, with the process of that withdrawal starting immediately.
(1) is very reasonable and I'd fully agree with it, e.g. to ensure that either an order for replacements is in place on that date, or that the 222s or anything else suitable becoming spare are signed for by that date and brought in as they become available, (2) is cloud cuckoo land, and if they're pushing for that then I'd be tempted to play hardball and get the publicity machine going to make them look unreasonable if they do blacklist them.
Do we have a reference from anywhere, e.g. another ASLEF publication that clarifies for certain which it is? It is quite possible, of course, that this wording is quite deliberate in order that reasonable people read it as (1) and so stay on side but they can, come the evening of 11th August, fall back on them really having meant (2).
"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."
could be easily interpreted in one of two ways.
1. That the process of withdrawal of HSTs from service must be begun by 12th August 2023 or ideally sooner (in my view very reasonable);
2. That all HSTs must be withdrawn from service by 12th August 2023, with the process of that withdrawal starting immediately.
(1) is very reasonable and I'd fully agree with it, e.g. to ensure that either an order for replacements is in place on that date, or that the 222s or anything else suitable becoming spare are signed for by that date and brought in as they become available, (2) is cloud cuckoo land, and if they're pushing for that then I'd be tempted to play hardball and get the publicity machine going to make them look unreasonable if they do blacklist them.
Do we have a reference from anywhere, e.g. another ASLEF publication that clarifies for certain which it is? It is quite possible, of course, that this wording is quite deliberate in order that reasonable people read it as (1) and so stay on side but they can, come the evening of 11th August, fall back on them really having meant (2).
In the Aslef Better Driving Cabs report chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://aslef.org.uk/system/files/2022-01/ASLEF%20Better%20Driving%20Cabs%202021%20Report.pdf it does mention the following:
"Legacy rolling stock The UK rail network is still operating passenger trains and freight locomotives that were originally built in the 1970s, 80s and 90s when the concepts of human factors and ergonomics were not as developed as they are today. Also, legacy rolling stock (by its very nature) is often old and ‘tired’ and so can suffer other problems such as drafts and excessive noise through worn and loose-fitting components. ASLEF does not expect industry to throw a train or locomotive away after 10 or 20 years, but we do expect that a driving cab should be regularly assessed and maintained in good order during its lifetime, and when new technology or ergonomic research indicates a need for, and the possibility of change, that adaptations should be carried out. The responsibility for this lies with the relevant train or freight operating company (TOC or FOC) and the ORR. Poor design It is the experience of our representatives and negotiators that although modern rolling stock is built to current standards this still leaves enough latitude for a poorly designed driving cab. Some years ago, ASLEF was invited to send a representative on the British Standards Institute (BSI) ‘mirror group’ for European cab standards. It was recognised by some UK industry bodies (like the RSSB) that having a train drivers’ voice on the working groups and committee that set the standards was logical and would provide valuable expertise and insight. One of the areas that needs to be changed however, is the attitude of TOCs and FOCs in relation to trade union involvement in the design of driving cabs. There should not be a reluctance to involve trade union representatives as a poorly designed cab can add additional costs down the line if modifications have to be made at a later date; drivers are harmed or injured and require time off to recover, or drivers are lost to ill-health retirement."
Given what is written above, I would have to agree with @43066 that it is 1 that they are aiming to achieve.
The statement also says “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”
Demanding that an entire fleet of trains is removed from the network in little over two months is unreasonable when they are safe enough for continued use in the medium term (next few years). No dispute that the HSTs need to go, but two months isn’t a realistic time frame when they haven’t even began the process of obtaining replacements.
And this is what prompted my remarks about ASLEF "getting stuffed", the expectation to suddenly find replacements for them in just over two months or to withdraw them all without replacement on 12th August and leave in particular Scotland but to a lesser extent also XC and GWR with a shortage of trains, and the resulting disruption that would cause for the public and in turn worsening of an already poor image much of the public have of the railway.
But it’s not 2 months is it! This circular was published in March last year, yet we’ve seen no action to date. If the SG want to drag their heels and do nothing about it, then obviously this isn’t going to be acceptable to ASLEF.
In the Aslef Better Driving Cabs report chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://aslef.org.uk/system/files/2022-01/ASLEF%20Better%20Driving%20Cabs%202021%20Report.pdf it does mention the following:
n the case of the Scottish sets, if the replacements were to be new build it would take until 2026 or 2027 for replacements to enter service, as being a public sector company ScotRail would have to put it out to an open competitve tender and can't go direct to any of the manufactures for replacements.
And an entirely valid plan would be "222s* when they become available, then new-build when it arrives", which gives a bit more time to consider what exactly, in the context of the electrification and de-dieselification (is that a word? ) programme, new-build might be. It's not either-or.
* Or whatever, there are a few possible options and this isn't a speculative thread.
And an entirely valid plan would be "222s* when they become available, then new-build when it arrives", which gives a bit more time to consider what exactly, in the context of the electrification and de-dieselification (is that a word? ) programme, new-build might be. It's not either-or.
* Or whatever, there are a few possible options and this isn't a speculative thread.
The cab of an HST is glass fibre, but isn’t it placed around a
a strong steel cage designed to provide a degree of protection in the event of a collision?
I am no engineer but I imagine very few train fronts would survive the plunge that the Carmont power car suffered.
The cab of an HST is glass fibre, but isn’t it placed around a
a strong steel cage designed to provide a degree of protection in the event of a collision?
I am no engineer but I imagine very few train fronts would survive the plunge that the Carmont power car suffered.
AIUI modern trains are a monocoque design, where the cab forms part of the structure. The HST design predates this and, as you say, the cab is essentially bolted on and can simply break off the chassis.
AIUI modern trains are a monocoque design, where the cab forms part of the structure. The HST design predates this and, as you say, the cab is essentially bolted on and can simply break off the chassis.
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 dislike the use of the word “legacy”. It is essentially meaningless, and seems to be a way of deriding anything which isn’t new. It becomes very easy to blame a whole multitude of issues on “legacy”, which overlooks the responsibility of a railway operator to run a railway on a day-to-day basis for its users.
I do have some sympathy towards ASLEF’s position towards HST cabs however. There doesn’t seem to be much if any crashworthiness at all built into the design, and I’d say that does make it legitimate to raise questions - especially when there’s potentially spare diesel stock becoming available soon (eg the 222s).
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 isn't reasonable of ASLEF. It doesn't matter what regulations the stock is made too derailing of the side of a viaduct as at Carmont is going to be a very serious problem. HST, 158, 170, 80x or anything else.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
AIUI modern trains are a monocoque design, where the cab forms part of the structure. The HST design predates this and, as you say, the cab is essentially bolted on and can simply break off the chassis.
It varies from stock to stock, some the cab is integral to the bodyshell others it is bolted on like a HST. The main difference is the cab module is generally a lot stronger than the GRP construction of the HSTs. Noting two things one the GRP cab of the HST is a composite self supporting structure unlike some earlier still in service locomotives and isn't a 'beauty cover' like on more modern designs. Secondly modern crash design standards look at energy dissipation and require crumple zones so in absolute terms more modern stock isn't as strong as some earlier 80s\90s designs.
It isn't reasonable of ASLEF. It doesn't matter what regulations the stock is made too derailing of the side of a viaduct as at Carmont is going to be a very serious problem. HST, 158, 170, 80x or anything else.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, but would you rather plunge off a bridge in a 1970s design vehicle with multiple previous repairs for corrosion or a more modern designed, safer vehicle. I know which one I’d choose.
So what’s your solution then, just to ignore the problem as it doesn’t matter which train was involved the end result would have been the same?
Let’s see if your opinion is still the same if you had to spend hours a day sat in the front of them in pitch darkness and in all weathers and seasons! I’d 110% rather be sat in the front of a 158 than an HST when striking a tree that’s for sure!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It varies from stock to stock, some the cab is integral to the bodyshell others it is bolted on like a HST. The main difference is the cab module is generally a lot stronger than the GRP construction of the HSTs. Noting two things one the GRP cab of the HST is a composite self supporting structure unlike some earlier still in service locomotives and isn't a 'beauty cover' like on more modern designs. Secondly modern crash design standards look at energy dissipation and require crumple zones so in absolute terms more modern stock isn't as strong as some earlier 80s\90s designs.
If anyone watched Greg Wallace's Inside the Factory, would have seen that even on Adventra cabs are basically bolted on, so not just 1970s and 1980s traction that could theoretically meet ASLEFs definition of legacy.
If anyone watched Greg Wallace's Inside the Factory, would have seen that even on Adventra cabs are basically bolted on, so not just 1970s and 1980s traction that could theoretically meet ASLEFs definition of legacy.
Wanting decrepit life expired stock to be phased out, that is approaching fifty years old, and the powers that be now want to extend into the 2030s simply because they can’t be bothered to pay for a replacement, isn’t reasonable!?
In which other transport industry would that be acceptable!? They’ve already accepted the stock continuing long after its design life.
It doesn't matter what regulations the stock is made too derailing of the side of a viaduct as at Carmont is going to be a very serious problem. HST, 158, 170, 80x or anything else.
It isn’t just about the precise details of Carmont.
Everything else being equal I’d rather face a “serious problem” in something built to more recent crash regs than something designed when the Vietnam war was still on.
If anyone watched Greg Wallace's Inside the Factory, would have seen that even on Adventra cabs are basically bolted on, so not just 1970s and 1980s traction that could theoretically meet ASLEFs definition of legacy.
Wanting decrepit life expired stock to be phased out, that is approaching fifty years old, and the powers that be now want to extend into the 2030s simply because they can’t be bothered to pay for a replacement, isn’t reasonable!?
In which other transport industry would that be acceptable!? They’ve already accepted the stock continuing long after its design life.
I find it a reasonable position, especially when the industry has diesel fleets going spare, and has of course managed to replace numerous electric fleets which didn’t really need replacing.
Whilst there are various reasons why it “isn’t that simple” to end the Scotrail HST lease early or for something like the 222s to take their place, it isn’t really ASLEF’s problem that others made decisions which have turned out to be poor judgement. Indeed the ScotRail HSTs haven’t proved great from a reliability perspective either.
That said, I will be sad to see the HSTs finally go.
If anyone watched Greg Wallace's Inside the Factory, would have seen that even on Adventra cabs are basically bolted on, so not just 1970s and 1980s traction that could theoretically meet ASLEFs definition of legacy.
Think this all about Aslef being rightly peed off with the lack of action regarding the recommendations from the carmont accident report,get the feeling their being fobbed off by the SG and transport scotland.
That the cab is bolted on isn't the issue, it is on a lot of designs. The issue is that it basically has no structural strength. Modern cabs, even bolted on, consist of a robust frame over which a fibreglass fairing adds the pointy-nosed look. The HST cab is just fibreglass.
TBH I would be unhappy driving something like that at 125mph, so it's totally reasonable to want them to either be reinforced or replaced. It's just about a reasonable timescale to do so, though if ScotGov/ScotRail is failing to act then I can see why they'd want to escalate.
Though a lot of the ex-BR MUs (by my understanding) still compromise the drivers safety. The effective crumple zone on say a 156 is the cab which is not the case on modern vehicles where the design will spread the energy for dissipation around the survival space for the driver and have whacking great structural members surrounding the cab. At least to my understanding anyway!
Wanting decrepit life expired stock to be phased out, that is approaching fifty years old, and the powers that be now want to extend into the 2030s simply because they can’t be bothered to pay for a replacement, isn’t reasonable!?
In which other transport industry would that be acceptable!? They’ve already accepted the stock continuing long after its design life.
It isn’t just about the precise details of Carmont.
Everything else being equal I’d rather face a “serious problem” in something built to more recent crash regs than something designed when the Vietnam war was still on.
So are you suggesting there’s no meaningful difference between stock built in the 1970s and now?! I find that rather difficult to believe…
The stock isn't decrepit it has only recently been refurbished it was specifically chosen by the powers that be to provide abetter quality product then more modern stock ie underfloor DMUs could provide.
You comment regards the Vietnam War is just nonsense hyperbole.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, but would you rather plunge off a bridge in a 1970s design vehicle with multiple previous repairs for corrosion or a more modern designed, safer vehicle. I know which one I’d choose.
So what’s your solution then, just to ignore the problem as it doesn’t matter which train was involved the end result would have been the same?
Yes ignore the problem because the HST isn't the issue at Carmont it was an infrastructure management problem as the impending court case against NR will prove.
Let’s see if your opinion is still the same if you had to spend hours a day sat in the front of them in pitch darkness and in all weathers and seasons! I’d 110% rather be sat in the front of a 158 than an HST when striking a tree that’s for sure!
A HST cab which is a GRP composite is designed to take an impact of a 0.9kg steel block at 330kph. A 158 does have four crash beams vertically at the corners and either side of the gangway but overall is at the very lightweight end of the aluminium construction spectrum. See the can damage to the 158\9s at Salisbury which required the extraction of the driver. The best place to be would be very much down to the circumstances on the day.
The basis of the standards has changed in the past it was about overall strength now it is about absorbing the energy. In a crash there is an awful lot of energy to dissipate if the train is an indestructible box the energy has to go somewhere this could be throwing the passengers and crew around inside said box or throwing the box around the scenery neither of which lead to desirable outcomes.
Modern standards try to dissipate the energy as slowly as possible with crumple zones and collapsible telescopic couplers. In the case of crumple zones if you happen to be outside the safety cell you could be worse off than in an older design. For drivers whatever the underlying design the stick the basic premise is the further you are from the front of the train the better off you will be.
With my train driver hat on, as someone who worked HSTs up until a couple of years ago, I can also see why they really aren’t fit for purpose in 2023, let alone for another decade - both from a safety point of view and as a working environment for traincrew.
They are iconic trains, but they’re now simply past it.
The stock isn't decrepit it has only recently been refurbished it was specifically chosen by the powers that be to provide abetter quality product then more modern stock ie underfloor DMUs could provide.
Why has it suffered major reliability issues, then? The threads on here seem to suggest the HSTs have been pretty disastrous.
You might prefer that stock as an enthusiast, but it’s clearly no longer fit for purpose and was chosen because it was cheap and available when needed.
Actually it’s a factually correct statement. The Vietnam War ended in 1975, the same year the HST started being built (entering service the following year). Therefore it would indeed have been designed during the latter stages of the Vietnam war.
As for nonsense, I’m confident that only people on this forum (and the DfT) would be arguing that rolling stock designed during the Vietnam war should continue until the 2030s!
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
.
