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

[43096]

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.

A point that is seemingly being forgotten with all the hyperbolic reaction from Scotland (and gobby civil engineers with a Twitter account). I don't recall there being mass hysteria about banning HSTs and Turbos after Ladbroke Grove, which was also not a T&RS root cause.

You'd be forgiven for thinking the HST has suddenly become unsafe. It hasn't. There may be subsequent trains with better collision protection, but that does not make the older designs unsafe. Throwing any train over a bridge at 50mph or so is going to be killing people regardless of the train involved. It is worth noting the RAIB conclusion on the cause of death for the driver:

secondary impact of the driver with the cab windscreen and interior as the leading power car struck the embankment below the bridge

There is nothing in a train built today that would have prevented that.

 

[tomuk]

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.

Personally I ambivalent towards them HSTs have never really operated where I live and I must say on one of the last times I was on loco hauled Mk3s, Greater Anglia and Chiltern on the same day, I was disappointed in different ways.

It was the Scottish Government that preferred them as a response to demand from passengers that they wanted 'proper inter city trains' rather than DMUs.

As regards their reliability chopping extant carriages up and retrofitting power doors is likely to cause issues and if it is power car problems the ex FGW cars received the MTU engine earlier than the others and never had the more comprehensive rewire\electronics upgrade the EC and XC sets had.

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!

Just because it is factually correct doesn't mean your comparison isn't hyperbole. Again the Scottish Government wanted the HSTs not DfT or 'enthusiasts' on this forum.

 

[Speed43125]

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.

In fairness the forum thrives on stock issues and cancellations.

There was always going to be a very steep learning curve, plus added work beyond the original refurb scope as stuff became obvious, such as removing the ATP speedos that caused quite a few issues early on. I agree that rust was worse than expected and all the rest of it associated with the refurbishment, but from a passenger perspective I find them fine.

I don't see their introduction as any more 'disastrous' as TPE mk.5s for instance. Their performance is also pretty pokey when making up time, or on certain early morning services into Queen street with nothing ahead where they can easily arrive 5+ minutes early.

 

[43066]

It was the Scottish Government that preferred them as a response to demand from passengers that they wanted 'proper inter city trains' rather than DMUs.

I can’t remember the specifics as it was discussed so long ago, but is that definitely how it happened?

Was it not the case that the franchise specified a requirement for inter city standard rolling stock and the winning bidder chose HSTs? If so the situation is subtly different than ScotGov asking for a particular class (happy to be corrected if that’s not the case).

As regards their reliability chopping extant carriages up and retrofitting power doors is likely to cause issues and if it is power car problems the ex FGW cars received the MTU engine earlier than the others and never had the more comprehensive rewire\electronics upgrade the EC and XC sets had.

I’m sure that’s true. But these are now very old trains with colossal mileages. The ones my operator retired were going downhill in terms of reliability. It was probably a bad idea to imagine they would be suitable for a long term redeployment after being patched up and chopped and changed into different formations.

Just because it is factually correct doesn't mean your comparison isn't hyperbole. Again the Scottish Government wanted the HSTs not DfT or 'enthusiasts' on this forum.

With respect, it isn’t “hyperbole”, because there’s no exaggeration. It’s simply a factual statement demonstrating how long they have been in service for.

I could equally have said Harold Wilson was PM when the class entered service, simply because he was, in fact, leading the country the year they were introduced.

 

[tomuk]

I can’t remember the specifics as it was discussed so long ago, but is that definitely how it happened?

Was it not the case that the franchise specified a requirement for inter city standard rolling stock and the winning bidder chose HSTs? If so the situation is subtly different than ScotGov asking for a particular class (happy to be corrected if that’s not the case).

In any bidding process the bidder will put forward a proposal that meets the requirements. In the case of ScotRail the 170s were disliked by some and not thought to be commensurate with expectations for InterCity travel in a proper country, see Gerald and Mk4s in Wales. Transport Scotland were very happy with their new HSTs pronouncing in the franchise award factsheet five times the introduction of "hugely popular high speed trains"

 

[DanNCL]

HSTs, HSTs and HSTs I believe. Unless 91s do as well, but they haven't got long to go either.

I can't think of any ex-BR DMUs or EMUs that have a fibreglass cab (can you?) and all the newer stuff has a metal frame under any fairing.

The 91s have a steel cab superstructure which is flat fronted underneath the windscreen, and a cosmetic/aerodynamic fibreglass nose which houses the horns and headlights and acts as a crumple zone. More akin to an 80x (but obviously not to the same standards) than a HST for cab structure.

Pacers had fibreglass cabs and the outgoing Tyne & Wear Metro fleet does too.

What isn’t?

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.

You’d think from their statements that they were expecting all HSTs to suddenly disappear on the 12th August this year, and if that was what they’re expecting then it is unreasonable, solely as there’s no way any replacements would be ready in such a short timeframe. A five year legal deadline with no possibility of extension to replace the remaining HSTs from service, with a target to complete replacement sooner if possible, would be reasonable. That would still see the HSTs gone well before 2030.

We both know that in reality what ASLEF want is a timeframe that gets the HSTs replaced as quickly as practically possible, and that of course is reasonable.

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!

I agree but unfortunately there’s precedent for such longevity on the railway, until 2021 there were still units on the Isle of Wight dating back to when Neville Chamberlain was PM and WW2 hadn’t even started! Yes the 483s were decades past their use by date but unfortunately their 80+ year career could be used by some in an attempt to justify retaining the HSTs into the 2030s.

There is nothing in a train built today that would have prevented that.

The driver from Grayrigg survived his cab being flung down an embankment at 95mph and flipping 180 degrees. The circumstances obviously weren’t identical between the two accidents but we know a HST powercar would have come out of Grayrigg looking almost identical to how 43140 came out of Carmont. The 390 held up incredibly well and that’s not even a brand new design it’s over 20 years old.

I can’t remember the specifics as it was discussed so long ago, but is that definitely how it happened?

Was it not the case that the franchise specified a requirement for inter city standard rolling stock and the winning bidder chose HSTs? If so the situation is subtly different than ScotGov asking for a particular class (happy to be corrected if that’s not the case).

Reportedly there was a survey over passenger facilities before the franchise was let and the overwhelming public response was that they wanted trains of comparable quality to what East Coast used to Aberdeen and Inverness at the time, which of course was HSTs. The franchise had a stock specification broadly matching that of a HST but not outright stipulating HSTs as a requirement. Abellio took “we want what East Coast have” literally.
I seem to recall First’s unsuccessful bid would have seen refurbished 170s instead. I’m not sure what the other bids proposed to use.

In any bidding process the bidder will put forward a proposal that meets the requirements. In the case of ScotRail the 170s were disliked by some and not thought to be commensurate with expectations for InterCity travel in a proper country, see Gerald and Mk4s in Wales. Transport Scotland were very happy with their new HSTs pronouncing in the franchise award factsheet five times the introduction of "hugely popular high speed trains"

170s in their existing configuration weren’t compliant with the specification but were able to be refurbished to comply, which at least one bidder proposed to do instead of using HST.

 

[tomuk]

The driver from Grayrigg survived his cab being flung down an embankment at 95mph and flipping 180 degrees. The circumstances obviously weren’t identical between the two accidents but we know a HST powercar would have come out of Grayrigg looking almost identical to how 43140 came out of Carmont.

No 'we' don't the two accidents were completely different apart from some LOCs the front of the Pendolino didn't hit anything it did knock over two OHLE masts but these impacts were further along the carriage. To say the power cars would end up looking almost identical is just not correct there are just two many variables.

 

[XAM2175]

The 91s have a steel cab superstructure which is flat fronted underneath the windscreen, and a cosmetic/aerodynamic fibreglass nose which houses the horns and headlights and acts as a crumple zone. More akin to an 80x (but obviously not to the same standards) than a HST for cab structure.

A design concept pioneered on APT-P, incidentally. It's a shame that the HST cab didn't receive quite the same provision despite being on the drawing board at much the same time - though as noted above once secondary impact is considered the physics and the mitigations both become quite different.

A HST cab which is a GRP composite is designed to take an impact of a 0.9kg steel block at 330kph.

Is this for the windscreen or the cab body? I can't help but notice while double-checking my figures that APT-P's windscreen was rated for a 0.9 kg steel cube at 360 km/h and the crash bulkhead underneath the windscreen was rated for the same object at over 500 km/h.

The crash bulkhead was also designed to tolerate a distributed front-on buffing load of 2 meganewton, but I don't have any figures to hand for HST.

 

[43096]

The driver from Grayrigg survived his cab being flung down an embankment at 95mph and flipping 180 degrees. The circumstances obviously weren’t identical between the two accidents but we know a HST powercar would have come out of Grayrigg looking almost identical to how 43140 came out of Carmont. The 390 held up incredibly well and that’s not even a brand new design it’s over 20 years old.

“We” do not know that. You do not know that. Every accident is different, so trying to predict how things would have turned out using two rather different accidents is foolish, to say the least.

 

[DanNCL]

No 'we' don't the two accidents were completely different apart from some LOCs the front of the Pendolino didn't hit anything it did knock over two OHLE masts but these impacts were further along the carriage. To say the power cars would end up looking almost identical is just not correct there are just two many variables.

“We” do not know that. You do not know that. Every accident is different, so trying to predict how things would have turned out using two rather different accidents is foolish, to say the least.

The comparison I'm making is solely in relation to the leading vehicle ie where the driver is and the motion of the leading vehicle was similar in both accidents - it derailed, went down the embankment and flipped 180 degrees. Other parts of the accidents were very different but stuff such as where the trailing vehicles ended up have little/no impact on the driver sitting in the leading vehicle. The cause of the accidents was also different but again the motion of the leading vehicle was similar, we can take a well educated guess. And likewise we can say that a 390 would have come out of Carmont in better shape than the HST did.
If anyone thinks a HST powercar would have come out of Grayrigg as anything other than a cabless wreck then I honestly don't know what to say, other than that they have far too much confidence in the design of the HST.

 

[43096]

If anyone thinks a HST powercar would have come out of Grayrigg as anything other than a cabless wreck then I honestly don't know what to say, other than that they have far too much confidence in the design of the HST.

You can guess as much as you like - which is clearly what you’re doing - but your assertion is utterly baseless. A Class 43 at Grayrigg may have lost its cab or it may not. I could just as easily point you to Ufton Nervet where a HST derailed at high speed, ended up sliding on its side for some time… and didn’t lose its cab.

 

[stevieinselby]

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.

Having recently taken a trip on the HML that involved an HST, a 158 and a 170, I can't say I found the HST to offer a better experience than the DMUs.
For all that people talk about them being smoother, the jolting when setting off was very noticeable, as was the squeaking and rattling from the vestibules.
The 158 was noisier, sure, and the door arrangement on the 170 isn't perfect for that kind of long journey, but overall there wasn't a whole lot to choose between them. If I had to pick from the three, I would probably go for the 170.

 

[43066]

In any bidding process the bidder will put forward a proposal that meets the requirements. In the case of ScotRail the 170s were disliked by some and not thought to be commensurate with expectations for InterCity travel in a proper country, see Gerald and Mk4s in Wales. Transport Scotland were very happy with their new HSTs pronouncing in the franchise award factsheet five times the introduction of "hugely popular high speed trains"

Okay. So as I thought the bid rather than the rolling stock was selected, due to various factors, but primarily cost, and the result spun accordingly.

What it boils down to is that ScotGov wasn’t prepared to foot the bill to pay for an actual new fleet of trains to the required specs. As such they accepted a bid giving Scotrail 40yo stock that was being retired from elsewhere to run their top line express services.

Reportedly there was a survey over passenger facilities before the franchise was let and the overwhelming public response was that they wanted trains of comparable quality to what East Coast used to Aberdeen and Inverness at the time, which of course was HSTs. The franchise had a stock specification broadly matching that of a HST but not outright stipulating HSTs as a requirement. Abellio took “we want what East Coast have” literally.
I seem to recall First’s unsuccessful bid would have seen refurbished 170s instead. I’m not sure what the other bids proposed to use.

Yes, from a quick read around the subject it does seem that that they wanted to get away from 170s which isn’t surprising. Of course that *could* have been achieved by commissioning a brand new IC spec fleet. Nobody should kid themselves that HSTs were anything other than the cheapo option.

No 'we' don't the two accidents were completely different apart from some LOCs the front of the Pendolino didn't hit anything it did knock over two OHLE masts but these impacts were further along the carriage. To say the power cars would end up looking almost identical is just not correct there are just two many variables.

The point is that everything else being equal a new crashworthy design is going to be safer than something designed generations ago. Hence your suggestion that ASELF is unreasonable in wanting a programme to see these trains replaced is ridiculous, in my view.

“We” do not know that. You do not know that. Every accident is different, so trying to predict how things would have turned out using two rather different accidents is foolish, to say the least.

Not as foolish as pretending that there’s no difference between a vehicle designed in the 70s and a more recent one…

 

[43096]

Not as foolish as pretending that there’s no difference between a vehicle designed in the 70s and a more recent one…

Which no one on here is suggesting.

 

[tomuk]

The comparison I'm making is solely in relation to the leading vehicle ie where the driver is and the motion of the leading vehicle was similar in both accidents - it derailed, went down the embankment and flipped 180 degrees. Other parts of the accidents were very different but stuff such as where the trailing vehicles ended up have little/no impact on the driver sitting in the leading vehicle. The cause of the accidents was also different but again the motion of the leading vehicle was similar, we can take a well educated guess. And likewise we can say that a 390 would have come out of Carmont in better shape than the HST did.
If anyone thinks a HST powercar would have come out of Grayrigg as anything other than a cabless wreck then I honestly don't know what to say, other than that they have far too much confidence in the design of the HST.

The motion of the incidents was very different just read the accident reports.

 

[43066]

Which no one on here is suggesting.

Oh no?! You’re just splitting hairs over whether Grayrigg would or wouldn’t have been different with an HST (which obviously is unprovable either way).

The motion of the incidents was very different just read the accident reports.

So basically until someone gives you two absolutely identical accidents with different outcomes you will never accept there’s any difference.

Thankfully the union representing the people who actually operate these things take a different approach to risk!

 

[tomuk]

Thankfully the union representing the people who actually operate these things take a different approach to risk!

Yes a completely irrational one with no basis in fact. The culprit at Carmont was the infrastructure, the culprit at Grayrigg was the infrastructure. Where is the campaign to ensure NR have learnt the lessons and have carried through all their recommendations. And what as Alex Hynes got to do with it it all?

 

[43066]

Yes a completely irrational one with no basis in fact.

Other than the fact that newer trains are built to higher standards, are known to be safer, and 40yo stock now needs to be phased out rather than extended for another decade. That really shouldn’t be controversial for anybody.

The culprit at Carmont was the infrastructure, the culprit at Grayrigg was the infrastructure

Grayrigg was reckoned at the time not to have been a *lot* more serious due to the quality of the rolling stock involved. But you will presumably discount that because we haven’t had an exactly equivalent accident involving an HST.

You can’t ever eliminate the risk of infrastructure failures, which is why rolling stock is designed to high crashworthiness standards…

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'm hardly known for my love of ASLEF, but I'd fully support them on refusing to drive HSTs. TOCs and DFT have had plenty of time to replace these ancient old things, which rather ironically are being deemed as safe by those not having to sit in the middle of the crumple zone, underneath a fibreglass cab.

Forgive me, but I can't help thinking there is an element of unconscious bias to those insisting HSTs are just as safe to drive as something designed far more recently.

 

[HSTEd]

Forgive me, but I can't help thinking there is an element of unconscious bias to those insisting HSTs are just as safe to drive as something designed far more recently.

As a practical matter they are very nearly as safe to drive as more modern stock.

Because the primary element of railway safety is to avoid these incidents in the first place.

These incidents are extremely rare, and thus it is not justified to spend very large amounts to mitigate their consequences.

Earlier than anticipated replacement of the HSTs will likely cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

These incidents are extremely rare, and thus it is not justified to spend very large amounts to mitigate their consequences.

Agreed, to some extent, but when a train is fast approaching its fiftieth birthday, it's really rather poor that no replacement has been ordered.

 

[tomuk]

Other than the fact that newer trains are built to higher standards, are known to be safer, and 40yo stock now needs to be phased out rather than extended for another decade. That really shouldn’t be controversial for anybody.

So a completely rational response to the accident at Carmont which is due to an infrastructure failure and the mismanagement of said infrastructure both before in terms of construction and maintenance and on the day is to threaten to boycott the rolling stock involved in the accident when the RAIB have said "The impact conditions were significantly beyond those in which even modern cabs are designed to provide protection for occupants."

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Earlier than anticipated replacement of the HSTs will likely cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

What is anticipated? Should they be around until sixty, is that it? It's not as if there haven't been plenty of chances to withdraw these trains before they passed their sell by date. It's not like they've only suddenly become rather old.

 

[HSTEd]

What is anticipated? Should they be around until sixty, is that it?

My understanding is replacement procurement is anticipated for around 2030.

In hindsight Turbostars or similar units should have been procured instead of the HST refurbishment project.
However the cost of the HST refurb is now sunk and the leases are signed, which means the cost of replacements has to be fully priced against the status quo.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

So a completely rational response to the accident at Carmont which is due to an infrastructure failure and the mismanagement of said infrastructure both before in terms of construction and maintenance and on the day is to threaten to boycott the rolling stock involved in the accident when the RAIB have said "The impact conditions were significantly beyond those in which even modern cabs are designed to provide protection for occupants."

And a strong brick building may be significantly destroyed in a fire, as often happens sadly now and then. That does not mean a wooden building would not have been wrecked far quicker, or been destroyed in a smaller fire that a strong brick building would have upheld.

Similarly, while this crash may have been severe enough to destroy any rolling stock, that does not detract from the fact that a smaller incident may well occur, in which a train with modern crashworthiness standards may well protect those on board while a 50 year old train may not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2023 ==

My understanding is replacement procurement is anticipated for around 2030.

In hindsight Turbostars or similar units should have been procured instead of the HST refurbishment project.
However the cost of the HST refurb is now sunk and the leases are signed, which means the cost of replacements has to be fully priced against the status quo.

2030, so the fifty-fifth birthday for the oldest locomotives, and that's before taking into account the usual delays of rolling stock procurement and the fact it normally takes a good couple of years to complete the transition.

 

[tomuk]

And a strong brick building may be significantly destroyed in a fire, as often happens sadly now and then. That does not mean a wooden building would not have been wrecked far quicker, or been destroyed in a smaller fire that a strong brick building would have upheld.

Similarly, while this crash may have been severe enough to destroy any rolling stock, that does not detract from the fact that a smaller incident may well occur, in which a train with modern crashworthiness standards may well protect those on board while a 50 year old train may not.

Yes but we aren't talking about a smaller incident we are talking about the response to Carmont.

 

[43096]

You’re just splitting hairs over whether Grayrigg would or wouldn’t have been different with an HST (which obviously is unprovable either way).

Glad to see you've finally got it. My whole point was that you can't prove it either way, despite what was claimed by @DanNCL.

 

[cactustwirly]

I'm hardly known for my love of ASLEF, but I'd fully support them on refusing to drive HSTs. TOCs and DFT have had plenty of time to replace these ancient old things, which rather ironically are being deemed as safe by those not having to sit in the middle of the crumple zone, underneath a fibreglass cab.

Forgive me, but I can't help thinking there is an element of unconscious bias to those insisting HSTs are just as safe to drive as something designed far more recently.

The DfT are withdrawing all of the HSTs under their control by 2024, majority by the end of the year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2023 ==

And a strong brick building may be significantly destroyed in a fire, as often happens sadly now and then. That does not mean a wooden building would not have been wrecked far quicker, or been destroyed in a smaller fire that a strong brick building would have upheld.

Similarly, while this crash may have been severe enough to destroy any rolling stock, that does not detract from the fact that a smaller incident may well occur, in which a train with modern crashworthiness standards may well protect those on board while a 50 year old train may not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2023 ==


2030, so the fifty-fifth birthday for the oldest locomotives, and that's before taking into account the usual delays of rolling stock procurement and the fact it normally takes a good couple of years to complete the transition.

By that argument, we should withdraw all of the 150s at Northern too as they don't conform to modern crash standards, and are a similar age to the HSTs

 

[tomuk]

By that argument, we should withdraw all of the 150s at Northern too as they don't conform to modern crash standards, and are a similar age to the HSTs

I agree with the jist of your argument but HSTs are 10 years older than 150s. But where exactly should a line be drawn? 1994 when a set of crashworthiness standard were published? So that is withdrawal of everything up to and including Networkers.

 

[43066]

So a completely rational response to the accident at Carmont which is due to an infrastructure failure and the mismanagement of said infrastructure both before in terms of construction and maintenance and on the day is to threaten to boycott the rolling stock involved in the accident when the RAIB have said "The impact conditions were significantly beyond those in which even modern cabs are designed to provide protection for occupants."

Again the fact that one accident might not have made a difference is really neither here nor there. You could use that argument to justify people driving around in 1970s cars. If you get killed someone can say “we don’t know if side impact bars and airbags would have prevented fatalities in that precise accident”.

Again - if we weren’t talking about HSTs and ASLEF nobody would think there was anything unusual about what has been said…

Similarly, while this crash may have been severe enough to destroy any rolling stock, that does not detract from the fact that a smaller incident may well occur, in which a train with modern crashworthiness standards may well protect those on board while a 50 year old train may not.

Exactly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2023 ==

But where exactly should a line be drawn? 1994 when a set of crashworthiness standard were published? So that is withdrawal of everything up to and including Networkers.

By the same token, you seem to be suggesting that ASLEF should never object to stock on safety grounds, whatever age it is...