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

[DanNCL]

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?

The culprit at Carmont was both infrastructure and weather. No matter how hard anyone tries there's no way of preventing an accident from the latter short of shutting the railway every time it rains, are you seriously suggesting they do that?!

Alex Hynes was responsible for the winning bid that brought 40 year old trains into a new role for extended use when they were already life expired.

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.



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…

Indeed. One only needs to look at the state of the Tyne & Wear Metro and the Bakerloo Line to see what happens when you don't replace stock quickly enough. Thankfully neither have had any fatal accidents.

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.

That hasn't been applicable since the early 2000s. The HSTs were designed as a stop gap. They shouldn't still be here 45 years later.

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."

A rational response is to set a legal deadline, say of 5 years from now, for the stock to be removed. Appreciate the wording of the ASLEF statement is poor but most of us would expect ASLEF to accept that.
The point is that the cab wasn’t just “unsurvivable”, it completely disintegrated, which is a a very good indicator that it wouldn’t perform well in other crashes either.

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.

If it had been all done according to the plans when the first HSTs were introduced they'd likely have all been gone by 2010, as APTs would have replaced them on the likes of the ECML and GWML in the 1980s, and the likes of XC realistically wouldn't have had them beyond 2010. We're already 13 years past that.

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.

By which point the oldest HST powercars, some of which are part of ScotRail's fleet, will be 55 years old. They shouldn't have lasted anywhere near that long, and indeed they probably wouldn't have if it wasn't for the MTU refit.

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

But the point very much stands. It highlighted the issues with crashworthiness of this design.
Worth remembering that of the three deaths at Carmont only one of them was in the powercar that went down the embankment, the other two were in the Mark 3s that remained on the tracks. Had it been something newer like a 170 or an 800 it's entirely possible and indeed likely that the only death would have been the driver.
I hate to imagine what the death toll would have been if Carmont had happened 12 months earlier with a fully loaded LNER HST...

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

And are also Mark 3 bodied like the HSTs.

 

[tomuk]

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”.

But the boycott and ban is specific response to the Carmont accident the current circular from the EC just dresses up in more generic platitudes.

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

If the safety grounds were valid not down to personal prefrences or other wider political\IR motives than I would support it.

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

The culprit at Carmont was both infrastructure and weather. No matter how hard anyone tries there's no way of preventing an accident from the latter short of shutting the railway every time it rains, are you seriously suggesting they do that?!

Not every time it rains but there is a case to answer as to NRs response that morning and whether the train should have been sent back to Stonehaven either at all or at least at caution.

Alex Hynes was responsible for the winning bid that brought 40 year old trains into a new role for extended use when they were already life expired.

The Scottish Government could have rejected the proposal for HSTs but they specifically wanted them. As to whether they were life expired or not is your opnion and they were only for the length of the current franchise only with their use being reduced as electfication is roled out anyway

A rational response is to set a legal deadline, say of 5 years from now, for the stock to be removed. Appreciate the wording of the ASLEF statement is poor but most of us would expect ASLEF to accept that.
The point is that the cab wasn’t just “unsurvivable”, it completely disintegrated, which is a a very good indicator that it wouldn’t perform well in other crashes either.

No a rational response would be going after NR. Being in any other cab wouldn't have made any difference.

But the point very much stands. It highlighted the issues with crashworthiness of this design.
Worth remembering that of the three deaths at Carmont only one of them was in the powercar that went down the embankment, the other two were in the Mark 3s that remained on the tracks. Had it been something newer like a 170 or an 800 it's entirely possible and indeed likely that the only death would have been the driver.

It quite possibly could have been worse you don't know. How would the results be better if their were passengers in the leading car? Would the guard have been better off standing in the 80x vestibule that is a crumple zone?

 

[43066]

But the boycott and ban is specific response to the Carmont accident the current circular from the EC just dresses up in more generic platitudes.

What “boycott and ban” would that be?

If the safety grounds were valid not down to personal prefrences or other wider political\IR motives than I would support it.

So there we have it. This is really about you not liking ASLEF.

The safety grounds are valid and obvious, unless you refuse to acknowledge that modern trains are safer than 1970s stock. You’ll also never accept anything ASLEF say, because you’ll move the goalposts and attribute it to “wider political/IR motives”.

I also assume you have some evidence for your above accusation of ulterior motives (especially as the IR dispute has been settled in Scotland)?

 

[43096]

Alex Hynes was responsible for the winning bid that brought 40 year old trains into a new role for extended use when they were already life expired.

Alex Hynes was Northern MD from 2013 until the middle of 2017 before leaving foir ScotRail so presumably had nothing to do with the Abellio ScotRail bid.

The ASLEF call for him to be sacked with no reasoning is just immature and pathetic. There's no need to bring individuals into it. I bet if ScotRail called for the removal of Mick Whelan ASLEF would be squealing to some order.

 

[tomuk]

What “boycott and ban” would that be?

This was Kevin Lindsay, organiser at the ASLEF union back in March 2022

Lindsay said: “We want them phased out as quickly as possible.

"We understand the practicalities and will participate in the steering group. If the group just pays lip service to safety concerns, our members will boycott these trains from August 12 next year – the third anniversary of the crash.”

So there we have it. This is really about you not liking ASLEF.

Not really I just don't like the position they are taking as it doesn't seem to be based on the facts of the case.

The safety grounds are valid and obvious, unless you refuse to acknowledge that modern trains are safer than 1970s stock.

Where do I refuse to acknowledge modern trains are safer than modern ones?

You’ll also never accept anything ASLEF say, because you’ll move the goalposts and attribute it to “wider political/IR motives”.

No I would be open to what they have to say if it is backed up by sound evidence. I suggest wider motives due to the somewhat odd demand that Alex Hynes should be removed.

 

[DanNCL]

But the boycott and ban is specific response to the Carmont accident the current circular from the EC just dresses up in more generic platitudes.

It's not a specific response to Carmont, rather it's Carmont that's highlighted how bad the problem is.

If the safety grounds were valid not down to personal prefrences or other wider political\IR motives than I would support it.

The safety grounds are that in the event of almost any crash the driver is almost guaranteed to die, which isn't the case on most trains. But no that's alright as long as some can continue to ride their HSTs...

Not every time it rains but there is a case to answer as to NRs response that morning and whether the train should have been sent back to Stonehaven either at all or at least at caution.

So what did you suppose they did instead? Evacuate the train at Carmont Signal Box and leave the passengers stranded, quite literally, in the middle of nowhere?
The train should have been under caution and that would probably have prevented the accident but attempting to get it to Stonehaven was absolutely the right thing to do.

The Scottish Government could have rejected the proposal for HSTs but they specifically wanted them.

The Scottish Government did not specifically want HSTs as has already been pointed out to you by myself and by @43066. The Scottish Government wanted "Intercity Spec" stock, which both new build stock and refurbished 170s would have qualified.

As to whether they were life expired or not is your opnion and they were only for the length of the current franchise only with their use being reduced as electfication is roled out anyway

It doesn't take a genius to work out that a train with a design life of 30 years is life expired at almost 50... And remind me when the wires are reaching Aberdeen and Inverness? Ah yes, 'not before' 2030.
It isn't for the length of any franchise either. ScotRail is fully nationalised, the Scottish Government have zero intention of putting it out to tender again. There is no timeframe for the replacement of their HSTs.

No a rational response would be going after NR. Being in any other cab wouldn't have made any difference.

Network Rail absolutely have been gone after and rightly so but, as again has already been explained to you, it is impossible to make the infrastructure 100% accident proof.
Being in any other cab wouldn't have made any difference in that one single accident. Being in any other cab absolutely would have made a difference in many, many other circumstances, none of which are inconceivable.

It quite possibly could have been worse you don't know. How would the results be better if their were passengers in the leading car? Would the guard have been better off standing in the 80x vestibule that is a crumple zone?

Just about every crash scenario possible is computer simulated for all modern trains long before they even roll off the production line. Someone else will probably be able to explain it in much more detail than I can but this stuff is tested, and it would not be surprising if as part of the RAIB investigation the potential outcomes at Carmont had it been a 170 or 80x had been simulated, but if they had we'll never know the results of that.

This was Kevin Lindsay, organiser at the ASLEF union back in March 2022

Lindsay said: “We want them phased out as quickly as possible.

"We understand the practicalities and will participate in the steering group. If the group just pays lip service to safety concerns, our members will boycott these trains from August 12 next year – the third anniversary of the crash.”

And as we've repeatedly tried telling you, this is the union running its mouth. It is incredibly unlikely that any boycott will actually happen on August 12th.

Not really I just don't like the position they are taking as it doesn't seem to be based on the facts of the case.

Again, this isn't just about Carmont, Carmont is what has highlighted issues that had previously gone unnoticed. An issue going unnoticed doesn't make it any less of an issue, would you rather an issue was discovered in a less severe accident in 10 years time? Just imagine the field day the media would have with the headlines, 'several killed by dangerous 60-year-old train', insensitive but entirely believable from the UK media.

 

[43066]

I really can’t add much to @DanNCL ’s excellent response above.

This was Kevin Lindsay, organiser at the ASLEF union back in March 2022

Lindsay said: “We want them phased out as quickly as possible.

"We understand the practicalities and will participate in the steering group. If the group just pays lip service to safety concerns, our members will boycott these trains from August 12 next year – the third anniversary of the crash.”

Yet three years later after that crash ASLEF members are driving the stock. The union are simply asking for a firm commitment to removal. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Not really I just don't like the position they are taking as it doesn't seem to be based on the facts of the case.

The facts are the case are that modern trains are safer than old ones, and HSTs are very old ones. It isn’t just about that one incident.

Where do I refuse to acknowledge modern trains are safer than modern ones?

As above.

But no that's alright as long as some can continue to ride their HSTs

There’s definitely quite a bit of that in this thread. I do get it as an enthusiast - personally I would happily still drive HSTs despite all I’ve said above - but ASLEF represent all of their members and I think they’re exactly right here.

 

[380101]

And what as Alex Hynes got to do with it it all?

Alex Hynes is the Network Rail MD for the Scotland route and also the MD of the ScotRail Alliance, now known as Scotland's Railways and it was felt by alot of people within ScotRail and the wider rail industry in Scotland that he should have "fallen on his sword" and resigned, given that the incident at Carmont happened on his watch.

Alex Hynes was responsible for the winning bid that brought 40 year old trains into a new role.

Alex Hynes was not involved with the Abellio bid, including the HST proposals, for the ScotRail franchise in anyway. He was MD at Northern back then.

The first MD of Abellio ScotRail was Phil Verster - a Network Rail employee who remained an NR employee and held the title of Managing Director of the ScotRail Alliance,now known as Scotland's Railways. Again, he was not involved in the franchise bid process.

 

[tomuk]

It's not a specific response to Carmont, rather it's Carmont that's highlighted how bad the problem is.

So Mr Lindsay comments and his suggested boycott on the anniversary of the accident aren't Carmont specific. Ok

The safety grounds are that in the event of almost any crash the driver is almost guaranteed to die, which isn't the case on most trains.

That just isn't true.

But no that's alright as long as some can continue to ride their HSTs...

I don't want to ride on HSTs in fact thinking about it I've probably on only been on one once from New Street to Exeter 10 years ago so you can roll your eyes elsewhere.

So what did you suppose they did instead? Evacuate the train at Carmont Signal Box and leave the passengers stranded, quite literally, in the middle of nowhere?
The train should have been under caution and that would probably have prevented the accident but attempting to get it to Stonehaven was absolutely the right thing to do.

They could have stayed at on board at Carmont until the line was inspected or as you suggest evacuate there and a coach be sent to meet them or as I said returned to Stonehaven under caution. Options were available.

The Scottish Government did not specifically want HSTs as has already been pointed out to you by myself and by @43066. The Scottish Government wanted "Intercity Spec" stock, which both new build stock and refurbished 170s would have qualified.

They took up Abellio's tender they didn't have to if they were unhappy with the proposal or they could have structured the tender so HSTs were non compliant. Abellio and HSTs won.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that a train with a design life of 30 years is life expired at almost 50...

Possibly but who said they have a 30 year design life? And have the various refurbishments, overhauls and re-engining not extended that?

It isn't for the length of any franchise either. ScotRail is fully nationalised,

It was at the time but events interceded. Scotrail isn't currently nationalised it is being operated under Section 30 OLR status. The Scottish government are yet to put anything permanent in place.

Network Rail absolutely have been gone after and rightly so but, as again has already been explained to you, it is impossible to make the infrastructure 100% accident proof.
Being in any other cab wouldn't have made any difference in that one single accident. Being in any other cab absolutely would have made a difference in many, many other circumstances, none of which are inconceivable.

There are lots of conceivable accidents where the forces involved could be beyond that required by current standards. RAIB them selves alluded to that in their Grayrigg report where they suggested that the standards were aimed at mitigating the results of collisions but due to fitment of TPWS derailments were now more likely type of accident and the standard may need to be reviewed. Some of the crashworthiness features of the Pendolino to meet the collision focused standards were either irrelevant in the derailment whereas others were a happy benefit.

Just about every crash scenario possible is computer simulated for all modern trains long before they even roll off the production line.

No it isn't trains are just designed to meet the standards in place at time of build. Simulations will be used to ensure that they can meet the required crash loads.

Someone else will probably be able to explain it in much more detail than I can but this stuff is tested, and it would not be surprising if as part of the RAIB investigation the potential outcomes at Carmont had it been a 170 or 80x had been simulated, but if they had we'll never know the results of that.

I'm not sure why RAIB would bother to model such a thing as infrastructure issues were the focus of the accident but based on their other reports they do like a good simulation so I'm sure they would have shared it if they had carried it out. Why would they hide it? Because it would place the HSTs in a worse light or that 80x and 170s would have performed no better or in fact worse?

And as we've repeatedly tried telling you, this is the union running its mouth. It is incredibly unlikely that any boycott will actually happen on August 12th.

I know the the Union is running it mouth as you put it, particularly their Scotand organiser. And I would agree a boycott is unlikely if logic and reason were the drivers but something else appears to be in play.

Again, this isn't just about Carmont, Carmont is what has highlighted issues that had previously gone unnoticed.

What unnoticed issue? That NR poorly manage the infrastructure? That NR have no proper weather contingency plans in place as we look at a future with a more chaotic climate.

An issue going unnoticed doesn't make it any less of an issue, would you rather an issue was discovered in a less severe accident in 10 years time? Just imagine the field day the media would have with the headlines, 'several killed by dangerous 60-year-old train', insensitive but entirely believable from the UK media.

So we should run the railways and the rest of society based on what the Sun or Daily Mail might say?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A (genuine) question on "blacklisting" HSTs as a concept.

I seem to recall it's often pointed out that it isn't possible in the UK for staff to do a "fare strike" in the UK, i.e. to stop checking tickets/collecting fares but do the rest of their job properly, because you can either strike (not attend work at all) or attend work and do your job properly, but only doing some of it might be considered gross misconduct and thus dismissable.

How does that tally with the idea of attending work and agreeing to drive say 158s and 170s but not HSTs?

 

[bramling]

A (genuine) question on "blacklisting" HSTs as a concept.

I seem to recall it's often pointed out that it isn't possible in the UK for staff to do a "fare strike" in the UK, i.e. to stop checking tickets/collecting fares but do the rest of their job properly, because you can either strike (not attend work at all) or attend work and do your job properly, but only doing some of it might be considered gross misconduct and thus dismissable.

How does that tally with the idea of attending work and agreeing to drive say 158s and 170s but not HSTs?

In theory, the employer would likely ask the driver to see a manager, who would officially give them the instruction to carry out their duty, and that if they fail to do so then they are in breach of contract.

The driver can officially refuse to work on the grounds of health and safety, and it then becomes a can of worms as to who blinks first, as at some point it has to be deemed whether such a refusal is reasonable or not.

The union, for their part, can then take various forms of action if any drivers are disciplined over refusing to work, which could potentially lead to industrial action.

In practice, due to the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that the industry’s house isn’t in order over Carmont, I don’t think it would come to that. I think a solution would be trashed out, which would likely be a meaningful commitment to replace these trains in the shortest possible timescale. I suspect something like the 222s will end up happening, even if it’s not ideal and it results in a load of wasted money over the HST lease. The wastage will simply be put down to experience. It’s small change compared to something like the Covid response, after all.

Despite all the logistical issues, I think it will ultimately prove politically untenable to see the HSTs continue whilst other diesel stock is stored or scrapped. That even includes the 180s.

 

[DanNCL]

Alex Hynes was Northern MD from 2013 until the middle of 2017 before leaving foir ScotRail so presumably had nothing to do with the Abellio ScotRail bid.

The ASLEF call for him to be sacked with no reasoning is just immature and pathetic. There's no need to bring individuals into it. I bet if ScotRail called for the removal of Mick Whelan ASLEF would be squealing to some order.

Alex Hynes is the Network Rail MD for the Scotland route and also the MD of the ScotRail Alliance, now known as Scotland's Railways and it was felt by alot of people within ScotRail and the wider rail industry in Scotland that he should have "fallen on his sword" and resigned, given that the incident at Carmont happened on his watch.

Alex Hynes was not involved with the Abellio bid, including the HST proposals, for the ScotRail franchise in anyway. He was MD at Northern back then.

The first MD of Abellio ScotRail was Phil Verster - a Network Rail employee who remained an NR employee and held the title of Managing Director of the ScotRail Alliance,now known as Scotland's Railways. Again, he was not involved in the franchise bid process.

My apologies, I had known he was ex Northern but for some reason thought he transferred to ScotRail at the start of the Abellio franchise.

That just isn't true.

Please explain how you think a driver is realistically going to survive a crash in a fibreglass cab that at best comes detached from the rest of the power car, at worst completely disintegrates.

They could have stayed at on board at Carmont until the line was inspected or as you suggest evacuate there and a coach be sent to meet them or as I said returned to Stonehaven under caution. Options were available.

We know passengers don’t take well to being stranded on a stationary train for hours and that’s when they take things into their own hands and self evacuate onto the track. This is a very remote area, it’s one of the last places you’d want to carry out an evacuation.

Possibly but who said they have a 30 year design life? And have the various refurbishments, overhauls and re-engining not extended that?

Trains are generally built with a 30 year design life, which takes into account overhauls. The HSTs were built as a stop gap, they weren’t built to last 45 years never mind 50 or 60, with or without overhauls and refurbishments.

It was at the time but events interceded. Scotrail isn't currently nationalised it is being operated under Section 30 OLR status. The Scottish government are yet to put anything permanent in place.

It may be under Section 30 OLR status formally but it is well known that the current SNP/Green administration at Holyrood plan to keep ScotRail under full public ownership. It’s as good as permanent.

No it isn't trains are just designed to meet the standards in place at time of build. Simulations will be used to ensure that they can meet the required crash loads.

I'm not sure why RAIB would bother to model such a thing as infrastructure issues were the focus of the accident but based on their other reports they do like a good simulation so I'm sure they would have shared it if they had carried it out. Why would they hide it? Because it would place the HSTs in a worse light or that 80x and 170s would have performed no better or in fact worse?

As I’ve said, someone else can probably explain the ins and outs of crash simulations in much more detail than I can.

It isn’t common practise for the RAIB to publish the result of their models I don’t think, but they run them to back up their recommendations in reports when they say that the stock was partly to blame.

So we should run the railways and the rest of society based on what the Sun or Daily Mail might say?

Obviously not but at the same time one of the last things the railway needs is the media running headlines that’ll scare off passengers. The railway is cash strapped as it is.

A (genuine) question on "blacklisting" HSTs as a concept.

I seem to recall it's often pointed out that it isn't possible in the UK for staff to do a "fare strike" in the UK, i.e. to stop checking tickets/collecting fares but do the rest of their job properly, because you can either strike (not attend work at all) or attend work and do your job properly, but only doing some of it might be considered gross misconduct and thus dismissable.

How does that tally with the idea of attending work and agreeing to drive say 158s and 170s but not HSTs?

In theory, the employer would likely ask the driver to see a manager, who would officially give them the instruction to carry out their duty, and that if they fail to do so then they are in breach of contract.

The driver can officially refuse to work on the grounds of health and safety, and it then becomes a can of worms as to who blinks first, as at some point it has to be deemed whether such a refusal is reasonable or not.

The union, for their part, can then take various forms of action if any drivers are disciplined over refusing to work, which could potentially lead to industrial action.

In practice, due to the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that the industry’s house isn’t in order over Carmont, I don’t think it would come to that. I think a solution would be trashed out, which would likely be a meaningful commitment to replace these trains in the shortest possible timescale. I suspect something like the 222s will end up happening, even if it’s not ideal and it results in a load of wasted money over the HST lease. The wastage will simply be put down to experience. It’s small change compared to something like the Covid response, after all.

Despite all the logistical issues, I think it will ultimately prove politically untenable to see the HSTs continue whilst other diesel stock is stored or scrapped. That even includes the 180s.

Could any driver that doesn’t want to drive HSTs simply remove them from their traction card? Not sure if drivers can just remove traction from their traction cards or if they have to wait for it to lapse.

 

[bramling]

My apologies, I had known he was ex Northern but for some reason thought he transferred to ScotRail at the start of the Abellio franchise.


Please explain how you think a driver is realistically going to survive a crash in a fibreglass cab that at best comes detached from the rest of the power car, at worst completely disintegrates.


We know passengers don’t take well to being stranded on a stationary train for hours and that’s when they take things into their own hands and self evacuate onto the track. This is a very remote area, it’s one of the last places you’d want to carry out an evacuation.


Trains are generally built with a 30 year design life, which takes into account overhauls. The HSTs were built as a stop gap, they weren’t built to last 45 years never mind 50 or 60, with or without overhauls and refurbishments.


It may be under Section 30 OLR status formally but it is well known that the current SNP/Green administration at Holyrood plan to keep ScotRail under full public ownership. It’s as good as permanent.


As I’ve said, someone else can probably explain the ins and outs of crash simulations in much more detail than I can.

It isn’t common practise for the RAIB to publish the result of their models I don’t think, but they run them to back up their recommendations in reports when they say that the stock was partly to blame.


Obviously not but at the same time one of the last things the railway needs is the media running headlines that’ll scare off passengers. The railway is cash strapped as it is.



Could any driver that doesn’t want to drive HSTs simply remove them from their traction card? Not sure if drivers can just remove traction from their traction cards or if they have to wait for it to lapse.

On the latter point, not really, as it would essentially be considered as refusing an instruction from management. The correct procedure is to refuse to work on the grounds of health and safety, with support from the union.

Unless of course ASLEF come to an agreement with the TOC, but it can’t do it unilaterally, at least not without risking members putting themselves in breach of contract.

 

[tomuk]

Please explain how you think a driver is realistically going to survive a crash in a fibreglass cab that at best comes detached from the rest of the power car, at worst completely disintegrates.

I don't need to explain as neither of your suggested outcomes is certain in the event of a future accident

We know passengers don’t take well to being stranded on a stationary train for hours and that’s when they take things into their own hands and self evacuate onto the track. This is a very remote area, it’s one of the last places you’d want to carry out an evacuation.

There were nine people onboard including 3 crew on travelling pass. I'm sure the six passengers could be convinced to stay onboard rather then self evacuate themselves into the ongoing bad weather. And it isn't that remote the signal box is adjacent to a level crossing at the site of the former station and is about 3 miles from the A90 and 10 miles from Stonehaven. To get there from the A90 you have to go through Drumlithie which is about 1.5 mile from the box and has a school, inn two comer shops and a village hall. This isn't Rannoch Moor.

Trains are generally built with a 30 year design life, which takes into account overhauls. The HSTs were built as a stop gap, they weren’t built to last 45 years never mind 50 or 60, with or without overhauls and refurbishments.

There have been a number of investigations into the continued use of HSTs one by Serco included FEA analysis of a Mk3 coach validated with an instrumented coach in use by FGW. It showed vehicle structure was ‘a lot better than expected’ and the vehicles were sound to remain in service to ‘at least 2035’.

It may be under Section 30 OLR status formally but it is well known that the current SNP/Green administration at Holyrood plan to keep ScotRail under full public ownership. It’s as good as permanent.

We shall see the Sotiish Government saved Ferguson Marine but are now looking to privatise it. Would a concession model be the future?

As I’ve said, someone else can probably explain the ins and outs of crash simulations in much more detail than I can.

It isn’t common practise for the RAIB to publish the result of their models I don’t think, but they run them to back up their recommendations in reports when they say that the stock was partly to blame.

It doesn't sound like you have read many of their reports. Some of the modelling done after various freight train derailments are both terrifying and stupefying in equal measure.

 

[RobShipway]

There have been a number of investigations into the continued use of HSTs one by Serco included FEA analysis of a Mk3 coach validated with an instrumented coach in use by FGW. It showed vehicle structure was ‘a lot better than expected’ and the vehicles were sound to remain in service to ‘at least 2035’.

Just because a report shows a MK3 coach can still be used until 2035, does not mean all Mk3 coaches are good to be used until that time. I believe from memory, that there was a few bit of structural work that was done to the Chiltern Mk3 stock before introduction. Admittedly some of that I believe was down to the push button doors that Chiltern required on the Mk3 coaches being used. It also does not take into account that there are differences of structure between a Mk3 passenger coach and a Mk3 driving vehicle which essentially is what the HST power car is within the fleet.

Whilst there possibly was measures that could have been taken to prevent the accident at Carmont, It does not stop the fact that the report into the accident showed that the incident certainly for the driver and guard, is worse as the Mk3 stock could not take the impact of hitting a boulder on the line at speed. If the HST power car had been long nosed in the same way as the power cars at the front of the japanese bullet trains, then it is probably likely that the driver would be alive today. Which is kinda of the point that I tried to make in an earlier post. Even though the likes of the class 222 and IET maybe newer trains and yes may be bale to take impact better than an HST power car, the front ends are still short nosed in the same fashion as an HST power car. So, in a head on incident with the train going into something it will always impact the driver in some fashion. It is just whether the impact will kill the driver or injure them.

Has either the manufacturers or the DFT provided head on collision details for IET or class 222 trains? If so, how do they compare to HST figures?

 

[43066]

So Mr Lindsay comments and his suggested boycott on the anniversary of the accident aren't Carmont specific. Ok

How many times does it need to be pointed out: Carmont has simply thrown into sharp relief the fact that ancient rolling stock is still in use. The union has accepted this for many years, and is now simply asking for a firm commitment to replace it.

That just isn't true.

Easy to say when it isn’t you driving the thing.

I don't want to ride on HSTs in fact thinking about it I've probably on only been on one once from New Street to Exeter 10 years ago so you can roll your eyes elsewhere.

In which case it sounds as though you simply have an axe to grind regarding ASLEF.

They took up Abellio's tender they didn't have to if they were unhappy with the proposal or they could have structured the tender so HSTs were non compliant. Abellio and HSTs won.

The tender didn’t specify HSTs specifically just equivalent stock. That is not evidence to support your continued false assertion that ScotGov specifically wanted HSTs.

Possibly but who said they have a 30 year design life? And have the various refurbishments, overhauls and re-engining not extended that?

As above it was originally intended as a stop gap. The overhauls and re-engining don’t change the crashworthiness.

There are lots of conceivable accidents where the forces involved could be beyond that required by current standards. RAIB them selves alluded to that in their Grayrigg report where they suggested that the standards were aimed at mitigating the results of collisions but due to fitment of TPWS derailments were now more likely type of accident and the standard may need to be reviewed. Some of the crashworthiness features of the Pendolino to meet the collision focused standards were either irrelevant in the derailment whereas others were a happy benefit.

Obviously in any colllsion some aspects will be more beneficial than others. That doesn’t mean that more modern stock isn’t going to be safer in more situations.

Again - modern car safety features won’t be relevant in every single accident, but that doesn’t mean modern cars aren’t generally safer than those lacking said safety features. That is ASLEF’s point here.

I know the the Union is running it mouth as you put it, particularly their Scotand organiser. And I would agree a boycott is unlikely if logic and reason were the drivers but something else appears to be in play.

Yet as we have seen you don’t have any evidence to support this assertion, just seemingly a dislike of ASLEF.

As an ASLEF member who used to sign this stock (albeit completely unconnected to Scotrail) I can see exactly where they’re coming from
and would support this stance if I still drove them myself - no political angle whatsoever. What makes you think you know better? Do you have any connection to the railway industry?

What unnoticed issue? That NR poorly manage the infrastructure? That NR have no proper weather contingency plans in place as we look at a future with a more chaotic climate.

None of this detracts from the need to design rolling stock to decent crashworthiness standards.

So we should run the railways and the rest of society based on what the Sun or Daily Mail might say?

That appears to be exactly what the current government is doing.

There were nine people onboard including 3 crew on travelling pass. I'm sure the six passengers could be convinced to stay onboard rather then self evacuate themselves into the ongoing bad weather. And it isn't that remote the signal box is adjacent to a level crossing at the site of the former station and is about 3 miles from the A90 and 10 miles from Stonehaven. To get there from the A90 you have to go through Drumlithie which is about 1.5 mile from the box and has a school, inn two comer shops and a village hall. This isn't Rannoch Moor.

Again missing the point. You seem strangely interested in minimising ASLEFs objections to the continued use of the rolling stock in question, yet straining to criticise Network Rail’s role in the incident. The point is that single incident is irrelevant yo the overall picture.

There have been a number of investigations into the continued use of HSTs one by Serco included FEA analysis of a Mk3 coach validated with an instrumented coach in use by FGW. It showed vehicle structure was ‘a lot better than expected’ and the vehicles were sound to remain in service to ‘at least 2035’.

That just means the structural integrity is still there. It doesn’t mean those vehicles comply with modern crash regs, or that it’s necessarily appropriate to keep them in service from that point of view.

 

[cactustwirly]

But the Crux of the matter is that Scotrail are contractually bound to lease the HSTs for a few more years, there isn't any replacement stock for at least a year anyway.
I guess they could take the 180s and 175s?

Simply withdrawing the stock leaves Aberdeen and Inverness with no usable train service to the central belt.

A compromise is needed here

 

[43066]

But the Crux of the matter is that Scotrail are contractually bound to lease the HSTs for a few more years

I’m sure it is for the TOC, but it certainly won’t be the crux of the matter from ASLEF’s point of view!

I guess they could take the 180s and 175s?

Simply withdrawing the stock leaves Aberdeen and Inverness with no usable train service to the central belt.

A compromise is needed here

Or 222s.

The compromise might well be continuing to accept HSTs for now as long as a formal commitment to bring in other stock as it becomes available is entered into.

 

[bramling]

I’m sure it is for the TOC, but it certainly won’t be the crux of the matter from ASLEF’s point of view!



Or 222s.

The compromise might well be continuing to accept HSTs for now as long as a formal commitment to bring in other stock as it becomes available is entered into.

Yes it isn’t really ASLEF’s problem (nor those expected to drive the trains) that a political decision was made several years ago which has turned out to be a bad one.

There are options available for the short to medium term - 158, 175, 180, 222. None of them are ideal, but then neither are the HSTs.

I suspect any passenger preference for East Coast HST services will have been swayed by them being 9 cars and having plenty of capacity compared to ScotRail’s offering at the time which on many services would have been a 3-car 170.

 

[43066]

I suspect any passenger preference for East Coast HST services will have been swayed by them being 9 cars and having plenty of capacity compared to ScotRail’s offering at the time which on many services would have been a 3-car 170.

Precisely. Passengers as a rule have zero understanding of what actual stock is in use, and why should they?! However they will certainly notice the difference between a three car train and a nine car train.

This idea that passengers or ScotGov specifically wanted class 43 hauled mk3s (or class 43/mk3 DEMUs depending on your viewpoint ) is a complete red herring.

 

[John Bishop]

Yes it isn’t really ASLEF’s problem (nor those expected to drive the trains) that a political decision was made several years ago which has turned out to be a bad one.

There are options available for the short to medium term - 158, 175, 180, 222. None of them are ideal, but then neither are the HSTs.

I suspect any passenger preference for East Coast HST services will have been swayed by them being 9 cars and having plenty of capacity compared to ScotRail’s offering at the time which on many services would have been a 3-car 170.

Not to mention that there’s a high likelihood of a 158 or 170 turning up as the booked HST has failed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not to mention that there’s a high likelihood of a 158 or 170 turning up as the booked HST has failed.

As long as it's a double set I wouldn't mind, Inverness 158s basically have the same interior, give or take 1st.

 

[XAM2175]

If the HST power car had been long nosed in the same way as the power cars at the front of the japanese bullet trains, then it is probably likely that the driver would be alive today.

The dangers of secondary impact prevent this assumption holding true. I know of several incidents where the cab took far less physical damage than at Carmont but the drivers sadly still suffered fatal injuries.

 

[skyhigh]

But the Crux of the matter is that Scotrail are contractually bound to lease the HSTs for a few more years, there isn't any replacement stock for at least a year anyway.
I guess they could take the 180s and 175s?

Simply withdrawing the stock leaves Aberdeen and Inverness with no usable train service to the central belt.

A compromise is needed here

Depending on the contractual details there might be a way out based on performance or not meeting the required spec.

Even if not, there would likely be a deal to be done if ScotRail went to Angel and said something like "we know we're still in contract over the HSTs, but we feel they're life expired so if we go with you to procure a bimode order of x units and guarantee their use for y years, would you release us from the HST lease when the replacements are delivered?".

Regardless this is typical union activity. Start with a strong stance (total withdrawal) and negotiate down to an acceptable compromise (delay withdrawal until replacements are ready as long as there's a firm plan). ASLEF simply act to promote their members interests and given the situation this seems fair to me.

 

[RobShipway]

The dangers of secondary impact prevent this assumption holding true. I know of several incidents where the cab took far less physical damage than at Carmont but the drivers sadly still suffered fatal injuries.

So you know of Japanese drivers that have had a similar incident then as at Carmont, that have not survived? I don't know of any E4, E5, E6 or H5 Series Shinkansen passengers trains that have crashed. Yes, 1 derailed during an earthquake in 2022, but I believe that the driver survived?

 

[XAM2175]

So you know of Japanese drivers that have had a similar incident then as at Carmont, that have not survived? I don't know of any E4, E5, E6 or H5 Series Shinkansen passengers trains that have crashed. Yes, 1 derailed during an earthquake in 2022, but I believe that the driver survived?

No, that is clearly not my point. To be blunt, all the crumple zone in the world cannot in and of itself protect the occupants of a cab from the effects of being thrown about inside the cab by the forces involved in and resulting from a collision.

This is of considerable relevance to Carmont given that secondary impact is explicitly given as the driver's cause of death. I'm not sure how you expect a whopping great platypus bill to be of any help whatsoever in protecting drivers from the results of their train being derailed and tipped over an embankment.

 

[tomuk]

Easy to say when it isn’t you driving the thing.

What does being able to drive the thing have anything to do with judging a vehicles crash worthiness? There are hundreds of rail vehicles out there which were not built to modern standards

In which case it sounds as though you simply have an axe to grind regarding ASLEF.

Once again impugning my motives because you don't like what you are hearing

The tender didn’t specify HSTs specifically just equivalent stock. That is not evidence to support your continued false assertion that ScotGov specifically wanted HSTs.

Why is it a false assertion, both passengers and Scot Gov wanted a more fitting intercity experience for passengers, as could be provided by HSTs, when the franchise was being let the options were 170s which they didn't like, HSTs which would be available and new stock which one assumes they couldn't afford. If they didn't want HSts it would have been very easy to spell that out in the tender documents.

As above it was originally intended as a stop gap. The overhauls and re-engining don’t change the crashworthiness.

Incorrect as part of overhauls the cabs have been removed and inspected with repairs carried out and in some cases new build cabs fitted. In the case of the carriages Wabtec believed based on computer modelling that the 'new' metal inserted with the power door mods increased protection, the modification programme also allowed the inspection of the carriages for corrosion and repair where necessary.

Obviously in any collision some aspects will be more beneficial than others. That doesn’t mean that more modern stock isn’t going to be safer in more situations.

Where have I suggested that modern stock in a general sense isn't safer.

Again - modern car safety features won’t be relevant in every single accident, but that doesn’t mean modern cars aren’t generally safer than those lacking said safety features. That is ASLEF’s point here.

Cars and roads are a very different environment to to rail and trains and drawing comparisons isn't particularly useful. The difference in active control of the system and the amount of energy involved mean they are very different beasts.

Yet as we have seen you don’t have any evidence to support this assertion, just seemingly a dislike of ASLEF.

As an ASLEF member who used to sign this stock (albeit completely unconnected to Scotrail) I can see exactly where they’re coming from
and would support this stance if I still drove them myself - no political angle whatsoever. What makes you think you know better? Do you have any connection to the railway industry?

Again I have no particular dislike for ASLEF but I think their reaction to Carmont is at best irrational. I could also suggest that because you are an ASLEF member it sways your views despite of the evidence and your are just circling the wagons but I haven't.

I don't think I know better I'm basing my opinions on that of experts in the field and the evidence as set out in their reports. Why do I need to have a connection to the railway industry to comment? I'm a stakeholder by way of being a paying passenger and taxpayer to boot.

None of this detracts from the need to design rolling stock to decent crashworthiness standards.

Where have I said it does. Your method of argument seems to be to broaden the question out to a near platitudeness point, like wanting world peace, that no one could diasgree .

Again missing the point. You seem strangely interested in minimising ASLEFs objections to the continued use of the rolling stock in question, yet straining to criticise Network Rail’s role in the incident. The point is that single incident is irrelevant yo the overall picture.

Because they are the facts of the case. Carmont was due to failings by NR both in the maintenance and modification of the drainage and in the operational decisions on the day. As RAIB have stated due to the forces involved different rolling stock would have made no difference to the fate of the unfortunate driver. In the case of the guard the outcome may have been better with stock with newer style couplings. I note that the RMTs response seems to be a lot more measured and concentrates on the action or lack of them that NR are taking. There ae so few serious accidents that each is very relevant as there are fortunately so few to learn lessons from.

That just means the structural integrity is still there. It doesn’t mean those vehicles comply with modern crash regs, or that it’s necessarily appropriate to keep them in service from that point of view.

If you look at the BR regs the HSTs were built to and what the current regs are it is somewhat surprising how similar they are so how well they retain their strength from build is important as it allows you to make a judgement as to how safe the HSts are in the round and in comparison the modern regulations.

 

[HSTEd]

If you are concerned about casualties from secondary impact, the proper response would be to fit drivers desks with racing seats and harnesses and require drivers to wear them whenever they are at the controls.

 

[43096]

If you are concerned about casualties from secondary impact, the proper response would be to fit drivers desks with racing seats and harnesses and require drivers to wear them whenever they are at the controls.

And then you get to the Lavington incident where an HST hit a large tree. What saved the driver was the ability to get out of the seat very, very quickly. He couldn’t have done that with assorted harnesses and belts.

 

[ainsworth74]

And then you get to the Lavington incident where an HST hit a large tree. What saved the driver was the ability to get out of the seat very, very quickly. He couldn’t have done that with assorted harnesses and belts.

Perhaps a call to Martin-Baker? I believe they design seats which excel at getting their occupants out of situations very very quickly all whist securely restrained?

But yes, being slightly more serious for a moment, it's swings and roundabouts really. Though I suspect a driver is far more likely to need to duck out of the way of a tree branch through the window than they are likely to be involved in an accident where them being restrained would play a critical role in keeping them safe and unharmed.