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!
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.
I would hope that is the case, and do actually agree with ASLEF that replacements for the HSTs should already be being considered (although we don't know whether that is already happening, just not in the public domain).
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.
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.
I don't think racing harnesses are what is required, but certainly a seat belt no different than what you would have in an ordinary car. That seat belt if needed can be released at a touch of a button, so that the driver can move away from the drivers seat, if he felt that the train would not stop in time and the cab could possibly have a bad impact.
I would hope that is the case, and do actually agree with ASLEF that replacements for the HSTs should already be being considered (although we don't know whether that is already happening, just not in the public domain).
I believe for GWR, the intention was as a stop gap where either new AT300 trains join the fleet to replace them or as is now going to be the case, there is enough spare capacity with their AT300 fleet, such that they can be used instead of the HST trains. I am not sure though whether either Cross Country or Scotrail had such plans. Certainly, it could be that they take on the class 221 fleet from Avanti West Coast, but many alterations to them are going to have to take place prior to them entering service with Avanti. The only possibility for Scotrail, as has been mentioned is the class 222 fleet, otherwise it is using the class 175 fleet. However, I am not sure that there would be enough of the class 175 fleet to make up the 26 HST trains that Scotrail have in their fleet. There is 11 2-car and 16 3-car class 175 units, which if you are lucky would barely make up 13 5 car trains in replacing those Scotrail HST trains. Even adding the 4 class 180 units that are stored to those class 175 units, would not give you enough of a replacement.
With the class 222 units, there are 27 units. However, 4 of those are 7 car units. You probably would have to keep as spare 2 carriages from each of these 4 units and run them as 5 car trains, as I doubt that they would needing 7 car trains on any of the routes that the Scotrail HST units serve and it maybe pushing it a bit with having 5 car trains depending on the platform lengths at some of the platforms that the Scotrail HST stop at, as I know some of their HST trains are 4 Mk3 coach trains.
I was going to say that the only other possibility would be for Scotrail to take on the Mk4 coaches and driving trailers from LNER, once they have been released. But there is not enough of them to be making up 26 4 coach trains, as there is only about 73 MK4 coaches with LNER, with the other 37 being with Transport for Wales.
Which just leaves ordering new trains which I would imagine is either Stadler Flirt trains or CAF Civity units in some form, which for all we know may already be going through the ordering process just with no details about the order as yet in the public domain.
Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scotrail-hsts-4-years-in.239365/ Are most failures with the power cars or the coaches? If the coaches are reliable enough then how costly or difficult would it be to pair them with a bi-mode locomotive and DVT? As others have...
I don't think racing harnesses are what is required, but certainly a seat belt no different than what you would have in an ordinary car. That seat belt if needed can be released at a touch of a button, so that the driver can move away from the drivers seat, if he felt that the train would not stop in time and the cab could possibly have a bad impact.
Racing harness can be released very quickly using the buckle directly in font of you no need to be reaching down to your side to find the button. But the whole point of the seatbelt is not to release it before a 'bad impact' as it holds you in place stops you hitting the cab interior.
I don't think racing harnesses are what is required, but certainly a seat belt no different than what you would have in an ordinary car. That seat belt if needed can be released at a touch of a button, so that the driver can move away from the drivers seat
Racing harness can be released very quickly using the buckle directly in font of you no need to be reaching down to your side to find the button. But the whole point of the seatbelt is not to release it before a 'bad impact' as it holds you in place stops you hitting the cab interior.
Even though harnesses maybe quick release, a button to release a seat belt as in a standard car is actually quicker, because a driver would still have to be moving the harness off both shoulders. With just a button to press for the seat belt to undo, all the driver would need to do, is step away.
Before, anyone asks if I am saying that harnesses should not be used in the likes of Formula 1 racing cars. No, I am not saying that as unlike train drivers who have covered structures around them to help with any impact, Formula 1 drivers do not have such coverings. You also have to be pretty fit and healthy to be able to get out of the majority of harnesses. If you put such harnesses in cabs you would possibly still would be killing drivers, who for one reason or another may not be able to get out of a harness quickly should they be required to do so.
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
It doesn’t make one able to judge crash worthiness, however it certainly does make one concerned about the safety of the stock they’re driving. It doesn’t take an expert to understand why 1970s stock will be less safe than the modern equivalent, and that is why ASLEF are objecting to this stock working life being extended seemingly indefinitely.
That’s exactly what you’re doing in relation to ASLEF, by raising objections to a perfectly reasonable position taken by a union representing drivers, and accusing them of being politically motivated.
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.
For the millionth time, the tender specified HST equivalent stock. This could equally have been satisfied with newer stock, but they weren’t prepared to pay for it. So your suggestion that HSTs were specifically wanted is simply nonsense.
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.
Cabs being removed and inspected doesn’t make them more crashworthy. I don’t know what evidence underpins your assertions about what Wabtec “believed” but that sounds far from convincing.
Yet you refuse to accept that this simple reality is what underpins ASLEFs stance, and accuse them of political medalling. The stock in question is now some of the oldest on the network.
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.
Trains are less likely to be involved in accidents overall and clearly there are differences. But the rule of thumb that trains/cars built in the 1970s are significantly less safe than trains/cars built more recently applies.
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.
My view as an ASLEF member is that I would want aged stock retired within a reasonable time frame. Surprise surprise that’s what ASLEF are asking for here. ASLEF are also in agreement with experts…
Your stance - as someone with no skin on the game - seems utterly bizarre, and I’d suggest is irrelevant to ASLEF’s position. The equivalent would me going online and objecting to (say) a nurses’ union wanting replace a 1970s X-ray scanner with a safer more modern equivalent. It is not irrational for a trade union to want safer equipment for its members.
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
Not at all, I’ve pointed out that ASLEF’s concern here isn’t just related to that one accident. Whereas your method of argument appears to be to try to discredit a union with completely unfounded accusations of nefarious political motives.
I don’t see how anyone can rationally disagree with the stance ASLEF are taking; they’re simply now asking for a commitment to the removal of elderly stock, stock which they have agreed to work for many years as a compromise.
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.
The cabs on the ScotRail power cars were removed when they went through Brush and sent away for overhaul (I think to Brecknell Willis) so are in as good a condition as they have ever been.
It doesn’t make one able to judge crash worthiness, however it certainly does make one concerned about the safety of the stock they’re driving. It doesn’t take an expert to understand why 1970s stock will be less safe than the modern equivalent, and that is why ASLEF are objecting to this stock working life being extended seemingly indefinitely.
Not hard to understand for most people.
That’s exactly what you’re doing in relation to ASLEF, by raising objections to a perfectly reasonable position taken by a union representing drivers, and accusing them of being politically motivated.
For the millionth time, the tender specified HST equivalent stock. This could equally have been satisfied with newer stock, but they weren’t prepared to pay for it. So your suggestion that HSTs were specifically wanted is simply nonsense.
They were the cheap option.
Cabs being removed and inspected doesn’t make them more crashworthy. I don’t know what evidence underpins your assertions about what Wabtec “believed” but that sounds far from convincing.
Yet you refuse to accept that this simple reality is what underpins ASLEFs stance, and accuse them of political medalling. The stock in question is now some of the oldest on the network.
Trains are less likely to be involved in accidents overall and clearly there are differences. But the rule of thumb that trains/cars built in the 1970s are significantly less safe than trains/cars built more recently applies.
My view as an ASLEF member is that I would want aged stock retired within a reasonable time frame. Surprise surprise that’s what ASLEF are asking for here. ASLEF are also in agreement with experts…
Your stance - as someone with no skin on the game - seems utterly bizarre, and I’d suggest is irrelevant to ASLEF’s position. The equivalent would me going online and objecting to (say) a nurses’ union wanting replace a 1970s X-ray scanner with a safer more modern equivalent. It is not irrational for a trade union to want safer equipment for its members.
Not at all, I’ve pointed out that ASLEF’s concern here isn’t just related to that one accident. Whereas your method of argument appears to be to try to discredit a union with completely unfounded accusations of nefarious political motives.
I don’t see how anyone can rationally disagree with the stance ASLEF are taking; they’re simply now asking for a commitment to the removal of elderly stock, stock which they have agreed to work for many years as a compromise.
It isn’t just about Carmont, for the millionth time.
Well said! I think you’re peeing against the wind with this one unfortunately. He clearly Has no idea about the realities of the situation. Does he even work in the industry?
Anyone who is advocating the HST stock is as safe as modern stock or that it should remain in service until 2030 has clearly not seen any sets close up or had any dealings with the maintenance side of the Scotrail fleet. There are a number of reasons, not just safety, which requires the fleet to be replaced sooner rather than later.
Well said! I think you’re peeing against the wind with this one unfortunately. He clearly Has no idea about the realities of the situation. Does he even work in the industry?
Anyone who is advocating the HST stock is as safe as modern stock or that it should remain in service until 2030 has clearly not seen any sets close up or had any dealings with the maintenance side of the Scotrail fleet. There are a number of reasons, not just safety, which requires the fleet to be replaced sooner rather than later.
The hst is my favourite 'set' to drive from a driver's view not an enthusiasts point of view but even with the best will in the world I doubt seriously that scotrail could actually keep these things running that long and really need to look for a replacement mid or long term.
Even though harnesses maybe quick release, a button to release a seat belt as in a standard car is actually quicker, because a driver would still have to be moving the harness off both shoulders. With just a button to press for the seat belt to undo, all the driver would need to do, is step away.
Race harnesses are specifically designed to be quick to release. When you release the buckle all but one of the 4 or 6 straps disengage from the buckle there is no need to move the harness of both shoulders as it is already released you just get out of the seat.
It doesn’t make one able to judge crash worthiness, however it certainly does make one concerned about the safety of the stock they’re driving. It doesn’t take an expert to understand why 1970s stock will be less safe than the modern equivalent, and that is why ASLEF are objecting to this stock working life being extended seemingly indefinitely.
Again with the generalities. The HST and Mk3 stock was a step change in crashworthiness and arguably set the standard going forward, yes safety standards have changed and improved, although the change from a focus on overall strength to dissipating energy does add some subtleties. Where is it being extended indefinitely? Electrification was planned to replace some or all of the fleet and there were already thoughts around either a bimode or battery replacement for routes that wouldn't be electrfied.
That’s exactly what you’re doing in relation to ASLEF, by raising objections to a perfectly reasonable position taken by a union representing drivers, and accusing them of being politically motivated.
No it isn't I'm raising objections to a proposed boycott of HSTs for safety reasons directly stemming from the Carmont crash, said boycott threatened to start on the anniversary of said crash, which have no basis in fact a modern train would have made no difference. I suggested they may be politically/IR motivated because I can't see what other reason there is for seemingly ignoring the real issues regarding NR and focusing on the rolling stock.
For the millionth time, the tender specified HST equivalent stock. This could equally have been satisfied with newer stock, but they weren’t prepared to pay for it. So your suggestion that HSTs were specifically wanted is simply nonsense.
Well you just explained it yourself. The tender made no specific requirements that would stop HSTs from being proposed, they clearly didn't want the existing 170s, had no money for new stock and HSTs would be available. What did they think they were going to get? And as I said they
Cabs being removed and inspected doesn’t make them more crashworthy. I don’t know what evidence underpins your assertions about what Wabtec “believed” but that sounds far from convincing.
It doesn't increase their crashworthiness but it does retain it at existing levels if the cab module is repaired or replaced and any corrosion on the chassis repaired. As regards Wabtec as you might expect when making extensive modifications to the vestibules and coach ends to fit power doors a process of design, modelling, qualification and approval is required. Wabtec believed that their mods increased the structural strength of the coach ends.
Yet you refuse to accept that this simple reality is what underpins ASLEFs stance, and accuse them of political medalling. The stock in question is now some of the oldest on the network.
Trains are less likely to be involved in accidents overall and clearly there are differences. But the rule of thumb that trains/cars built in the 1970s are significantly less safe than trains/cars built more recently applies.
My view as an ASLEF member is that I would want aged stock retired within a reasonable time frame. Surprise surprise that’s what ASLEF are asking for here. ASLEF are also in agreement with experts…
Your stance - as someone with no skin on the game - seems utterly bizarre, and I’d suggest is irrelevant to ASLEF’s position. The equivalent would me going online and objecting to (say) a nurses’ union wanting replace a 1970s X-ray scanner with a safer more modern equivalent. It is not irrational for a trade union to want safer equipment for its members.
As a passenger and tax payer I have no skin in the game? Really.
Having said that in general terms I and no one would object to newer equipment for everyone. But if the nurses were running to the press threatening to boycott the machine and suggesting the machine was responsible for deaths when it wasn't and the actual difference in safety as judged by experts was not significant and other nurses in the same hospital and elsewhere were happily using the same and even older more dangerous equipment, with the campaign drawing attention away from more serious failings I might raise a concern.
Not at all, I’ve pointed out that ASLEF’s concern here isn’t just related to that one accident. Whereas your method of argument appears to be to try to discredit a union with completely unfounded accusations of nefarious political motives.
Again you bring up politics, I've tried to stick to the facts but do you have any comment on the joint Labour\ASLEF\TSSA campaign push for nationalisation of Scotrail which was very critical of the SNP led government for reletting the franchise to Abellio, part of the critcism in 2017 included a union leader describing the HSTs as 'hand me down english trains' and later compared them to a 1970s Rover 2000?
I don’t see how anyone can rationally disagree with the stance ASLEF are taking; they’re simply now asking for a commitment to the removal of elderly stock, stock which they have agreed to work for many years as a compromise.
Agreeing to work it for a number of years seems at variance with a threat to boycott it in a month and a half which follows early talk of a boycott over a year ago. And is it all elderly stock as you put it? Are XC HSTs also going to be boycotted? 150s at Northern their Mk3s and getting on a bit?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well said! I think you’re peeing against the wind with this one unfortunately. He clearly Has no idea about the realities of the situation. Does he even work in the industry?
Anyone who is advocating the HST stock is as safe as modern stock or that it should remain in service until 2030 has clearly not seen any sets close up or had any dealings with the maintenance side of the Scotrail fleet. There are a number of reasons, not just safety, which requires the fleet to be replaced sooner rather than later.
No I don't work in the industry but that is no qualification as to whether one has an idea about the realties as you put. As a passenger I might well travel on said stock, my relatives in Inverness probably have a number of times.
At no point have I advocated that HST stock is as safe as modern stock. As to whether they should remain until 2030 on crashworthiness grounds I can't see a reason why not. Now if the are high maintenance costs and poor reliability issues then maybe a replacement is in order sooner. Maybe you could elucidate on these number of reasons.
But I thought we weren't talking specifically about ScotRail HSTs?
Well said! I think you’re peeing against the wind with this one unfortunately. He clearly Has no idea about the realities of the situation. Does he even work in the industry?
Anyone who is advocating the HST stock is as safe as modern stock or that it should remain in service until 2030 has clearly not seen any sets close up or had any dealings with the maintenance side of the Scotrail fleet. There are a number of reasons, not just safety, which requires the fleet to be replaced sooner rather than later.
I don't think it does cover things well it just accords with your incorrect positions and views. I also don't think there is really any point in continuing either because you just won't hear the facts or evidence of the situation.
I don't think it does cover things well it just accords with your incorrect positions and views. I also don't think there is really any point in continuing either because you just won't hear the facts or evidence of the situation.
What facts or evidence hasn’t been seen? We *know* that HST cabs offer little protection to the driver, and that reality has been common knowledge at least as far back as Ladbroke Grove.
Now to be fair, out of all the millions of miles HSTs have covered over 50 years, there have been three driver fatalities, and it seems highly doubtful that there would have been any chance of a driver surviving Ladbroke Grove or Carmont no matter what the rolling stock was. Ufton on the other hand feels like the driver should have had a better chance.
So in fifty years of service there’s one accident where the driver *might* have survived had other rolling stock been in use. From a statistical point of view that does suggest that the probability of another HST driver fatality is low, especially considering the vastly reduced mileage the HST fleet now covers, and in virtually all cases at significantly lower speeds now as well. In that sense it wouldn’t bother *me personally* to travel in an HST cab. It likely *would* bother me if I were responsible for putting others in that position though, especially with more modern stock now becoming available.
On that basis I find ASLEF’s position reasonable. The stock is well beyond design life now, and the weak cab design could probably be regarded as a design flaw even when new. On top of that the ScotRail fleet is hardly covering itself with glory from an operational point of view.
No responsible industry can ask drivers to drive HSTs and at the same time store or scrap stuff like the 222s, or even the 180s come to that. Were another incident to happen the optics would be absolutely appalling. It’s another thing our politicians have made a mess of.
What facts or evidence hasn’t been seen? We *know* that HST cabs offer little protection to the driver, and that reality has been common knowledge at least as far back as Ladbroke Grove.
No we don't know that. The HST cab does offer less protection than current stock but it was designed to provide better protection than proceeding locomotives some of which are still operating on the network.
As an example HST cabs were designed to absorb the energy of a 1.8kg missile travelling at a closing speed of 250km/h (155mph). Ladbroke Grove doesn't prove anything the forces involved would destroy any cab.
Now to be fair, out of all the millions of miles HSTs have covered over 50 years, there have been three driver fatalities, and it seems highly doubtful that there would have been any chance of a driver surviving Ladbroke Grove or Carmont no matter what the rolling stock was. Ufton on the other hand feels like the driver should have had a better chance.
So in fifty years of service there’s one accident where the driver *might* have survived had other rolling stock been in use. From a statistical point of view that does suggest that the probability of another HST driver fatality is low, especially considering the vastly reduced mileage the HST fleet now covers, and in virtually all cases at significantly lower speeds now as well. In that sense it wouldn’t bother *me personally* to travel in an HST cab. It likely *would* bother me if I were responsible for putting others in that position though, especially with more modern stock now becoming available.
So despite you coming to the conclusion that probability of a future fatality is low and it wouldn't bother you personally travelling in the cab. You still find ASLEFs view reasonable how is that logical?
Why would the optics be appalling if as in previous incidents the cause of the accident is unrelated to the rolling stock and crashworthiness of the stock is irrelevant as the forces involved have far exceeded current standards.
So despite you coming to the conclusion that probability of a future fatality is low and it wouldn't bother you personally travelling in the cab. You still find ASLEFs view reasonable how is that logical?
Because I am prepared to tolerate an element of risk in return for doing things I enjoy. Same with travelling on Mk1s when they were in service. But in a professional category I could and would not wish to force others into that position, especially when avoidable. With HSTs being well past their book life, and with comparable stock about to go spare, it would be very hard indeed to defend the position that continued running of HSTs is necessary.
Why would the optics be appalling if as in previous incidents the cause of the accident is unrelated to the rolling stock and crashworthiness of the stock is irrelevant as the forces involved have far exceeded current standards.
In that situation they wouldn’t be. But if something happens where the design of the cab *was* relevant then it’s going to be a seriously salient issue. The Lavington tree incident came close.
Clear about what? It goes into a lot of detail about the aluminium construction of the Turbo and lots of research was carried out into welding techniques. HST cabs not so much. And in terms of crash standards it says;
While the general view is that at the speed involved in that crash no practicable
improvements to the standard would have made a significant difference to what
happened
Because I am prepared to tolerate an element of risk in return for doing things I enjoy. Same with travelling on Mk1s when they were in service. But in a professional category I could and would not wish to force others into that position, especially when avoidable. With HSTs being well past their book life, and with comparable stock about to go spare, it would be very hard indeed to defend the position that continued running of HSTs is necessary.
HSTs and Mk3s are hugely safer than a Mk1 which time an time again have proven to behave terribly in accidents unlike Mk3s. So to allow you to enjoy yourself we can reduce the safety of the stewards working for the charter company or put first responders at risk due to the aftermath of an accident involving your Mk1s?
In that situation they wouldn’t be. But if something happens where the design of the cab *was* relevant then it’s going to be a seriously salient issue. The Lavington tree incident came close.
A train to modern standard would have fared little better. The impact energy at Lavington was estimated to be 19kJ far in excess of the 5.6kJ requirement of current standards and the not far behind 4.3kJ of the HST cab.
Here we go, from page 22 of the Ladbroke Grove report:
"The cab, which was constructed of GRP, would not meet modern structural requirements. Dr Kirk expressed the view that the cab had no significant structural strength, that it could not resist loads above the underframe, and that it provided minimal protection for the driver in a collision."
I think that speaks for itself, and I've highlighted some key points.
HSTs and Mk3s are hugely safer than a Mk1 which time an time again have proven to behave terribly in accidents unlike Mk3s. So to allow you to enjoy yourself we can reduce the safety of the stewards working for the charter company or put first responders at risk due to the aftermath of an accident involving your Mk1s?
I was talking about Mk1 stock when it was in service, it didn't bother me travelling on them, as the alternative would be not to make the journey at all, or to go by car. Ironically in the latter case this would be less safe. Your point doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as I'm not advocating retaining Mk1-based stock nor returning it to service. You *are* advocating retaining HSTs.
A train to modern standard would have fared little better. The impact energy at Lavington was estimated to be 19kJ far in excess of the 5.6kJ requirement of current standards and the not far behind 4.3kJ of the HST cab.
So what would you prefer to be in from a driver's perspective? A modern train, or in a cab which has "no significant structural strength", "could not resist loads above the underframe" and provides "minimal protection for the driver"? Especially when examples of such modern stock will very shortly be going spare.
Here we go, from page 22 of the Ladbroke Grove report:
"The cab, which was constructed of GRP, would not meet modern structural requirements. Dr Kirk expressed the view that the cab had no significant structural strength, that it could not resist loads above the underframe, and that it provided minimal protection for the driver in a collision."
I think that speaks for itself, and I've highlighted some key points.
However the experts were in agreement that even if the cab had been built to modern crashworthy
standards, the driver could not be expected to have survived a collision of this
magnitude.
In contrast, the underframe of the power car was extremely strong, as is typical in the
case of all locomotives.
I was talking about Mk1 stock when it was in service, it didn't bother me travelling on them, as the alternative would be not to make the journey at all, or to go by car. Ironically in the latter case this would be less safe. Your point doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as I'm not advocating retaining Mk1-based stock nor returning it to service. You *are* advocating retaining HSTs.
I'm not really advocating their retention more that there is no need to actively seek their withdrawal. If they are withdrawn by 2030 as electrification extends an the soon to be announced battery trains come on stream, an ambitiou 2026 was mooted last year, that's fine. Your point about passengers using the roads instead is equally valid if you removed the HSTs from service before replacements were ready.
So what would you prefer to be in from a driver's perspective? A modern train, or in a cab which has "no significant structural strength", "could not resist loads above the underframe" and provides "minimal protection for the driver"? Especially when examples of such modern stock will very shortly be going spare.
I would have no issue driving a HST or any other stock as due to the level of safety in the industry an accident would be very unlikely. And if prior accidents are anything to go by the severity would either be within the capabilities of a HST or outstrip even the crashworthiness features of new stock.
If they are going spare as you put it, no money is wasted withdrawing the HSTs and the costs are comparable with HSTs then I see no issue. If Transport Scotland already have new stock in hand I'd rather we wait and spend the money elsewhere.
Just read in the Railway Gazette that ASLEF have now confirmed that from August 12th 2023, it's drivers will no longer drive Scotrail HST's as Scotrail has failed to implement the modifications (?) it had demanded be made to the trains. So first what were the modifications demanded. Will this also lead to even earlier withdrawal of HST's from GWR and AXC? Will LSL also be effected with the Midland Pullman being blacked too? How will Scotrail react to the blacklisting? Will they bring in none-union drivers? Will they short form DMU services across Scotland to cover Intercity routes? Will they place an urgent order for electrification ready bi-modes? What are peoples opinions on this? My instinct tell me that if Scotrail are to bring in none-union drivers, then ASLEF and their drivers will bring the entire Network to a standstill in retaliation. It would be interesting seeing 156's running Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness and Aberdeen services alongside 170's and 158's. How quickly could a manufacturer build a batch of electrification ready bi-modes for Scotland? Could Hitachi for example build a batch of 100mph geared AT-300's using their three manufacturing plants in Japan, Pistoia, and Newton Aycliffe concurrently in short order? Will EMR be encouraged to get 810's into service earlier to get 222 up to Scotrail?
This is not a surprise in the least. They told ScotRail for over 2 years that this would happen and they didn’t take it seriously enough. What an absolute mess.
There are no non union drivers. My bet is it will be an emergency timetable using the remaining class 170s. Probably see the withdrawal of Aberdeen to Montrose and Dundee to Arbroath services to provide stock.
Honestly cannot get over how incompetent the people running ScotRail are, and in particular the people at Transport Scotland who foisted these trains onto ScotRail in the first place. An absolute embarrassment.
I believe the modifications were additional guards on the HST bodies to fend off line blockages to minimise the chances of derailment and strenghten crashworthiness (a la Carmont).
If the boycott did go ahead then ScotRail would have no choice but to implement an emergency timetable. No other rolling stock is available that would replace HSTs like for like at such short notice, and those that are available (such as 153s, 175s) would require serious amount of work and training done to make it possible.
Chances are we'll see ScotRail eventually try to implement some or all of ASLEF's demands, and in the mean time the Aberdeen-Montrose/Inverurie and Glasgow-Dundee/Arbroath regional services reduced or withdrawn entirely, short formings of peak services, and ScotRail going cap-in-hand to a third-party operator for a few loco-hauled services around Fife like they originally planned to do before covid hit.
How quickly could a manufacturer build a batch of electrification ready bi-modes for Scotland? Could Hitachi for example build a batch of 100mph geared AT-300's using their three manufacturing plants in Japan, Pistoia, and Newton Aycliffe concurrently in short order?
Maybe, but it's not really the limiting factor - Transport Scotland can't rush something like that. They don't have the resources to even if they wanted to.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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.
