Are HSTs considered 'unsafe'?

[156421]

Sure it was put back by a week or two as going on that date would be insensitive.

I thought the very reason for that date was because it's the 3 year anniversary

 

[3RDGEN]

Reported here "https://uk.news.yahoo.com/drivers-union-aslef-discuss-lifting-035500899.html" that there's an ASLEF meeting next Wednesday to discuss the issue.

 

[WestAnglian]

Would the outcome have been better with a Class 170?

Also, how do you define "safe"? By your definition, surely all forms of transport are inherently unsafe?

I didn't define safe anywhere, so your conclusion is baseless.

The synopsis of the RAIB synopsis said (with my emphasis):

S76 A train built to modern crashworthiness standards (those applicable since the introduction of Railway Group Standard GM/RT 2100 in July 1994) would have had a number of design features that are intended to provide better protection for occupants and keep vehicles in line should they collide with an obstacle or derail. These include: a) Anti-climb features (either as serrated pads fitted to the vehicle ends or built into the couplers) and energy absorbing vehicle ends to prevent override and consequential uncontrolled structural collapse in collisions. b) More robust couplers which are better able to resist the forces which couplers are subjected to in derailments, without failure or uncoupling. c) Bogie retention features, so that in an accident, the bogies remain attached to the vehicle bodies as far as is possible.

S77 The refurbished HST that derailed at Carmont was designed and constructed before these standards came into force. While it is not possible to be certain about what would have happened in the hypothetical situation with different rolling stock in the same accident, RAIB considers it more likely than not that the outcome would have been better if the train had been compliant with modern crashworthiness standards.

So that, to me, suggests that HSTs are less safe in the event of an accident than modern trains.

 

[ainsworth74]

So that, to me, suggests that HSTs are less safe in the event of an accident than modern trains.

Less safe unarguably, unsafe however?

 

[66701GBRF]

So that, to me, suggests that HSTs are less safe in the event of an accident than modern trains.

Yes but the question was about being "unsafe", not less safe.

 

[Supercoss]

If you scroll down this recently published report from Australia (ATSB) which involves an XPT overturning and sliding for some considerable distance, interesting notes on XPT/HST comparison especially side cab doors

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/rair/ro-2020-002

 

[Wyrleybart]

The HST design is almost fifty years old. You’d hope that design had progressed at least a bit in half a century.

Erm yeah !!! Fifty years ago the optimum Intercity train was comprised of comfortable coaches which didn't have diesel engines under the carpet.
So the passengers (whose prime and very expensive) benefit a train service is provided have seen a significant improvement in their train service have they ? In other parts of the world yes, but sadly not here in the UK.

On the other hand a Scotrail TS is probably a darned sight more comfortable than the 170 and 158 they replaced.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Erm yeah !!! Fifty years ago the optimum Intercity train was comprised of comfortable coaches which didn't have diesel engines under the carpet.
So the passengers (whose prime and very expensive) benefit a train service is provided have seen a significant improvement in their train service have they ? In other parts of the world yes, but sadly not here in the UK.

Matter of opinion. I'd take an 80x over an original interior HST. Refurbs don't really count in that sense because you could also refurb an 80x the same.

 

[kkong]

If it does come to pass that drivers won't drive the HSTs, there will be serious problems with ScotRail operating their inter-city services.

The HSTs are committed on a lease until 2030.

ScotRail's finances are already in poor shape.

As of the last public board meeting minutes, their allocated budget from ScotGov for this year was a good bit less than their forecast costs.

As such, they had only agreed a budget for the first 3 months of the year and there were discussions about whether it was reasonable to assume they could "continue to trade".

 

[John Bishop]

If it does come to pass that drivers won't drive the HSTs, there will be serious problems with ScotRail operating their inter-city services.

The HSTs are committed on a lease until 2030.

ScotRail's finances are already in poor shape.

As of the last public board meeting minutes, their allocated budget from ScotGov for this year was a good bit less than their forecast costs.

As such, they had only agreed a budget for the first 3 months of the year and there were discussions about whether it was reasonable to assume they could "continue to trade".

Ah yes, welcome to the world of Nationalisation. Pity the SG/ TS don’t realise it’s costing them a fortune in keeping the HST fleet alive (barely).

Don't forget though that pretty much everyday, the fleet is being backfilled by units due to the poor availability and reliability of the HST fleet.

 

[kkong]

Don't forget though that pretty much everyday, the fleet is being backfilled by units due to the poor availability and reliability of the HST fleet.

Several people have asked, but I don't think we've ever heard what the issues causing this unreliability are?

It would help our understanding if we could have some specific details of the problems.

 

[Towers]

Matter of opinion. I'd take an 80x over an original interior HST. Refurbs don't really count in that sense because you could also refurb an 80x the same.

You can refurb an 80x, but it’ll still ride like a cart!

Anyhoo; in the Ladbroke Grove smash an HST power car came nose to nose with a Turbo. Both old school nowadays of course, but it was commented at the time how poorly the much newer Turbo handled the collision, with much reference to its lightweight aluminium construction being torn apart at the weld seams. Are 80s/90s era stuff ‘unsafe’ too, then? 170s are based on the legacy of the ‘Networker/Turbo’ design I believe, might they be unsafe also? Where would a driver rather be?

No train cab is going to stand up terribly well to a high speed impact from height down an embankment, they simply aren’t designed to. By the same token the MK3 coach in the same collision which ended up flattened under one of its sisters is unlikely to have fared much better even if it had been brand new. Some accidents cause impacts which are simply outside of what the rolling stock is expected to reasonably withstand; if you ploughed a brand new car into something at high speed, the car being new doesn’t make it indestructable.

 

[scotraildriver]

Several people have asked, but I don't think we've ever heard what the issues causing this unreliability are?

It would help our understanding if we could have some specific details of the problems.

Only speaking from personal experience but I've had 0 HST failures in the past 2 years. Can't say the same for 156,170 or 385's.

 

[irish_rail]

Only speaking from personal experience but I've had 0 HST failures in the past 2 years. Can't say the same for 156,170 or 385's.

Indeed, I've never had a complete HST failure in many many years of driving them. A flipping reliable train all things said.

 

[fgwrich]

I still believe that part of it comes down to Angel’s choice of sending the GEC ones up, and Haymarket’s unfamiliarity with them. However, I’ve been using the I7C network this week and not had any bail outs at all. Like many things, certain people do like to decry them as a nightmarish he’ll when in reality they (when working properly) do provide a reliable, comfortable and preferable service. Only 1 driver this week had a slightly negative (age) thing to say about them, but agreed they provide the best passenger environment on ScotRail now.

 

[eldomtom2]

And if people cannot board trains because 50-odd carriages have been taken out of service and switch to roads where the accident rate is higher (the A9 is hardly renowned for its safety)…. The railway safety compliance people can say “not our problem” but it is the problem for the travelling public.

This is an argument that can be used to justify a lot, though. The far more dangerous American freight rail industry (double-digit staff fatality counts every year with a workforce not much larger than the UK’s) has gotten very good at bleating “improved safety will cost more and drive customers onto the much more dangerous roads” at the slightest hint of any regulation.

 

[43096]

I still believe that part of it comes down to Angel’s choice of sending the GEC ones up, and Haymarket’s unfamiliarity with them.

I think staff attitudes play a part as well. We’ve seen on here that attitude is negative in many (but not all) cases.

 

[Cowley]

Do we have much more to say on the subject of safety in this thread? We seem to have ended up talking about reliability instead which obviously is a separate topic.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I think staff attitudes play a part as well. We’ve seen on here that attitude is negative in many (but not all) cases.

I’m not even sure that all of those pushing for this withdrawal even have negative atittudes towards the safety of HSTs, rather I’d not be surprised if some want it to succeed purely as a way of establishing dominance - sort of a “Look what we’re capable of” warning maybe.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Less safe unarguably, unsafe however?

Is the correct answer.

 

[LLivery]

My 2 cents from a passenger point of view - I've never felt unsafe on an HST, although the unforgettable smell of brakes filling the carriage when slowing down at Wellingborough has caused the odd worry from fellow passengers, and mental images of MK3s in major accidents do cross my mind as a worry. But so do horrendous images of downed planes and crashed cars.

Saying that, compare with how the Pendo faired in the Grayrigg incident and I'd imagine most ordinary folk would say HSTs are not 'as safe' as the 390s. If it was an HST involved in Grayrigg, there's very little doubt in my mind that it would've been worse for passengers and staff. And even Potters Bar, while it was awful, the structural integrity of that Networker carriage was, viewed with my lack of engineering qualifications, was quite something; but Ladbroke Grove showed Networkers can fair badly depending on the circumstance and of course, the risk of fire is worse for passengers on DMUs.

Now, whether past events mean the HSTs or even Networkers are 'unsafe' I'm not going to try to answer, but despite not loving 390s, I know which of them I feel safer on. And for passengers, I'd argue the perception of being safe, is arguably more important than acutally being safe, for a business. Not saying safety isn't vital, of course it's paramount, however, if you're safe, but if your perception is otherwise, it's only natural you'll want to avoid it; a DC-10 hasn't had a major accident in years, but I'm still not sure I'd get on one. People make out Londoners are at risk of being stabbed everywhere and they claim to avoid London as a result - last year had the 3rd lowest number of murders since at least 1990; much safer than NYC, let alone Houston.

If the gen pop hears a union doesn't want to drive '1970s trains which are considered unsafe by some drivers', the gen pop hears 'ancient trains, which are unsafe'. And right now, the general public is not on the side of governments/businesses ignoring perceived union beliefs.

 

[mpthomson]

Can anyone prove beyond reasonable doubt that any other current rolling stock would have preserved the driver, conductor and passenger alive in the exact same circumstances?

The RAIB (who looked at ALL of the relevant data) were clear that this was unlikely given the forces involved for the driver. 'Far in excess' of any survivable force was the phrase used.

For the other fatalities, less clear, it's a much more ambiguous conclusion.

 

[thealexweb]

Having only 1-2 people present in the end vehicles (Vs say 70 on a modern MU) of any train is surely good for safety?

 

[northernbelle]

Having only 1-2 people present in the end vehicles (Vs say 70 on a modern MU) of any train is surely good for safety?

The intricacies of these crashes mean that this isn't necessarily the case.

For example at Carmont, those in the rear vehicle would have had the best outcome as it was relatively unscathed, while it was the vehicles in the middle of the train that suffered the worst effects.

Depends entirely on the nature of the accident.

 

[Bluejays]

Having only 1-2 people present in the end vehicles (Vs say 70 on a modern MU) of any train is surely good for safety?

It may be. But that doesn't mean the group of people who compose the 1 or 2 in the front can't have an opinion on their own safety. Hopefully as time has passed, a slightly more rational approach will be taken , and the hsts will stay in service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2023 ==

I’m not even sure that all of those pushing for this withdrawal even have negative atittudes towards the safety of HSTs, rather I’d not be surprised if some want it to succeed purely as a way of establishing dominance - sort of a “Look what we’re capable of” warning maybe.

Also got to take into account that that accident happened to a colleague of theirs , someone they may well know and whose position they could have been in. I think it's entirely reasonable that their thinking may be slightly skewed on the matter after that.

The safety conversation for us is a bit more abstract, for those drivers it's a bit more raw I'd imagine.

I think the hst's are perfectly safe. But then I'm not being asked to jump in the front cab

 

[12LDA28C]

I think the hst's are perfectly safe. But then I'm not being asked to jump in the front cab

I'd be perfectly happy to jump in the front cab of an HST. The problems only start when you find yourself plunging down an embankment.

 

[irish_rail]

I'd be perfectly happy to jump in the front cab of an HST. The problems only start when you find yourself plunging down an embankment.

Yet I'm far more likely to be knocked down and killed by a bus on my way into work. We need to apply some perspective here.

 

[12LDA28C]

Yet I'm far more likely to be knocked down and killed by a bus on my way into work. We need to apply some perspective here.

Indeed, and that's my point. Events like the Carmont derailment, whilst tragic are thankfully exceptionally rare.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Indeed, and that's my point. Events like the Carmont derailment, whilst tragic are thankfully exceptionally rare.

Exactly. Not quite the same analogy, but an airline pilot locking his colleague out of the cockpit so he could crash the plane and kill everyone is an ultrarare happening that you just cannot legislate for,

 

[Carlisle]

but an airline pilot locking his colleague out of the cockpit so he could crash the plane and kill everyone is an ultrarare happening that you just cannot legislate for,

Off topic but hardly comparable as such a scenario whilst extremely unlikely was entirely foreseeable & should’ve been more seriously considered when designing a cockpit door security system.