100MPH MK1 Coaches

[transmanche]

Heavy freight train breaking can't be very effective but they seem to get along just fine every day

How many heavy freight trains operate at 100mph?

 

[Harbon 1]

A 2000t freight train doesn't need to be travelling at 100mph to hit the back of another train if the brakes are poor

 

[transmanche]

A 2000t freight train doesn't need to be travelling at 100mph to hit the back of another train if the brakes are poor

So you're sticking to the "other things are (allegedly) dangerous" line, rather than giving any good reason why museum pieces are running on the 21st century railway?

 

[Harbon 1]

Why are museum pieces flying around the sky and driving on the roads? They're all safe.

If there's a market for it they'll run in the conditions which they're rated for

 

[transmanche]

Why are museum pieces flying around the sky and driving on the roads? They're all safe

More attempts at a straw man.

So you're sticking to the "other things are (allegedly) dangerous" line, rather than giving any good reason why museum pieces are running on the 21st century railway?

 

[Metrailway]

Surely the main reason to keep Mk1s on charters is obvious? It brings in additional income to Network Rail, which would otherwise be lost if the 'museum pieces' were banned.

 

[Harbon 1]

Mk1s are cleared to run at 100mph because they're safe to, if they were unfit to travel that fast, they would have a lower limit.

Cars are safe to travel at 70mph, but when they're faced with a wall at 70mph they're not safe, nothing is

 

[RichmondCommu]

I am not talking about crash worthiness...

I am talking about the quality of the fittings, quality of how things are put together and thought given to the people using the carriages.

Hang on a minute, are you suggesting that all those things are more important than crash worthiness?

 

[yorksrob]

A MkIII is far more crashworthy than a MkI and has better brakes. There's no comparison.

Or do you think the HSE/ORR view on a MkI (that they "have a poor safety record in collisions because while they have a robust chassis, they also have a relatively weak body shell") is flawed?

Well, the powers that be have clearly decided that with some modification, Mk1's are safe to run on the mainline with charters otherwise (apologies for stating the obvious) they wouldn't be running on main line charters would they.

Good enough justification for you ? Or are you going to continue throthing.

 

[158747]

Again, if they want to to it, they can do it on heritage railways. And it does affect other people if their brakes are less effective than modern rolling stock, as this increases the likelihood of a collision.

The brakes on Mk1s may not be as effective as modern disc braked vehicles, but they are still sufficient for them to be permitted to run at 100mph, if this was not the case Network Rail would not allow them to run at this speed on their network.

 

[Goatboy]

Given the relative scarcity of Mk1 operated charter trains versus other trains and the probability that any given rail departure will end in a major crash, it isn't particularly difficult to see why nobody has felt it prudent to legislate against the Mk1's on charter trains yet.

Yes, a Mk1 in a crash isn't a good place to be but neither is being a pedetrian in a road crash and we don't seem to have banned walking yet. It's all about relative risk. The relative risk of a major crash involving a charter train is sufficiently small enough to mitigate the additional risk of the Mk1's lower crashworthyness standards.

 

[bronzeonion]

Hang on a minute, are you suggesting that all those things are more important than crash worthiness?

To be honest yes, crash worthiness is over done in Europe/UK. They're not cars that drive around with many other cars all relying on the driver to keep it from veering off the road or keep it in a straight line. Trains run on fixed tracks which don't require a driver to steer and are controlled by fail safe signalling systems.

 

[158747]

A 2000t freight train doesn't need to be travelling at 100mph to hit the back of another train if the brakes are poor

Not very likely, when was the last time a freight train colluded with the rear of another train due to poor brakes?

 

[507 001]

Again, if they want to to it, they can do it on heritage railways. And it does affect other people if their brakes are less effective than modern rolling stock, as this increases the likelihood of a collision.

you don't by any chance work for the HSE do you?

:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not very likely, when was the last time a freight train colluded with the rear of another train due to poor brakes?

And when was the last time a mk1 charter train collided with another train due to poor brakes.

:roll:

 

[RichmondCommu]

To be honest yes, crash worthiness is over done in Europe/UK. They're not cars that drive around with many other cars all relying on the driver to keep it from veering off the road or keep it in a straight line. Trains run on fixed tracks which don't require a driver to steer and are controlled by fail safe signalling systems.

Having been one of the walking wounded on the morning of the Clapham disaster trust me on the 12.12.88 crash worthiness was very much underdone. I came to regard those mk1's as death traps and only continued to use them because I had no other choice.

I have no issue with them running on the network but you won't catch me travelling in them at speed. I have used them on preserved railways but of course the speeds are much lower and I have faith in the exchange of tokens!

 

[BestWestern]

Having been one of the walking wounded on the morning of the Clapham disaster trust me on the 12.12.88 crash worthiness was very much underdone. I came to regard those mk1's as death traps and only continued to use them because I had no other choice.

I have no issue with them running on the network but you won't catch me travelling in them at speed. I have used them on preserved railways but of course the speeds are much lower and I have faith in the exchange of tokens!

That is, to be fair, a completely reasonable response.

 

[RichmondCommu]

To be honest yes, crash worthiness is over done in Europe/UK. They're not cars that drive around with many other cars all relying on the driver to keep it from veering off the road or keep it in a straight line. Trains run on fixed tracks which don't require a driver to steer and are controlled by fail safe signalling systems.

Perhaps following on from the tragic events in Spain you might wish to reconsider your statement regarding safety?

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps following on from the tragic events in Spain you might wish to reconsider your statement regarding safety?

It is very unusual for casualties to be so high particularly in a single-train incident and I believe there is almost certainly an exacerbating factor that we don't fully understand yet. The train concerned is much more modern than a Mk1 coach and while I don't know what standards apply in Spain it is likely to have much better crashworthiness. Despite this, casualties have regrettably been very high.

 

[30907]

I think most developments in crashworthiness standards have been about better protection for vehicles in end-on collisions (crumple zones, even the cup-and-cone idea for Mk 1 units), and I recall discussions from informed sources in the railway press about the pros and cons. I wonder if this is the point bronzeonion was making?

In the tragic Spanish case, this wasn't involved. I agree that we should not start speculating about the crashworthiness of any train involved in a derailment of that sort, let alone making connections with other dissimilar accidents.

 

[bronzeonion]

Perhaps following on from the tragic events in Spain you might wish to reconsider your statement regarding safety?

I didn't reply to your post about Clapham because I didn't want to sound sarcastic or over the top because it's harder to express emotion on text and didn't think a smiley was appropriate for what you had been through.

Yes I will reconsider my statement, crash worthiness in the UK and not mainland Europe is overdone.

 

[sprinterguy]

But what bogies were they one? If a BR1 I'm not surprised the ride was bad!

Digging back through a couple of old Ian Allan "ABCs", then it seems that a mix of BR1s and Commonwealths was likely.

 

[junglejames]

Obviously there is no doubt you wouldnt have Mk1s in everyday service anymore (well except for CIGs and VEPs (they are always allowed!)), but considering the chance of a head end crash is so slim, then the underlying risk of having Mk1s on a handful of railtours is next to nothing. So rediculously small, that it just isnt a problem. Should the risk increase, then that would be looked at again, but for now, there is absolutely no problem.
As for mentioning the brakes. The brakes are perfectly good to enable the stock to be used with the current signal spacing at 100mph. If it wasnt, then they wouldnt be allowed. The drivers will also take the type of stock into account when deciding where to start braking etc etc. Basically, it just isnt a problem.

They may be museum pieces as far as age goes, and they may not be the sort of stock you want in everyday use, but after a proper risk assesment, they are obviously fine for the odd railtour. Not many people would disagree with that i dont think.

 

[Trog]

Myself as someone who travels about a 1000 miles a week by rail, given how small the added risk of travelling in a Mk1 compared to current stock is. I would go for the comfort of Mk1 stock every time.

 

[455driver]

Surely all the modern safety gubbins renders the chances of an accident that much more unlikely (dont bother with the Spain crash as they have different safety systems and rules to ours) than it was when the mk1s were in daily use that I would quite happily sit in the end seats of the leading coach on a train doing 100mph or trailing coach doing 0mph until the cows come home, how am I most likely die? A crash or old age?

Am I to assume that all those going on about "safety" etc dont use a steak knife or a toaster etc because there are far more injuries caused by these than the mk1s ever managed.

 

[RobShipway]

I presume that any Mk1 train did not have what I would call a 'Dead Man's handle' i.e. the ability for a train to detect whether a driver is still conscious at all?

If the dead man's handle does not exist, then you have the likely possibility of a crash the same that happened in Spain happening here with using Mk1 stock at 100mph.

Before anyone comments, I also believe through the 1950s/1960s, a few major crashes happened with Mk1 stock where a number of people got killed due to the driver not having concentration and not having a dead man's handle within the loco that was hauling the train?

It is because of many accidents in this country that we have a greater safety record in our train services today, than many countries in Europe. As an example of this you only have to look at the at the accident at Grayrigg which I believe was at high speed, then see how many people got killed there to the 70 - 80 people that got killed in Spain in a similar high speed train service.

 

[yorksrob]

I was under the impression that the dead mans handle has been standard on all trains for decades now.

 

[RobShipway]

I was under the impression that the dead mans handle has been standard on all trains for decades now.

Well, I have just done a Google search on dead man's handle mk1 train and the only thing that has been found is this thread.

I will stand corrected, but I believe the Dead Mans Handle was only built into trains from the mid 1960's onwards, which would mean that most Mk1 stock trains prior to this time do not have a Dead Mans Handle, unless they have been adapted in some way to have one fitted.

However, the problem I see with most Dead Mans Handles systems is that they can be switched off by the driver I believe, which for me as a passenger should not be the case. I know more recent trains built in the last 10 - 15 years, have it such that the Dead Mans Handle cannot be switched which for me means that the train would be a lot safer and would brake so to stop incidents like what happened in Spain.

This is why I get annoyed when people say that we are too safety minded in this country. I suggest that those people talk to people that have had a mother, father, relative of friend killed in a train crash and ask them if we are too safety minded in this country. I personally had a good friend killed in the train crash at Ladbroke Grove, but I still travel on trains in this country as I know that they are the most safe train in the world and long may this continue.

 

[yorksrob]

I would have thought that the Mk 1 units on the Southern had them, either from new or retro fitted.

Wasn‘t the big mystery of the Moorgate crash on LT how the driver managed to apply pressure to it in spite of not being conscious.

 

[Monty]

All Southern Region Mk1 based units had a dead mans handle as far as I know.

 

[headshot119]

All of the MK1 based DMUs had a DSD.

The reason a driver has the ability to"switch off" a DSD as you put it, is to allow the train to still be moved if the equipment becomes defective. Strict rules govern the use of the override and even on preserved lines these mandate a second competent person rides in the can at any time when the DSD is isolated.