HST cab protection

[jagardner1984]

playing devil’s advocate, it is surely natural that safety standards applied in 2000 would be better than those in 1990, which would be better than those in 1980 - and thus for something with a design life of say 30-40 years, it is natural that each renewal will see a step change in the safety standards applied, that is something to be celebrated, and that will never be realistic to entirely align the standards of all trains to the current standards, since mostly the improvement is in the fundamental structure.

The question is really whether standards acceptable in 1975 should be acceptable in 2025. And it that I would tend to agree with ASLEF’s prior stated concerns about the safety of these trains.

 

[43096]

Frankly that ain't ASLEF's concern. If l was a train driver l wouldn't even consider driving the antiquated old junk. I value my life too much.

Some perspective needed, rather than the usual reactions that we seem to get on here with any incident involving HSTs.

HST sets have travelled around 900 million miles since new, which means 900 million miles of cabs leading. How many deaths or serious injuries have there been as a result of tree incidents in that time?

If you don't feel safe driving a class 43 power car, use the safe-stop or work-safe (or whatever it's called where you are) procedure.

If you don't feel safe driving an HST then get a different job as you clearly don't understand the risks (or lack of them).

 

[Bletchleyite]

No disagreement from me there, however we both know it won’t happen.

The law doesn't allow the railway to go around cutting down trees that don't belong to them (unless they had evidence it was specifically dangerous in which case they could potentially obtain an injunction to force it to be cut like any landowner can). Such a law would be unlikely to be passed.

 

[Steve Harris]

I've seen the following text has been published on the BBC News website.

Th Rail Accident Investigation Branch said it was "in the process of gathering information" and the incident would be reviewed in the coming days.

It's in a small paragraph in an article about Storm Gerrit which can be found here :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67832471

 

[Annetts key]

The law doesn't allow the railway to go around cutting down trees that don't belong to them (unless they had evidence it was specifically dangerous in which case they could potentially obtain an injunction to force it to be cut like any landowner can). Such a law would be unlikely to be passed.

Actually, Network Rail often comes to an agreement with landowners. At least in my part of the world. The potential problem with landowners is being blown out of all proportion.

The bigger issue is Network Rail having an appropriate budget for the work required. Maybe members should write to their MP and in Scotland, their MSP.

With private land, one rare issue that is occasionally there is land where the owner is unknown or can't be located.

 

[bramling]

The law doesn't allow the railway to go around cutting down trees that don't belong to them (unless they had evidence it was specifically dangerous in which case they could potentially obtain an injunction to force it to be cut like any landowner can). Such a law would be unlikely to be passed.

Exactly. Given how it’s difficult enough to get councils to trim back their trees which they allow to overhang and/or grow in very close proximity to houses, I can’t see there being much appetite to go trimming back those which overhang the railway.

Like many things, the brown stuff then hits then fan only after something has already happened.

I agree with another poster that this is more often down to £ than anything else, though.

 

[800001]

Didn’t the government actually stop NWR from clearing trees trackside?
Also every time NWR attempt to clear trees, locals and councillors attempt to stop them.

 

[bramling]

playing devil’s advocate, it is surely natural that safety standards applied in 2000 would be better than those in 1990, which would be better than those in 1980 - and thus for something with a design life of say 30-40 years, it is natural that each renewal will see a step change in the safety standards applied, that is something to be celebrated, and that will never be realistic to entirely align the standards of all trains to the current standards, since mostly the improvement is in the fundamental structure.

The question is really whether standards acceptable in 1975 should be acceptable in 2025. And it that I would tend to agree with ASLEF’s prior stated concerns about the safety of these trains.

I agree with the latter, especially for rolling stock which is very much on the front line. One could make more of a case for it being more acceptable to have very old stock on lower speed metro-type routes where there is less chance of something happening, especially now collisions between trains are something which has been pretty well mitigated against over the last generation.

For example LU’s 72 stock is probably pretty much non-existent in terms of crashworthiness, yet it isn’t something I’d be too worried about as the chances of something happening are fairly slim. Never zero, of course.

 

[John Bishop]

Some perspective needed, rather than the usual reactions that we seem to get on here with any incident involving HSTs.

HST sets have travelled around 900 million miles since new, which means 900 million miles of cabs leading. How many deaths or serious injuries have there been as a result of tree incidents in that time?

If you don't feel safe driving an HST then get a different job as you clearly don't understand the risks (or lack of them).

Not a valid argument. The weather has been increasingly unpredictable and more intense in recent years compared to when the HSTs were new and also back then there wasn’t the current level of trees and vegetation posing a threat to the railway. The risk is far higher now than it ever was before, notwithstanding the deteriorating condition of the bodywork strength etc due to the HST age.

 

[Killingworth]

I've travelled around the country for many decades and can't help noticing how views from trains are becoming increasingly obscured by trees. That applies from Cornwall to the north of Scotland.

The embankment fires of my youth don't happen any more. It seems many landowners have found it convenient to plant screens of trees along their boundaries with the railway. Farrmers have planted trees on strips of set aside type land alongside the railway.

The result is that aerial views clearly show lines of trees more clearly than the tracks they now threaten. Near me the lineside was thoroughly cleared only 10-12 years ago. You'd find that hard to believe today. Silver birches grow fast and branches snap easily. Although their wood is fairly light it would still cause substantial damage to any train if a trunk was hit square on at speed. The train could derail causing injuries tompassengers and thisevliving beside the railway.

There will be objections to cutting lineside vegetation be it owned by Network Rail or privately. Dossiers of photos of damaged trains need to be used to actively show the danger. They are already, but not enough.

It's a total lottery what detailed damage there'll be to a train, it's driver and passengers from striking a tree. Speed of train, age and type of tree, angle of the fall, height of the trunk, how branches protrude.. The ability of Network Rail to know of and act on a dangerous fallen tree is then critical.

Only then does the type of train and postion of the driver become critical - and how! Drivers using extra caution when on exposed tracks surrounded by trees is very understandable, whatever the unit being driven.

 

[43096]

Not a valid argument. The weather has been increasingly unpredictable and more intense in recent years compared to when the HSTs were new and also back then there wasn’t the current level of trees and vegetation posing a threat to the railway. The risk is far higher now than it ever was before, notwithstanding the deteriorating condition of the bodywork strength etc due to the HST age.

It's a perfectly valid argument. You may not like it - no surprise there - but it is valid.

The real solution is to tackle the vegetation issue - fare better to deal with the source rather than the consequence.

 

[driverd]

Why is it seemingly ASLEFs favourite pass time to slam HST safety?

I've yet to see a single compelling case to suggest anything older than a 170 could deal with this better. I'm especially thinking of the likes of 150s, which on various units you can see corrosion holes in the corner of cab structures.

As a paid up aslef member, I'm all for safety but the approach needs to be consistent. The union make themselves look both uneducated and entirely biased when they focus all their frustrations on one fleet. There needs to be a consistent union line about cab safety across the network - not just focusing all anger towards Scotrails specific HST fleet.

As others have stated, HST cab safety is no worse (and likely, infact pretty impressive if compared mile for mile) than many other fleets of that time. Short of boycotting a good 30% or so of driving cab fitted rail vehicles nationally, I don't see how ASLEF can push any line that's remotely sensible, justified or viable.

But let's not bother being sensible and instead just wave dramatic looking pictures and go for the click bait.

 

[D365]

For those arguing for withdrawal of HSTs ASAP; does that apply to the ersatz Midland Pullman?

If you don't feel safe driving a class 43 power car, use the safe-stop or work-safe (or whatever it's called where you are) procedure.

As I'm not a driver, nor would I pretend to be, I won't pass judgement on the subject matter.

However, with respect to the comments above, I would be interested to hear from any members of Colas traincrew who have switched from driving Class 37 [with very significant steel 'nose ends'] to Class 43 with fibreglass cab.

 

[Kneedown]

I’m reminded of the Barrow upon Soar incident in 2008, where a 158 collided with an iron footbridge which had been brought down across the track by an errant tipper lorry. Below is a clip from the RAIB report showing the damaged leading cab of the unit, both as recovered and then with the fibreglass fairings and gangway removed. The report states that the cab was badly damaged leading to very little survival space, particularly on the secondman’s side, however it is clear that the metal superstructure of the cab did ultimately serve to protect the driver, albeit not to current standards.

I love an HST, but it’s undeniable that they offer precious little protection in a smash, as illustrated by the cab having been sheared in half with absolutely nothing to provide any sort of structural defence. I’m not in any rush to see them go; I think they’re superb machines. But, then again, I don’t have to sit in the front of them all day at high speed. Drivers sometimes quip that they sit “in the crumple zone”. On an HST they’re not even sitting in that.

Link to the RAIB report containing the attached photos:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c901b40f0b6024100018f/R182008_080925_Barrow_Upon_Soar.pdf

The Driver (A personal friend) survived due to the good fortune of the bridge contacting the unit below solebar level, but he still sustained life changing injuries.
The bridge was made of cast iron which, being more inclined to shatter on impact, may have been more forgiving than than a thick, healthy tree trunk.

 

[Chester1]

Some perspective needed, rather than the usual reactions that we seem to get on here with any incident involving HSTs.

HST sets have travelled around 900 million miles since new, which means 900 million miles of cabs leading. How many deaths or serious injuries have there been as a result of tree incidents in that time?

If you don't feel safe driving an HST then get a different job as you clearly don't understand the risks (or lack of them).

Why is your union pushing to replace HSTs if they are safe? Or have they dropped their dispute with ScotRail?

 

[John Bishop]

It's a perfectly valid argument. You may not like it - no surprise there - but it is valid.

The real solution is to tackle the vegetation issue - fare better to deal with the source rather than the consequence.

Okay, just because you says it’s a valid argument, then it must be? I’m saying it’s not because what you’re comparing the stats to isn’t a level playing field over the years. You can’t possibly assume the level of safety and risks presented in 1980 is the same as today can you?

But I agree with your second point, the vegetation needs addressed urgently.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2023 ==

Why is it seemingly ASLEFs favourite pass time to slam HST safety?

I've yet to see a single compelling case to suggest anything older than a 170 could deal with this better. I'm especially thinking of the likes of 150s, which on various units you can see corrosion holes in the corner of cab structures.

As a paid up aslef member, I'm all for safety but the approach needs to be consistent. The union make themselves look both uneducated and entirely biased when they focus all their frustrations on one fleet. There needs to be a consistent union line about cab safety across the network - not just focusing all anger towards Scotrails specific HST fleet.

As others have stated, HST cab safety is no worse (and likely, infact pretty impressive if compared mile for mile) than many other fleets of that time. Short of boycotting a good 30% or so of driving cab fitted rail vehicles nationally, I don't see how ASLEF can push any line that's remotely sensible, justified or viable.

But let's not bother being sensible and instead just wave dramatic looking pictures and go for the click bait.

I take it you haven’t seen the ASLEF correspondence regarding the recent incident? Not sure if your Scotrail or not?

 

[43096]

Okay, just because you says it’s a valid argument, then it must be? I’m saying it’s not because what you’re comparing the stats to isn’t a level playing field over the years. You can’t possibly assume the level of safety and risks presented in 1980 is the same as today can you?

I can just easily return that by saying just because you say it isn’t a valid argument then it can’t be. I rather suspect you don’t want to have that debate as you’ve closed your mind.

 

[12LDA28C]

Didn’t the government actually stop NWR from clearing trees trackside?
Also every time NWR attempt to clear trees, locals and councillors attempt to stop them.

Maybe if one of those councillors was seriously injured travelling on a train that hit one of those trees they might form a different opinion.

 

[800001]

Maybe if one of those councillors was seriously injured travelling on a train that hit one of those trees they might form a different opinion.

Fully agree!

 

[Wolfie]

Maybe if one of those councillors was seriously injured travelling on a train that hit one of those trees they might form a different opinion.

You may find the attached summary of the legal position interesting. With the exception of trees in a private garden (assuming no tree preservation order (TPO) or conservation area is in place) a license is required to chop down any tree. It is explicitly illegal to fell during bird nesting season too.

"
Where a tree must be felled outside of a private garden, you may need a felling licence. If the tree, or trees, amount to 5 cubic metres of timber by volume, it’s usually an offence to fell without one.

The relevant government department will discuss conditions with you before issuing a licence. These are usually around replanting the area and maintaining the trees for a period of time. Licences for thinning woodland don’t have a restocking condition."

"Remember
It’s illegal to fell a tree if it will affect breeding birds."

Any attempts by Network Rail at mass tree felling would likely result in a massive proliferation of emergency TPOs and/or nature conservation areas.

Cutting Down Trees: Law & Legislation - Woodland Trust

Whether you want to fell a tree or protect from felling, protection and preservation laws can be complex. Our guide explains best practice and alternatives.

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk

 

[mpthomson]

Actually, Network Rail often comes to an agreement with landowners. At least in my part of the world. The potential problem with landowners is being blown out of all proportion.

The bigger issue is Network Rail having an appropriate budget for the work required. Maybe members should write to their MP and in Scotland, their MSP.

With private land, one rare issue that is occasionally there is land where the owner is unknown or can't be located.

Indeed, my parents had a large tree by a boundary wall that NR weren't happy with at the top of an embankment. There was a sensible conversation about it, and NR sorted the tree out and also rebuilt the boundary dry stone wall, which was starting to look a bit shabby and needed to be semi dismantled to deal with the tree while they were there. It just needs sensible discussion in most cases.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2023 ==

The Driver (A personal friend) survived due to the good fortune of the bridge contacting the unit below solebar level, but he still sustained life changing injuries.
The bridge was made of cast iron which, being more inclined to shatter on impact, may have been more forgiving than than a thick, healthy tree trunk.

Indeed, fallen and standing trees regularly kill vehicle drivers who hit them if they're of any size at all. Most people don't understand how strong a tree trunk actually is.

Not a valid argument. The weather has been increasingly unpredictable and more intense in recent years compared to when the HSTs were new and also back then there wasn’t the current level of trees and vegetation posing a threat to the railway. The risk is far higher now than it ever was before, notwithstanding the deteriorating condition of the bodywork strength etc due to the HST age.

As it happens it's a perfectly valid argument when looking at actual risk.

 

[Wolfie]

Indeed, my parents had a large tree by a boundary wall that NR weren't happy with at the top of an embankment. There was a sensible conversation about it, and NR sorted the tree out and also rebuilt the boundary dry stone wall, which was starting to look a bit shabby and needed to be semi dismantled to deal with the tree while they were there. It just needs sensible discussion in most cases.

Agreed that is the key and actually if a tree is overgrown most owners would appreciate that being addressed. What Network Rail cannot do though, as some posters appear to be advocating, is just unilaterally randomly cut down or indeed interfere in any other way with other people's property.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

When we built the XPT(The HST's Australian cousin) the whole cab structure was redesigned. Anti collision posts and whole thing had to meet PTC impact requirements.

 

[Towers]

The Driver (A personal friend) survived due to the good fortune of the bridge contacting the unit below solebar level, but he still sustained life changing injuries.
The bridge was made of cast iron which, being more inclined to shatter on impact, may have been more forgiving than than a thick, healthy tree trunk.

Hmm, I don’t know whether presumably 100 tons or so of iron would be preferable to a collision with a tree; whilst a tree might be more solid it’d be an awful lot smaller and lighter than a bridge span, and more likely to be deflected at least to some extent by the impact. But we digress, neither option would be at the top of anybody’s “good day at work” list! I’m sad to hear of the driver’s injuries, although not surprised given the damage. I’m not sure that many newer trains would deliver a much improved outcome in that sort of collision; hopefully, but then again it was a hell of a smash.

 

[Annetts key]

Didn’t the government actually stop NWR from clearing trees trackside?
Also every time NWR attempt to clear trees, locals and councillors attempt to stop them.

Funny that Network Rail manage to cut down thousands of trees each year then. So, no, what you have written is not correct.

Locals and councillors do sometimes campaign against and attempt to stop certain trees being felled. Network Rail in most areas will try to work with locals. Depending on the situation, heavy pruning may be a compromise.

You may find the attached summary of the legal position interesting. With the exception of trees in a private garden (assuming no tree preservation order (TPO) or conservation area is in place) a license is required to chop down any tree. It is explicitly illegal to fell during bird nesting season too.

Any attempts by Network Rail at mass tree felling would likely result in a massive proliferation of emergency TPOs and/or nature conservation areas.

Cutting Down Trees: Law & Legislation - Woodland Trust

Whether you want to fell a tree or protect from felling, protection and preservation laws can be complex. Our guide explains best practice and alternatives.

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk

You need to understand that that website is providing advice to the general public based on their interpretation of the law.

Network Rail complies fully with all the applicable legislation and laws. When/where a licence is needed, Network Rail will apply for one.

It's not explicitly illegal to fell during bird nesting season. It is however illegal to fell a tree that contains or may contain a nest or to otherwise disturb a nest or a nesting bird.

Further, work on trees that contain or support other protected wildlife is also not permitted.

Network Rail may, in certain limited circumstances, if the problem tree is immediately endangering the safety of trains or people, be able to legally carry out work to mitigate the problem.

 

[Towers]

When we built the XPT(The HST's Australian cousin) the whole cab structure was redesigned. Anti collision posts and whole thing had to meet PTC impact requirements.

One might assume there is a far greater perceived risk of collision with a large heavy animal in Aus?

 

[12LDA28C]

You may find the attached summary of the legal position interesting. With the exception of trees in a private garden (assuming no tree preservation order (TPO) or conservation area is in place) a license is required to chop down any tree. It is explicitly illegal to fell during bird nesting season too.

Any attempts by Network Rail at mass tree felling would likely result in a massive proliferation of emergency TPOs and/or nature conservation areas.

Cutting Down Trees: Law & Legislation - Woodland Trust

Whether you want to fell a tree or protect from felling, protection and preservation laws can be complex. Our guide explains best practice and alternatives.

www.woodlandtrust.org.uk

A I said, if a change in the law is required then that is what should happen. Maybe it will take a few deaths to precipitate any shift in opinion. Not sure where we are if we consider the 'lives' of a few trees more valuable than the lives of humans.

 

[Falcon1200]

Indeed, my parents had a large tree by a boundary wall that NR weren't happy with at the top of an embankment. There was a sensible conversation about it, and NR sorted the tree out and also rebuilt the boundary dry stone wall, which was starting to look a bit shabby and needed to be semi dismantled to deal with the tree while they were there.

Great that that was done, but imagine how much work was involved to deal with just one tree! There millions upon millions alongside our railways, both within the boundary (which certainly should be dealt with) and beyond.

 

[43096]

Indeed, fallen and standing trees regularly kill vehicle drivers who hit them if they're of any size at all. Most people don't understand how strong a tree trunk actually is.

A classic case of the irresistible force and the immovable object.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

One might assume there is a far greater perceived risk of collision with a large heavy animal in Aus?

Comeng had staff go over to the UK in 1979. By the end they knew the HST power car inside and out and they had thier own local experience and redesigned it.

The fibreglass front on the XPT had to take a 0.9kg steel missile at 220km/h and not be penetrated.