HST cab protection

[Kneedown]

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.

Cast iron, not to be confused with forged iron, is quite brittle and prone to shattering on impact. A healthy tree trunk, large or small, will have a degree of flexibility that resists shattering, and if the trunk is large enough....
Iron or wood, both would certainly ruin your day though.

 

[Krokodil]

If and I mean if you see it coming with enough time it would be easier to throw yourself to the floor of a 158/170

I've no experience of 170s (which are far more modern units so less of a concern anyway) but I spent several hours in the cab of a 158 only yesterday. It's not roomy, not somewhere you can escape in a hurry. Never mind the small end of a 153 (Scotrail of course has a few of those) which are so cramped that some of our drivers are excused from working them.

HST cabs clearly have an advantage as demonstrated by the driver the other day who managed to dive behind the seat for protection.

or indeed to escape via the cab door into the coach than an hst cab.

I've never been past that door on a HST so please tell me whether the engine room tends to be filled with standing passengers/luggage like a 158 vestibule. AFAIK only SWR units have the luxury of the leading vestibule locking passengers out when there's a key in.

 

[chuff chuff]

In this thread I have only given my thoughts on what I think would give me the better chance of hopefully walking away from a similar incident as to the one at broughty ferry the other day.
158 cab I have the seat as far back as possible because someone designed a 1980s cab around the average size of a 1950s man,but I can get out of that seat with no difficulty. In over thirty years of driving these I can only think of less than a handful of times I've opened the cab door and thought I've got nowhere to go similar with 170.
The hst I have to have to seat far forward to make it comfortable to reach the controls,so in an incident I would have to release the seat back even then I find it a squeeze to get the legs rounds and around the back of the seat.
Of course seeing that coming towards you might be a bit of a motivator to take a short cut,what the driver did the other day I don't know but he must have been in his toes

 

[43066]

I've never been past that door on a HST so please tell me whether the engine room tends to be filled with standing passengers/luggage like a 158 vestibule. AFAIK only SWR units have the luxury of the leading vestibule locking passengers out when there's a key in.

The engine room of an HST is full of engine, generators etc. not somewhere you want to be when the engine is running. The clean air compartment behind that is completely out of bounds when the engine is running due to the risk of a radiator hose rupturing, so there’s no way to get to the engine room/cab from the carriages - furthest you could get would be the guard’s van.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

The Australian specification is not a million miles from the original BR design goal...

The design of the power car is 75-80 percent different.

 

[coppercapped]

The design of the power car is 75-80 percent different.

It may be, but back in the day it was reported that a design requirement for the front of the HST’s cab was that it should not be penetrated if hit by brake block at 125mph. This included the windscreen.

 

[43096]

The engine room of an HST is full of engine, generators etc. not somewhere you want to be when the engine is running. The clean air compartment behind that is completely out of bounds when the engine is running due to the risk of a radiator hose rupturing, so there’s no way to get to the engine room/cab from the carriages - furthest you could get would be the guard’s van.

Errrr. The clean air compartment is where the electrical equipment is (including the alternators), behind the driver. Layout from the front is cab - clean air - engine room - cooler group - van.

 

[Efini92]

The engine room of an HST is full of engine, generators etc. not somewhere you want to be when the engine is running. The clean air compartment behind that is completely out of bounds when the engine is running due to the risk of a radiator hose rupturing, so there’s no way to get to the engine room/cab from the carriages - furthest you could get would be the guard’s van.

Are you sure you mean clean air cupboard?

 

[Krokodil]

In over thirty years of driving these [158s] I can only think of less than a handful of times I've opened the cab door and thought I've got nowhere to go

Well you must be in a very quiet part of the world because on many occasions I've had to refuse to move a train because passengers/luggage were wedged behind either cab door - it happens several times a week during the summer. I know of one occasion (not my train otherwise it just wouldn't have gone) where the train was due to be split and the driver was unable to access the rear unit because it was so wedged. He ended up going in via the front unit and using the gangway to get to the rear set. I know drivers who get out of the cab and stand on the platform at New Street - if they can't get back on then there are too many people.

Refurbished 175s were the worst though, even with no one on the other side you often had to boot the door to overcome the resistance of the door and new carpet.

 

[Fundee on Tay]

We used to use 245-T on BR and as a very close relative of Agent Orange, it did the job very well! Very dodgy stuff though and it has been banned for years.

Getting back to the recent incident, a tree hanging horizontally across the line at windscreen height is going to do a lot of damage to pre-2000 build stock. At least with a HST, the driver could get out of the seat in time. If it had been a Scotrail 158, it could have been a different story. A time ago now, a 158 hit a large inanimate object and after that the drivers side of the cab wasn’t in a good state at all. Fortunately the driver of that one saw what was about to occur and legged it but you haven’t got a lot of room to move in those units, especially if you are having to react late.

So, if I was ASLEF, I would be pressing Scotrail for a definite date by which the HST sets and their 15x sets will be withdrawn. Not immediately, but getting an agreement to phasing them out. You really can’t make the HST or 15x sets significantly safer without huge cost and replacing them with new build, built to higher impact standards, seems to be the best way forward.

All because trees will continue to fall on lines. In this case, looking at the social media pics, it looks as if this was a tall tree, situated on fairly level ground to the railway, but several metres away from the boundary fence (and not overhanging it at all) falling to form a dangerous barrier for the front of any train to hit.

You can have the best railway vegetation clearance programme on the planet but trees falling from well within private property will always be a risk to the railway. Therefore you need to try and eventually eliminate the effects of that risk by making the rolling stock as robust as practical.

Absolutely no chance of ScotRail removing 15x sets. The hole would be huge in terms of replacements, also 156s are the only units signed to operate the West Highland Line and 158s the Far North & Kyle Line. There is no alternative at the moment - especially considering the use of 156s throughout Western Scotland and 158s frequently on semi-fast and even express workings in the East.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I am not talking about replacing them straight away but there should be an agreed (with the unions) replacement plan over a number of years. Say, by 2030.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

There's a lot of nonsense and outlandish claims in this thread about the relative strengths of various trains, the ability of drivers to take cover, and some frankly bizarre denial that there could ever be any issue with the beloved HST. I'd like to make this very simple.


First the facts. On a HST, there is nothing structural above the cab floor. The GRP nose fairing is incredibly weak. It offers far less impact resistance than any steel/aluminium framed locomotive or multiple unit.

It is a design that offers very little protection to the driver.


A few days ago a tree impact smashed (there's no other word for it) through the entire cab structure and penetrated as far as the engine compartment bulkhead. There is NO structure ahead of the driver to protect them from this impact.


As some have claimed that no other unit would have performed better - here's a photo of a Class 170 that hit a tractor at 87 mph. There is major deformation to the Cab, however the tractor did not penetrate anywhere near as far into the vehicle. The structure ahead of the driver maintained enough survival space for the driver, despite them remaining in their seat.

It should be self-evident that HST cabs provide very limited protection. This was acknowledged in an accident report in 2000 and at Carmont, and was/is common knowledge among everyone who has worked with them. I cannot understand why so many people refuse to acknowledge this?

From the Cullen Inquiry into Ladbrooke Grove
"In the leading power car of the HST, the driver’s survival space was, in the words of the experts, “severely compromised”. 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."

"Loss of Survival Space" could be used to describe this latest incident, as well as the incident in Carmont. In impacts the GRP cabs simply disintegrate, or "Shatter" in the words of Lord Cullen. It is a miracle that the driver was able to take cover prior to impact. If not I dread to think of what may have happened.

While at Carmont the impact was exceptional, tree-strikes on the rail network in Scotland are a very common occurrence. A quick google search brings up half a dozen such incidents in the last few years. These aren't infrequent occurrences. Yet in this case, it could well have been fatal.

Here's what happened to a Scotrail 170 in a similar incident in 2021. As with the above incident there was some deformation, however we do not see the same shattering, nor the penetration as far back as the back wall of the Cab.



In my view the lack of protection they offer to drivers is a very compelling case to question whether these trains have a place on a modern network. Certainly in Scotland where we are increasingly experiencing extreme weather, flooding, landslips and trees on the line, a train that clearly offers poor protection to drivers IS a problem.

Combined with their low availability, high fuel consumption and emissions, and seemingly chronic unreliability, I really fail to see many redeeming features to these trains.

 

[QueensCurve]

If a phone call is recieved saying there’s a tree on the line you shut the line and then investigate it. You don’t wait until you know how big the tree is before taking action because, as we’ve seen today, that can be too late.

It simply isn’t acceptable. If a call is received the facility should be there for the phone operator to immediately log it on a computer and for that to then go straight to the signaller(s) concerned for them to implement a closure to allow for investigation. If the facility is not there then it should be developed and implemented without delay.
People may be delayed but better that than sending them hurling towards a fallen tree at 100mph.

Surely it isn't beyond the wit and intellegence of Network Rail to extend the "all stop" facility to the Emergency operator?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2023 ==

There's a lot of nonsense here about the relative merits of various cabs. Let's make it super simple.

View attachment 149359
On a HST, there is nothing structural above the cab floor. The GRP nose fairing is incredibly weak. It offers far less impact resistance than any steel/aluminium framed locomotive or multiple unit.

It is a design that offers very little protection to the driver.

It is very disappointing that the design is this poor. Interesting that the Buffers have been retained. What a pity that a modification to provide further protection was not implemented after the Labroke Grove collision.

 

[northernbelle]

There's a lot of nonsense and outlandish claims in this thread about the relative strengths of various trains, the ability of drivers to take cover, and some frankly bizarre denial that there could ever be any issue with the beloved HST. I'd like to make this very simple.

View attachment 149359
First the facts. On a HST, there is nothing structural above the cab floor. The GRP nose fairing is incredibly weak. It offers far less impact resistance than any steel/aluminium framed locomotive or multiple unit.

It is a design that offers very little protection to the driver.

View attachment 149360
A few days ago a tree impact smashed (there's no other word for it) through the entire cab structure and penetrated as far as the engine compartment bulkhead. There is NO structure ahead of the driver to protect them from this impact.

View attachment 149361
As some have claimed that no other unit would have performed better - here's a photo of a Class 170 that hit a tractor at 87 mph. There is major deformation to the Cab, however the tractor did not penetrate anywhere near as far into the vehicle. The structure ahead of the driver maintained enough survival space for the driver, despite them remaining in their seat.

It should be self-evident that HST cabs provide very limited protection. This was acknowledged in an accident report in 2000 and at Carmont, and was/is common knowledge among everyone who has worked with them. I cannot understand why so many people refuse to acknowledge this?

From the Cullen Inquiry into Ladbrooke Grove
"In the leading power car of the HST, the driver’s survival space was, in the words of the experts, “severely compromised”. 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."

"Loss of Survival Space" could be used to describe this latest incident, as well as the incident in Carmont. In impacts the GRP cabs simply disintegrate, or "Shatter" in the words of Lord Cullen. It is a miracle that the driver was able to take cover prior to impact. If not I dread to think of what may have happened.

While at Carmont the impact was exceptional, tree-strikes on the rail network in Scotland are a very common occurrence. A quick google search brings up half a dozen such incidents in the last few years. These aren't infrequent occurrences. Yet in this case, it could well have been fatal.

Here's what happened to a Scotrail 170 in a similar incident in 2021. As with the above incident there was some deformation, however we do not see the same shattering, nor the penetration as far back as the back wall of the Cab.

View attachment 149364

In my view the lack of protection they offer to drivers is a very compelling case to question whether these trains have a place on a modern network. Certainly in Scotland where we are increasingly experiencing extreme weather, flooding, landslips and trees on the line, a train that clearly offers poor protection to drivers IS a problem.

Combined with their low availability, high fuel consumption and emissions, and seemingly chronic unreliability, I really fail to see many redeeming features to these trains.

Hallelujah - this is by far the most sensible and reasoned post I've read on this matter. Thank you.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The pictures of the 170 show how the cab strength has got better over the years, compared with the 1970’s/1980’s designs. If someone still has the pictures of the 158 that got its cab taken apart years ago, it makes for a stark contrast.

The potential replacements for the Scotrail HST fleet are now available or almost available, depending on which way they want to go, so I don’t see a problem in saying they should be withdrawn in a reasonably short time, irrespective of any lease end issues. Ditto the GWR ones.

If trees from private property are going to still be a risk going forward (which they will), you (if you are an employer) have to mitigate that known risk and letting your drivers sit in 1970’s design GRP cabs potentially having to dodge tree trunks coming inside the cab structure is not on.

After you have got rid of the HST fleet, then you turn your attention to the future of the 15x fleet.

 

[12LDA28C]

Hallelujah - this is by far the most sensible and reasoned post I've read on this matter. Thank you.

...which totally failed to address or even acknowledge the more pressing issue here which is lineside vegetation and NR's (lack of) control of it.

 

[HSTEd]

Replacing the HSTs early will cost Scottish taxpayers a very large sum of money.

I am not sure there is any chance of a positive BCR on doing so given the empirical estimates of risk are relatively low, indeed if a positive BCR was calculable a cynic might expect various groups would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.

If ASLEF feels that these trains are not safe enough they are ofcourse free to instruct drivers to boycott the trains. Of course, such a boycott will be accompanied by pay cuts as applied to work boycotts in other industries, but so far they seem to be talking more than they are willing to follow through on.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

...which totally failed to address or even acknowledge the more pressing issue here which is lineside vegetation and NR's (lack of) control of it.

That's a nice attempt to re-frame the issue.

Nothing to do with lineside vegetation makes any difference to the fact that the HST design provides little protection to drivers in collisions.

But, I did actually address this:

While at Carmont the impact was exceptional, tree-strikes on the rail network in Scotland are a very common occurrence. A quick google search brings up half a dozen such incidents in the last few years. These aren't infrequent occurrences. Yet in this case, it could well have been fatal.

There are 1,752 miles of railway in Scotland. The number of lineside trees that could fall, or be blown onto the tracks probably numbers in the 100s of thousands. The number of incidents of trees blocking lines at least is in the hundreds per year. There have been multiple tree-strikes in Scotland in the last couple of years alone.

Obviously we need to work on reducing this. But the fact remains that a train which is designed in a way that a single tree can cause a major loss of survival space is ill suited to this environment.

You could also try talking to permanent way workers. If you were to tell them that you wanted the risk of tree-strikes like this latest one reduced to (for example) a one in 100 year occurrence you would be laughed out the room. They are struggling enough as it is, and the ill-informed people trying to deflect from the failings of the HST do not know what they are asking for in this instance.

 

[12LDA28C]

Obviously we need to work on reducing this. But the fact remains that a train which is designed in a way that a single tree can cause a major loss of survival space is ill suited to this environment.

You could also try talking to permanent way workers. If you were to tell them that you wanted the risk of tree-strikes like this latest one reduced to (for example) a one in 100 year occurrence you would be laughed out the room. They are struggling enough as it is, and the ill-informed people trying to deflect from the failings of the HST do not know what they are asking for in this instance.

The primary problem is lineside vegetation. If there were no tree strikes then the issue of cab protection would be of rather less concern. Should it be acceptable to have a tree strike every week as long as it's not an HST involved?

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

The primary problem is lineside vegetation. If there were no tree strikes then the issue of cab protection would be of rather less concern. Should it be acceptable to have a tree strike every week as long as it's not an HST involved?

You're not engaging with what I wrote at all. You are just talking down to me and making ridiculous claims.

 

[43066]

Are you sure you mean clean air cupboard?

Perhaps not. I drove them, but that traction course seems a long time ago now. I’m not enough of a rivet-counter to remember the minutiae.

Our mutual friend who currently signs the stock would be all over the internal layout, I’m sure.

There's a lot of nonsense here about the relative merits of various cabs. Let's make it super simple.

View attachment 149359
On a HST, there is NOTHING structural above the cab floor.

The Fibreglass nose fairing is incredibly weak. It has far far less impact resistance than ANY steel/aluminium framed locomotive or multiple unit.

It is a design that offers very little protection to the driver.

View attachment 149360
A few days ago a tree impact smashed (there's no other word for it) through the entire cab structure and penetrated as far as the engine compartment bulkhead. There is NO structure ahead of the driver to protect them from this impact.

View attachment 149361
As some have claimed that no other unit would have performed better - here's a photo of a Class 170 that hit a tractor at 87 mph. There is major deformation to the Cab, however the tractor did not penetrate anywhere near as far into the vehicle. The structure ahead of the driver maintained enough survival space for the driver, despite them remaining in their seat.

Well said. It’s staggering that anyone can look at the photos of the way that cab was shredded and argue that it’s somehow acceptable for it still to be in frontline service. As an enthusiast, I miss seeing “43” on my diagram. As a train driver, I’m mighty glad I don’t have to sit in that cab doing two miles per minute any more, and far happier in the 22x.

 

[Purple Train]

There's a lot of nonsense and outlandish claims in this thread about the relative strengths of various trains, the ability of drivers to take cover, and some frankly bizarre denial that there could ever be any issue with the beloved HST. I'd like to make this very simple.

View attachment 149359
First the facts. On a HST, there is nothing structural above the cab floor. The GRP nose fairing is incredibly weak. It offers far less impact resistance than any steel/aluminium framed locomotive or multiple unit.

It is a design that offers very little protection to the driver.

View attachment 149360
A few days ago a tree impact smashed (there's no other word for it) through the entire cab structure and penetrated as far as the engine compartment bulkhead. There is NO structure ahead of the driver to protect them from this impact.

View attachment 149361
As some have claimed that no other unit would have performed better - here's a photo of a Class 170 that hit a tractor at 87 mph. There is major deformation to the Cab, however the tractor did not penetrate anywhere near as far into the vehicle. The structure ahead of the driver maintained enough survival space for the driver, despite them remaining in their seat.

It should be self-evident that HST cabs provide very limited protection. This was acknowledged in an accident report in 2000 and at Carmont, and was/is common knowledge among everyone who has worked with them. I cannot understand why so many people refuse to acknowledge this?

From the Cullen Inquiry into Ladbrooke Grove
"In the leading power car of the HST, the driver’s survival space was, in the words of the experts, “severely compromised”. 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."

"Loss of Survival Space" could be used to describe this latest incident, as well as the incident in Carmont. In impacts the GRP cabs simply disintegrate, or "Shatter" in the words of Lord Cullen. It is a miracle that the driver was able to take cover prior to impact. If not I dread to think of what may have happened.

While at Carmont the impact was exceptional, tree-strikes on the rail network in Scotland are a very common occurrence. A quick google search brings up half a dozen such incidents in the last few years. These aren't infrequent occurrences. Yet in this case, it could well have been fatal.

Here's what happened to a Scotrail 170 in a similar incident in 2021. As with the above incident there was some deformation, however we do not see the same shattering, nor the penetration as far back as the back wall of the Cab.

View attachment 149364

In my view the lack of protection they offer to drivers is a very compelling case to question whether these trains have a place on a modern network. Certainly in Scotland where we are increasingly experiencing extreme weather, flooding, landslips and trees on the line, a train that clearly offers poor protection to drivers IS a problem.

Combined with their low availability, high fuel consumption and emissions, and seemingly chronic unreliability, I really fail to see many redeeming features to these trains.

Thank you for taking the time to detail all of that.

What I always remember when this subject comes up is a post I read on this forum, quite a long time ago now. I'll see if I can find it, but it went roughly like this:

"When training on HSTs, I asked the instructor where the end of the crumple zone was. "About a foot behind your head," was the response."

 

[fishwomp]

But, I did actually address this:

There are 1,752 miles of railway in Scotland. The number of lineside trees that could fall, or be blown onto the tracks probably numbers in the 100s of thousands. The number of incidents of trees blocking lines at least is in the hundreds per year. There have been multiple tree-strikes in Scotland in the last couple of years alone..

This is a very valid point. When looking at 1bn miles of HST sets, and three fatalities, at least one and maybe all three would have been unsurvivable in anything else, and lives that may have been saved Vs a flat fronted DMU or loco (deflect object instead of flying through the glass)... The record is good. or perhaps we can say excellent, but many of those miles were tree fewer/limited - such as four track mainline on a running line not immediately next to the embankment. Or notched up when line side trees were 20 years younger than they are today...

I don't know how a tractor vs HST would have faired though - it would have impacted at the buffer beam, not window height. Derailment would be the bigger risk to everyone and driver.

 

[bramling]

Replacing the HSTs early will cost Scottish taxpayers a very large sum of money.

I am not sure there is any chance of a positive BCR on doing so given the empirical estimates of risk are relatively low, indeed if a positive BCR was calculable a cynic might expect various groups would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.

If ASLEF feels that these trains are not safe enough they are ofcourse free to instruct drivers to boycott the trains. Of course, such a boycott will be accompanied by pay cuts

The problem in this case is that politicians made a bad decision. That is for Scottish voters to hold them to account. It isn’t like politicians don’t trash large sums of money on stuff, look no further than the Covid response for a start. None of this is ASLEF’s problem, and nor should it be. Likewise Scotrail‘s train drivers.

 

[43096]

You could also try talking to permanent way workers. If you were to tell them that you wanted the risk of tree-strikes like this latest one reduced to (for example) a one in 100 year occurrence you would be laughed out the room. They are struggling enough as it is, and the ill-informed people trying to deflect from the failings of the HST do not know what they are asking for in this instance.

Probably worth having a look at the RAIB report after the Lavington tree collision: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8feced915d4c10000159/R082011_110407_Lavington.pdf

In particular...

The HST cab was designed to absorb the energy of a 1.8 kg missile travelling at a closing speed of 250 km/h (69.4 m/s), which represents a concentrated impact energy of 4.3 kJ; the impact energy at Lavington was approximately 4 to 5 times greater. In comparison, modern UK rolling stock, compliant with the missile impact protection requirements of GM/RT2100 Issue 3, is designed to withstand a 0.9 kg missile impacting the cab at twice the maximum speed of the train (400 km/h in this case, or 111.1 m/s) . The impact energy in this design case would be 5.6 kJ; again several times less than the impact energy at Lavington.

The RAIB’s assessment indicates that, while the ultimate strength of the HST cab pillar is broadly similar to that of a modern cab structure compliant with GM/ RT2100 Issue 3, the energy absorption characteristic of a modern cab would be expected to result in less penetration than for an HST cab in a similar impact. However, no recommendations are suggested for the improvement of HST cab crashworthiness for the following reasons:
a. The performance of the HST cab at Lavington was adequate to prevent life threatening injuries to the driver.
b. The costs associated with retrospective changes/modifications to HST cab structures are likely to exceed the benefits gained, even if continued use for another 15 years is assumed. The rolling stock leasing companies have previously concluded, in response to Recommendation 53 from the Ladbroke Grove Inquiry, that modifications to HST cabs to improve driver protection would not be reasonably practicable.

That seems a very fair and balanced conclusion to me. The HST cab self evidently is not going to be to current standards, but that does not make it unsafe. A bit more realism rather than the usual pile-in that we get on here wouldn't go amiss...

 

[HSTEd]

The problem in this case is that politicians made a bad decision. That is for Scottish voters to hold them to account. It isn’t like politicians don’t trash large sums of money on stuff, look no further than the Covid response for a start. None of this is ASLEF’s problem, and nor should it be. Likewise Scotrail‘s train drivers.

Who made the decision, or whether that decision was a bad one, is not really at issue here.
The issue is that a replacement for the HSTs will cost the taxpayers a very large sum of money, and noone has yet articulated a positive BCR for spending that money.

ASLEF or Scottish traincrew might want that money spent, they don't really have much ability to force the government to spend that money short of industrial action, which is a step they have threatened but have not taken. It's not even clear whether industrial action would actually force a replacement as opposed to major service cuts.

 

[bramling]

Who made the decision, or whether that decision was a bad one, is not really at issue here.
The issue is that a replacement for the HSTs will cost the taxpayers a very large sum of money, and noone has yet articulated a positive BCR for spending that money.

ASLEF or Scottish traincrew might want that money spent, they don't really have much ability to force the government to spend that money short of industrial action, which is a step they have threatened but have not taken. It's not even clear whether industrial action would actually force a replacement as opposed to major service cuts.

My point is that the money can be found if the politicians want to find it.

 

[Annetts key]

There's a lot of nonsense and outlandish claims in this thread about the relative strengths of various trains, the ability of drivers to take cover, and some frankly bizarre denial that there could ever be any issue with the beloved HST. I'd like to make this very simple.

View attachment 149359
First the facts. On a HST, there is nothing structural above the cab floor. The GRP nose fairing is incredibly weak. It offers far less impact resistance than any steel/aluminium framed locomotive or multiple unit.

It is a design that offers very little protection to the driver.

View attachment 149360
A few days ago a tree impact smashed (there's no other word for it) through the entire cab structure and penetrated as far as the engine compartment bulkhead. There is NO structure ahead of the driver to protect them from this impact.

View attachment 149361
As some have claimed that no other unit would have performed better - here's a photo of a Class 170 that hit a tractor at 87 mph. There is major deformation to the Cab, however the tractor did not penetrate anywhere near as far into the vehicle. The structure ahead of the driver maintained enough survival space for the driver, despite them remaining in their seat.

It should be self-evident that HST cabs provide very limited protection. This was acknowledged in an accident report in 2000 and at Carmont, and was/is common knowledge among everyone who has worked with them. I cannot understand why so many people refuse to acknowledge this?

From the Cullen Inquiry into Ladbrooke Grove
"In the leading power car of the HST, the driver’s survival space was, in the words of the experts, “severely compromised”. 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."

"Loss of Survival Space" could be used to describe this latest incident, as well as the incident in Carmont. In impacts the GRP cabs simply disintegrate, or "Shatter" in the words of Lord Cullen. It is a miracle that the driver was able to take cover prior to impact. If not I dread to think of what may have happened.

While at Carmont the impact was exceptional, tree-strikes on the rail network in Scotland are a very common occurrence. A quick google search brings up half a dozen such incidents in the last few years. These aren't infrequent occurrences. Yet in this case, it could well have been fatal.

Here's what happened to a Scotrail 170 in a similar incident in 2021. As with the above incident there was some deformation, however we do not see the same shattering, nor the penetration as far back as the back wall of the Cab.

View attachment 149364

In my view the lack of protection they offer to drivers is a very compelling case to question whether these trains have a place on a modern network. Certainly in Scotland where we are increasingly experiencing extreme weather, flooding, landslips and trees on the line, a train that clearly offers poor protection to drivers IS a problem.

Combined with their low availability, high fuel consumption and emissions, and seemingly chronic unreliability, I really fail to see many redeeming features to these trains.

Thank you for stating the blooming obvious. Shock horror, an old design will perform poorly in a crash compared to a 1999 design. Who would have guessed that! We already knew that a class 43 cab does not meet current standards.

And at the same time you appear to have ignoring most of what has actually been posted, and in the process you have effectively insinuated that some of the posters here are lacking in intelligence. That is disrespectful.

The points being made are:

• In any system that involves safety, the highest priority is to remove the item(s) that causes the risk, here that is removing wherever possible, trees that may fall on the railway line. Even if you can't remove all of the trees, removing a substantial number will significantly reduce the risk.
• After dealing with the above, then you should put mitigations in place. Such as close the line until an inspection of the line has been carried out, or impose a blanket speed restriction.
• Yes, replacing old trains with new trains that have a better design is obviously a good idea. But due to the way our railways are currently run, that's more difficult than it should be.
• Standards are normally not retrospective, hence there was no requirement to modify existing rolling stock. As such, class 43 power cars and the other older trains (15X) for example, continue in use.

Should class 43 power cars and the other older trains be withdrawn from service? Of course. But, given that it's possible to reduce the risk by better vegetation management and the use of mitigations, as it is not possible to immediately provide alternative trains, there is no need for an overreaction.

Withdrawal of all trains that lack suitable crash protection would significantly affect the train service. The results of which may actually present a much bigger safety risk overall.

That's a nice attempt to re-frame the issue.

Nothing to do with lineside vegetation makes any difference to the fact that the HST design provides little protection to drivers in collisions.

But, I did actually address this:

There are 1,752 miles of railway in Scotland. The number of lineside trees that could fall, or be blown onto the tracks probably numbers in the 100s of thousands. The number of incidents of trees blocking lines at least is in the hundreds per year. There have been multiple tree-strikes in Scotland in the last couple of years alone.

Obviously we need to work on reducing this. But the fact remains that a train which is designed in a way that a single tree can cause a major loss of survival space is ill suited to this environment.

You could also try talking to permanent way workers. If you were to tell them that you wanted the risk of tree-strikes like this latest one reduced to (for example) a one in 100 year occurrence you would be laughed out the room. They are struggling enough as it is, and the ill-informed people trying to deflect from the failings of the HST do not know what they are asking for in this instance.

It's not the permanent way that are responsible for vegetation maintenance. That is the responsibility of the off-track department. Network Rail knows that it needs to put more resources into off-track and vegetation maintenance (the RMT union has been pointing this out for over ten years).

Uncontrolled vegetation causes many other issues. Such as signal sighting issues.

And what if the tree fell on a permanent way member, or an S&T member, or indeed, any other person?

As I said before, it would help if members here write to their MP and in Scotland, their MSP and tell them that you want the funding of the railways to be increased so that it is sufficient for proper maintenance to be carried out, including vegetation control.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of money, obviously it is somewhat of a moot point now, but I've seen it claimed by some that brand new trains wouldn't have been much more than the leasing costs being paid for the HSTs. If that is true then that decision is even more insane.

 

[Krokodil]

I really fail to see many redeeming features to these trains.

Withdrawing them before the leases end in 2027 will result in a significant thinning of the service - that's why I object to kneejerk reactions calling for instant withdrawal. It's not like the 175s which were bursting into flame one after the other, HSTs are not running into large objects suspended above solebar level on a frequent basis. There is no alternative traction that the Scottish Government can afford to hire while it's still on the hook for the lease payments for these sets. It's a binary choice between keeping them in service and losing circa 10 diagrams per day (disproportionately affecting certain routes because you can't just spread the electric fleet around to ease the pain like TfW have used 150s to cover for unit shortages). Scotrail has no money to lease the Mk5 sets, any spare 156s or 175s.

Comparisons with 170s are not relevant, I don't think that anyone doubts that a 170 (or 22x/80x/19x etc.) would come off better. 15x? I'm less sure. Certainly knowing the state of the ex-Wessex 150s before they went through the works - it was possible to put one's boot through the bodywork of some of them at one point, they were so corroded - I wouldn't fancy my chances against a tree trunk in those. 158s of course are aluminium so won't rust but you're still in a confined space uncomfortably close to the front of the vehicle and Scotrail does have a sizeable fleet of steel-bodied 15x and their electric equivalents (some of which have been on routes which get hammered by saltwater).

Comparisons with tractor collisions are also not relevant, the point of impact would have been much lower than it was with this tree which went for the weakest point of any driving cab. Even the current cab standards don't provide for an object of this size hitting at that height.