HST's are insufficiently safe (apparently)

[43066]

They probably should concern themselves with the good of the industry, though, as they also have an investment in that. Pushing for a very fast replacement will end up it being 2-car 158s, very bad for the industry's reputation. A more realistic timescale of maybe 5 years should allow some 80x, FLIRTs or Mk5s to be ordered, tested and brought into service.

ASELF tend to be fairly pragmatic and, as you yourself noted upthread, they will have a starting position in any negotiation which isn’t necessarily where they expect to end up.

Maxi, Allegro or Princess at a guess....

I didn’t realise we were back to talking about potential wives? Maxi doesn’t really appeal, the other two sound alright.

Why? It highlights the point that as forms of transport go, all trains in this country are very, very safe. It's about balancing risk, and it is highly questionable whether it's appropriate to withdraw trains earlier than planned in order to reduce what is already a miniscule risk.

They want to minimise that risk to their members *when they’re at work.*. Whether it’s appropriate to withdraw trains at any particular point isn’t within their remit.

Does the royal college of nursing or the BMA object to potentially hazardous NHS equipment being updated on the basis that means fewer patients can be treated? Of course not, and to question why would reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the role unions play.

rather than scrabble around for whatever trains happen to be available, and which end up reducing capacity (as is likely to happen in practice).

That’s already happened all over the network without any union involvement!

 

[bramling]

If there is a requirement to bring forward HST replacement the 222s would appear to be the best bet with the Avanti 221s going to Cross Country.

Another question would be how viable it might be to simply replace the power cars with something else. No doubt a significant amount of work would be required, but how much?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another question would be how viable it might be to simply replace the power cars with something else. No doubt a significant amount of work would be required, but how much?

Pity they didn't go with LH Mk4s instead, that would have been easier!

 

[bramling]

Pity they didn't go with LH Mk4s instead, that would have been easier!

That boat has largely sailed now unfortunately. Presumably they didn't opt for Mk4s as they weren't available in time?

 

[Wolfie]

It's really not about 'preferences' - it's about what is reasonable in the circumstances. Given their age, HSTs will be withdrawn over the next few years anyway. If some massive risk had come to light (unlikely after all this time) it may be reasonable to bring replacement forward, but this isn't what has happened. As Bletchleyite says above, far better overall to procure a long-term new-built replacement, rather than scrabble around for whatever trains happen to be available, and which end up reducing capacity (as is likely to happen in practice).

We don't actually disagree significantly. I'm not advocating a kneejerk response but staff safety has to be properly considered too.

 

[43301]

Another question would be how viable it might be to simply replace the power cars with something else. No doubt a significant amount of work would be required, but how much?

Such as?

There is nothing suitable available. In theory the sets could be rewired for standard ETS, standard coupling gear fitted, some sort of through wiring and run top and tail with locos - but that means 67s or 68s, and there simply aren't enough of them even if the whole fleet of one or the other was available (which it isn't in either case).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2022 ==

That boat has largely sailed now unfortunately. Presumably they didn't opt for Mk4s as they weren't available in time?

And what would they have hauled them with?

 

[bramling]

Such as?

There is nothing suitable available. In theory the sets could be rewired for standard ETS, standard coupling gear fitted, some sort of through wiring and run top and tail with locos - but that means 67s or 68s, and there simply aren't enough of them even if the whole fleet of one or the other was available (which it isn't in either case).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2022 ==



And what would they have hauled them with?

I was thinking the likes of 67 or 68. No idea on their availability, hence why I floated it as a question.

 

[43066]

We don't actually disagree significantly. I'm not advocating a kneejerk response but staff safety has to be properly considered too.

A perfectly reasonable position which, I think, also neatly sums up ASLEF’s take on this.

 

[Rockhopperr]

If the Carmont derailment involved a 170 or a 158 the almost certainly the outcome would have been worse. The outcome wasn't worse not because of the HSTs' design, but the power car taking the brunt of the impact rather than public areas.

That's not to say that an Mk3 is more safe than a DMU coach or newer built coaches - but it does say that the issue after Carmont shouldn't be anything to do with rolling stock itself unless there is concrete proof that the Mk3s themselves (not the HST per se) contributed to loss of life when another type would have fared better.

Sorry but you can’t possibly say the outcome would’ve been worse in a DMU. A 170 or 158 wouldn’t have derailed in the way the HST did, due to many factors but specifically the coupling type, modern bogie retention, performance of the life guards etc.
Since you specifically mention the Carmont derailment, a 158/170 wouldn’t have reached 73mph by that stage after the change ends etc at the signal box.
But that’s not the point. In the derailment circumstances it’s not possible to say a 170 or 158 would’ve had a worse outcome.

 

[43301]

I was thinking the likes of 67 or 68. No idea on their availability, hence why I floated it as a question.

I believe there were 26 HST sets planned, so assuming top and tail that would be 52 locos plus spares.

67 - fleet of 30. Two sold and now with GBRF (were with Colas). Two for Royal Train, two for British Pullman. 10-ish (?) for TfW. Currently 10 stored (at least one of which is being resuscitated for TfW).

68 - fleet of 34. 6-8 for Chiltern, 14-16 for TPE. The rest used by DRS, mostly for flask and infrastructure work, and intermodals when diverted away from the wires

 

[Trainbike46]

Another option to consider as locomotives could be the new class 93 bimodes if/when they arrive, and potentially ordering more 68s or possibly one 68 and one 88 on each train to work as a sort of ad-hoc bimode (that is assuming a 68 and an 88 could work together, which I am not even remotely sure about).

But if we're considering new locomotives we could also consider new carriages (mark 5A?) instead of reusing the mark 3's, and we're back to a longer-term fleet strategy

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2022 ==

Just looked at this other thread and it sounds like the 68 and 88 can work together in multiple: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-68-and-88-working-in-multiple.167794/

Still wouldn't resolve the issue that there isn't currently enough class 68 and 88 locomotives to replace the HSTs on Scotrail without buying new ones, and then something like the class 93 might be more suitable anyway

 

[Wolfie]

Another option to consider as locomotives could be the new class 93 bimodes if/when they arrive, and potentially ordering more 68s or possibly one 68 and one 88 on each train to work as a sort of ad-hoc bimode (that is assuming a 68 and an 88 could work together, which I am not even remotely sure about).

But if we're considering new locomotives we could also consider new carriages (mark 5A?) instead of reusing the mark 3's, and we're back to a longer-term fleet strategy

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2022 ==

Just looked at this other thread and it sounds like the 68 and 88 can work together in multiple: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-68-and-88-working-in-multiple.167794/

Still wouldn't resolve the issue that there isn't currently enough class 68 and 88 locomotives to replace the HSTs on Scotrail without buying new ones, and then something like the class 93 might be more suitable anyway

Given how well the TPE Mk5s have worked l'm not sure that anyone would wish to order more (unless ScotRail are mad enough to take them on and TPE get more 802s) ....

 

[Trainbike46]

Given how well the TPE Mk5s have worked l'm not sure that anyone would wish to order more (unless ScotRail are mad enough to take them on and TPE get more 802s) ....

It doesn't sound like the best solution to me either tbh. For Scotrail, something like a class 755/756 fitted out for intercity use would seem ideal though

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't sound like the best solution to me either tbh. For Scotrail, something like a class 755/756 fitted out for intercity use would seem ideal though

I think ideally:

- 120-150m long (if 120, then with an option to extend to 150)
- Capable of 100mph easily on diesel and OHLE with good acceleration on both
- Large fuel tanks
- Can be converted to have batteries instead of diesel engines when the wires are far more widespread
- At least one coach per set with level boarding at a standard UK platform. May even be worth considering a built-in wheelchair lift given the number of low platforms in Scotland.
- Vestibule doors, with two single-leaf doors per side per approximately 26m of length or alternatively one wide double-leaf pair

I don't doubt that Hitachi and Stadler could offer that, albeit with some tweaks to their standard platforms as neither fully meets it (Hitachi lacks low-floor, the current UK FLIRT has very small fuel tanks, but could perhaps be done by having two or even three power modules per set so more of them could contain fuel).

 

[Mordac]

Serious question for any ASLEF members from ScotRail, GWR, or CrossCountry we might have posting here. Was this decision driven by the grassroots or implemented following consultation with the local branches, or is it coming from management? The GWR drivers on WNXX don't seem too happy with it.

 

[Trainbike46]

I don't doubt that Hitachi and Stadler could offer that, albeit with some tweaks to their standard platforms as neither fully meets it (Hitachi lacks low-floor, the current UK FLIRT has very small fuel tanks, but could perhaps be done by having two or even three power modules per set so more of them could contain fuel).

Multiple power modules on the FLIRT is definitely possible, it's been done on mainland european versions already.

I thought the main reason that the 755s have small fuel tanks was to ensure that they would be able to use sprinter differentials in east anglia, which might not be a point of concern in Scotland anyway as I doubt the HSTs can use those, so you could possibly put bigger fuel tanks in the same power module

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes - I think the union’s concern isn’t unreasonable given what happened in Scotland. There has been a great deal of new stock introduced recently, including to replace much more modern stock than HSTs, so it’s a little incongruous that HSTs are still operating.

As an enthusiast I was certainly sorry to see the back of HSTs and actually getting to drive them as they were intended was a railway bucket list item well and truly ticked off for me! However, when the nostalgia is taken out of it, most of us would accept they’re now long past their use-by date.

How dare ASLEF have an issue with a fibreglass bolt-on cab!
How dare ASLEF have an issue with out of date safety standards of no cage or safety frame surrounding the driver.
How dare ASLEF have an issue with these trains still being around, when they could've been replaced with something safer, due to no long term rolling stock strategy.
I mean the nerve!
It's their job. And they have a point!

I'm not sure I even agree with this, it's about proportionality, a word which is being forgotten these days.....
As my signature says exactly how much safer will getting rid of HSTs make train drivers, and how much will that cost ?
Driving a train is a very safe occupation, some people on here appear to be implying that no matter how many millions it costs it may be worth replacing all HSTs if it might save one train drivers life in, say, 10 years. I say that is totally disproportionate. How many of these train drivers are quite happy to drive on the roads where they are many many times more likely to die ? The minute risk of dying in a train crash would not put me off becoming a train driver, esp considering the massive amount of money they get paid.
What we need is some education about risk probability (which is exactly what was missing in the Covid pandemic....) :

Below is a list which was originally printed in the Royal Statistical Society News (Oct 1998) as part of an article by Frank Duckworth. Frank is one half of the pair who invented the Duckworth Lewis scoring system in cricket. The list is an attempt to quantify risk by giving it a “risk number” equating to the probability of death.
These risk numbers vary by an order of magnitude and therefore are a logarithmic scale (e.g. for a risk number of 4 you would be 10 x more likely to die than a risk number of 3). The figures refer to the UK and are for a lifetime's exposure unless a specific time period is given.

0.3 = 100 mile rail journey
1.6 = Destructive asteroid impact (new born male)
1.7 = 1000 mile flight
1.9 = 100 mile car journey (sober middle aged driver)
4.2 = Rock climbing (one session)
4.6 = Homicide (new born male)
5.5 = Lifetime of car travel (new born male)
5.5 = Accidental falls (new born male)
6.3 = Rock climbing (over 20 years)
6.4 = Deep sea fishing (40 year career)
6.7 = Continuing smoking cigarettes (male aged 35: 10 per day)
7.1 = Continuing smoking cigarettes (male aged 35: 40 per day)
7.2 = Russian roulette (one game)
8.0 = Suicide (successful attempt ! )

 

[Bluejays]

I'm not sure I even agree with this, it's about proportionality, a word which is being forgotten these days.....
As my signature says exactly how much safer will getting rid of HSTs make train drivers, and how much will that cost ?
Driving a train is a very safe occupation, some people on here appear to be implying that no matter how many millions it costs it may be worth replacing all HSTs if it might save one train drivers life in, say, 10 years. I say that is totally disproportionate. How many of these train drivers are quite happy to drive on the roads where they are many many times more likely to die ? The minute risk of dying in a train crash would not put me off becoming a train driver, esp considering the massive amount of money they get paid.
What we need is some education about risk probability (which is exactly what was missing in the Covid pandemic....) :

Below is a list which was originally printed in the Royal Statistical Society News (Oct 1998) as part of an article by Frank Duckworth. Frank is one half of the pair who invented the Duckworth Lewis scoring system in cricket. The list is an attempt to quantify risk by giving it a “risk number” equating to the probability of death.
These risk numbers vary by an order of magnitude and therefore are a logarithmic scale (e.g. for a risk number of 4 you would be 10 x more likely to die than a risk number of 3). The figures refer to the UK and are for a lifetime's exposure unless a specific time period is given.

0.3 = 100 mile rail journey
1.6 = Destructive asteroid impact (new born male)
1.7 = 1000 mile flight
1.9 = 100 mile car journey (sober middle aged driver)
4.2 = Rock climbing (one session)
4.6 = Homicide (new born male)
5.5 = Lifetime of car travel (new born male)
5.5 = Accidental falls (new born male)
6.3 = Rock climbing (over 20 years)
6.4 = Deep sea fishing (40 year career)
6.7 = Continuing smoking cigarettes (male aged 35: 10 per day)
7.1 = Continuing smoking cigarettes (male aged 35: 40 per day)
7.2 = Russian roulette (one game)
8.0 = Suicide (successful attempt ! )

Absolutely meaningless in this context. Rail and aviation have very strict safety standards and that results in them both being very safe modes of transport. Presumably you think they should both relax a bit and save some money, get rid of air investigation branch, get rid of the raib (and those disgusting unions). As long as rail and aviation are as safe as driving why bother pushing for ever safer modes of operation.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'm not sure I even agree with this, it's about proportionality, a word which is being forgotten these days.....
As my signature says exactly how much safer will getting rid of HSTs make train drivers, and how much will that cost ?
Driving a train is a very safe occupation, some people on here appear to be implying that no matter how many millions it costs it may be worth replacing all HSTs if it might save one train drivers life in, say, 10 years. I say that is totally disproportionate. How many of these train drivers are quite happy to drive on the roads where they are many many times more likely to die ? The minute risk of dying in a train crash would not put me off becoming a train driver, esp considering the massive amount of money they get paid.
What we need is some education about risk probability (which is exactly what was missing in the Covid pandemic....) :

Below is a list which was originally printed in the Royal Statistical Society News (Oct 1998) as part of an article by Frank Duckworth. Frank is one half of the pair who invented the Duckworth Lewis scoring system in cricket. The list is an attempt to quantify risk by giving it a “risk number” equating to the probability of death.
These risk numbers vary by an order of magnitude and therefore are a logarithmic scale (e.g. for a risk number of 4 you would be 10 x more likely to die than a risk number of 3). The figures refer to the UK and are for a lifetime's exposure unless a specific time period is given.

0.3 = 100 mile rail journey
1.6 = Destructive asteroid impact (new born male)
1.7 = 1000 mile flight
1.9 = 100 mile car journey (sober middle aged driver)
4.2 = Rock climbing (one session)
4.6 = Homicide (new born male)
5.5 = Lifetime of car travel (new born male)
5.5 = Accidental falls (new born male)
6.3 = Rock climbing (over 20 years)
6.4 = Deep sea fishing (40 year career)
6.7 = Continuing smoking cigarettes (male aged 35: 10 per day)
7.1 = Continuing smoking cigarettes (male aged 35: 40 per day)
7.2 = Russian roulette (one game)
8.0 = Suicide (successful attempt ! )

There is also the context that a lot of the suggestions are for replacement around 2030 for the Scotrail HSTs, which is more or less when they were originally planned to be life-expired anyway, so there is no extra cost involved

 

[43301]

Absolutely meaningless in this context. Rail and aviation have very strict safety standards and that results in them both being very safe modes of transport. Presumably you think they should both relax a bit and save some money, get rid of air investigation branch, get rid of the raib (and those disgusting unions). As long as rail and aviation are as safe as driving why bother pushing for ever safer modes of operation.

That isn't at all what he said...

 

[Wolfie]

I'm not sure I even agree with this, it's about proportionality, a word which is being forgotten these days.....
As my signature says exactly how much safer will getting rid of HSTs make train drivers, and how much will that cost ?
Driving a train is a very safe occupation, some people on here appear to be implying that no matter how many millions it costs it may be worth replacing all HSTs if it might save one train drivers life in, say, 10 years. I say that is totally disproportionate. How many of these train drivers are quite happy to drive on the roads where they are many many times more likely to die ? The minute risk of dying in a train crash would not put me off becoming a train driver, esp considering the massive amount of money they get paid.
What we need is some education about risk probability (which is exactly what was missing in the Covid pandemic....) :

Below is a list which was originally printed in the Royal Statistical Society News (Oct 1998) as part of an article by Frank Duckworth. Frank is one half of the pair who invented the Duckworth Lewis scoring system in cricket. The list is an attempt to quantify risk by giving it a “risk number” equating to the probability of death.
These risk numbers vary by an order of magnitude and therefore are a logarithmic scale (e.g. for a risk number of 4 you would be 10 x more likely to die than a risk number of 3). The figures refer to the UK and are for a lifetime's exposure unless a specific time period is given.

0.3 = 100 mile rail journey
1.6 = Destructive asteroid impact (new born male)
1.7 = 1000 mile flight
1.9 = 100 mile car journey (sober middle aged driver)
4.2 = Rock climbing (one session)
4.6 = Homicide (new born male)
5.5 = Lifetime of car travel (new born male)
5.5 = Accidental falls (new born male)
6.3 = Rock climbing (over 20 years)
6.4 = Deep sea fishing (40 year career)
6.7 = Continuing smoking cigarettes (male aged 35: 10 per day)
7.1 = Continuing smoking cigarettes (male aged 35: 40 per day)
7.2 = Russian roulette (one game)
8.0 = Suicide (successful attempt ! )

I have to say that you rather come over as seriously arrogant in apparently asserting that your decision as to what risk is acceptable is all that matters. It may, of course, just be that you have a slightly unfortunate writing style. At some point a Court may become involved if it appears that the ALARP principle key in Health and Safety is not being properly applied.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2022 ==

There is also the context that a lot of the suggestions are for replacement around 2030 for the Scotrail HSTs, which is more or less when they were originally planned to be life-expired anyway, so there is no extra cost involved

Absolutely.

 

[Bluejays]

That isn't at all what he said...

It is really though. The job of the writers in rail magazines, of rail unions and of rail accident investigators is to make rail safer. How safe other activities are isn't particularly relevant. Their interest is how to make rail as safe possible (obviously taking into account cost and other factors ).

 

[Wolfie]

That isn't at all what he said...

It's certainly how it could be taken.

 

[Justin Smith]

Absolutely meaningless in this context. Rail and aviation have very strict safety standards and that results in them both being very safe modes of transport. Presumably you think they should both relax a bit and save some money, get rid of air investigation branch, get rid of the raib (and those disgusting unions). As long as rail and aviation are as safe as driving why bother pushing for ever safer modes of operation.

Just like with Covid, it comes down to this, how much money is reasonable to spend to save how many lives ?
Please correct me if I am wrong but you appear to be saying any amount of money (£10m million, £20 million, £30 million ?) is acceptable to potentially save one life.

Of interest is that if that huge amount of money results in fares increases which encourages even a relatively small number of people to drive instead of taking the train, then we are in negative life saving numbers.....

 

[43301]

It is really though. The job of the writers in rail magazines, of rail unions and of rail accident investigators is to make rail safer. How safe other activities are isn't particularly relevant. Their interest is how to make rail as safe possible (obviously taking into account cost and other factors ).

Yes, and it's the 'other factors' that are at play here. It's one of the many examples of 'safetyism' - something which has a very, very minimal impact or none at all in the real world, but those advocating it push really hard for it. And it's definitely the case that Covidianism has increased it in all areas of life - nearly all the Covid "safety" theatre was extreme safetyism, and it's led to a further increase in the idea that all risk has to be banished, no matter how small that risk is in reality.

 

[43096]

The job of the writers in rail magazines, of rail unions and of rail accident investigators is to make rail safer.

One out of three. The job of writers in rail magazines is not to make rail safer - it's to write stuff that sells magazines. Likewise, rail unions are there to represent their members (well, in theory); it's not primarily about making rail safer.

 

[Wolfie]

Just like with Covid, it comes down to this, how much money is reasonable to spend to save X lives ?
Please correct me if I am wrong but you appear to be saying any amount of money (£10m million, £20 million, £3.0 million ?) is acceptable to potentially save one life.
Of interest is that if that huge amount of money results in fares increases which encourages even a relatively small number of people to drive instead of taking the train, then we are in negative life saving numbers.....

You can make all of the philosophical arguments that you want. However, they are absolutely irrelevant when set against the fact that TOCs/FOCs are employers and subject to Health and Safety legislation with respect to their employees. Specifically the principle is ALARP ("as low as reasonably possible") sometimes referred to as SFAIRP ("so far as is reasonably practicable"). The principle is that the residual risk shall be reduced as far as reasonably practicable. All of your guff about the risk to potential passengers who drive instead is completely irrelevant.

 

[bramling]

Just like with Covid, it comes down to this, how much money is reasonable to spend to save how many lives ?
Please correct me if I am wrong but you appear to be saying any amount of money (£10m million, £20 million, £30 million ?) is acceptable to potentially save one life.

Of interest is that if that huge amount of money results in fares increases which encourages even a relatively small number of people to drive instead of taking the train, then we are in negative life saving numbers.....

The problem is, that it's hard to argue that the risk associated with HST cabs is as low as reasonably practicable. A fleet retained well past its book life, a specific weakness which is real not hypothetical, and - soon at least - suitable replacement rolling stock going spare.

So probably unreasonable to demand withdrawal *now* (which no one is seriously calling for), but hard to justify retaining them beyond the short term.

I'd say it's a reasonable bet they'll be gone as soon as something else becomes available, if that means underfloor diesel engines then it will have to be. For those who enjoy HSTs, make the most of them while they last.

 

[Wolfie]

The problem is, that it's hard to argue that the risk associated with HST cabs is as low as reasonably practicable. A fleet retained well past its book life, a specific weakness which is real not hypothetical, and - soon at least - suitable replacement rolling stock going spare.

So probably unreasonable to demand withdrawal *now* (which no one is seriously calling for), but hard to justify retaining them beyond the short term.

I'd say it's a reasonable bet they'll be gone as soon as something else becomes available, if that means underfloor diesel engines then it will have to be. For those who enjoy HSTs, make the most of them while they last.

Yup, it's hard to brush away multiple incidents over 20+ years. I utterly agree your last two paras.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That isn't at all what he said...

Given that rail isn't an island, there is an argument that says that not pursuing the Nth degree of supersafety and instead spending that money on either road safety or lower fares may actually save more lives. HSTs will need replacing anyway, but e.g. the obsessive closure of level crossings for instance may represent poor value over other road safety improvements.