Mark III coaching stock

[Why]

Recently at Reading station overbridge noticed many roofs of HST mkIII in what looked a very poor state of repair.....lots of corrosion and what looks like a lot of mastic!

Not in the know, is this serious or simple fixing for longevity of the stock?

 

[455driver]

Do you know what serious corrosion looks like as opposed to surface corrosion?

 

[Flamingo]

Given the number of leaking roofs I have when it's raining (buffet cars are the worst for some reason), the OP may not be that far off the mark...

 

[swt_passenger]

Given the number of leaking roofs I have when it's raining (buffet cars are the worst for some reason), the OP may not be that far off the mark...

Is it badly sealed soft patches that allow for removal of equipment fitted in the roof? That might explain the original poster's mention of lots of mastic... At this stage of their life they probably need a good clean back to bare metal around the sealing faces and starting again complete with a new paint job..

 

[455driver]

Lets not forget the buffets which were converted into Standard class coaches and had all the roof hatches (associated to the buffet area) patched up.

Some coaches do have quite a few patches on the roof though.

 

[Why]

No, not a clue on corrosion. Just looked rather grim to untrained eye.

 

[Flamingo]

Is it badly sealed soft patches that allow for removal of equipment fitted in the roof? That might explain the original poster's mention of lots of mastic... At this stage of their life they probably need a good clean back to bare metal around the sealing faces and starting again complete with a new paint job..

No idea, you may be right.

 

[dubscottie]

Look at my other posts.. Derby could build but used poor steel.

 

[Flamingo]

Look at my other posts.. Derby could build but used poor steel.

To be fair, I'm sure I read somewhere that their forecast lifespan was ten years.

 

[Ash Bridge]

From what I've read, British Rail stated that the Inter City 125s were built with an anticipated service life of just 15-20 years, fully expecting it to be replaced by fleets of APTs after that period. Even heard of it described as a stopgap train employing the most advanced (at the time of build) technology. When you think that some of the trailer cars in HSTs are up to 42years then surely that's a credit to the build quality?

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

From what I've read, British Rail stated that the Inter City 125s were built with an anticipated service life of just 15-20 years, fully expecting it to be replaced by fleets of APTs after that period. Even heard of it described as a stopgap train employing the most advanced (at the time of build) technology. When you think that some of the trailer cars in HSTs are up to 42years then surely that's a credit to the build quality?

Especially the FGW ones which get regular dousings in salt water at Dawlish!

 

[Murph]

From what I've read, British Rail stated that the Inter City 125s were built with an anticipated service life of just 15-20 years, fully expecting it to be replaced by fleets of APTs after that period. Even heard of it described as a stopgap train employing the most advanced (at the time of build) technology. When you think that some of the trailer cars in HSTs are up to 42years then surely that's a credit to the build quality?

Yup, as I understand it, APT was struggling to deliver as quickly as they wanted some sort of high speed trains on IC services. HST was an interim solution to take the best of the proven technology, add some low-risk incremental improvements to it, and quickly get something out the door with a good chance of success. That it became an iconic, world-class, and very long lived success is a testament to the engineers involved, and proof that we Brits can do some fantastic engineering.

I'd be very surprised, however, if any of the HST design engineers deliberately designed any of it for minimum/short lifespan. I'd guess that they expected it to still see service on lower priority routes far beyond the eventual introduction of APT to displace it from top tier services.

 

[47802]

Recently at Reading station overbridge noticed many roofs of HST mkIII in what looked a very poor state of repair.....lots of corrosion and what looks like a lot of mastic!

Not in the know, is this serious or simple fixing for longevity of the stock?

Oh I wouldn't mention on here as HST's can go for another 15 to 20 years according to some people on here.

Also aren't there some rumbling's from the drivers union about continuing to use HST's long term due to the crash worthiness of HST cabs

 

[455driver]

Oh I wouldn't mention on here as HST's can go for another 15 to 20 years according to some people on here.

Can you tell me why they cant?

Also aren't there some rumbling's from the drivers union about continuing to use HST's long term due to the crash worthiness of HST cabs

News to me, can you tell me why ASLEF (the drivers union) are happy for drivers to still be driving class 57s (built in the 1960s as class 47s) but are not happy about them driving trains built in the late 70s!

 

[yorkie]

Also aren't there some rumblings from the drivers union about continuing to use HSTs long term due to the crash worthiness of HST cabs

Is that a question or a claim of fact? If the latter, where's your source please?

 

[Murph]

Oh I wouldn't mention on here as HST's can go for another 15 to 20 years according to some people on here.

Also aren't there some rumbling's from the drivers union about continuing to use HST's long term due to the crash worthiness of HST cabs

It's not like the majority of the HST fleet is falling apart, or even close to that, so with continued full maintenance there's probably plenty of life which could be squeezed out of them. If they can continue to provide service once displaced from current duties, without costing silly money to keep them running, that could be a way to cost the British public less than ordering in more new stock for something else (nationalised or privatised, the British public pay for it regardless, not the companies that buy them and run them).

As far as crashworthiness goes, the laws of physics put some hard limits on what can happen to several hundred tons travelling at 100mph+. I don't think that driver survivability is actually radically better with 2010s technology than 1960s, to be honest. Dump brake, dump bowels, then leg it rearwards is always going to be the optimal survival plan for drivers at speed. F1 nosecones work because there is very little mass behind them, that technology doesn't scale up (without scaling the length).

 

[47802]

It's not like the majority of the HST fleet is falling apart, or even close to that, so with continued full maintenance there's probably plenty of life which could be squeezed out of them. If they can continue to provide service once displaced from current duties, without costing silly money to keep them running, that could be a way to cost the British public less than ordering in more new stock for something else (nationalised or privatised, the British public pay for it regardless, not the companies that buy them and run them).

As far as crashworthiness goes, the laws of physics put some hard limits on what can happen to several hundred tons travelling at 100mph+. I don't think that driver survivability is actually radically better with 2010s technology than 1960s, to be honest. Dump brake, dump bowels, then leg it rearwards is always going to be the optimal survival plan for drivers at speed. F1 nosecones work because there is very little mass behind them, that technology doesn't scale up (without scaling the length).

While they might be a medium term solution to help plug the gap re Diesel Units, Ideally the railway should be looking to replace them and new stock may be considerably cheaper to operate than HST's on secondary routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is that a question or a claim of fact? If the latter, where's your source please?

On another forum its been said that Drivers Representatives do not see the HST cab as something that should be used for the long term.

So no I don't have it as proof or fact, but I could see why drivers might raise it an issue especially with a 125mph train, and who know's maybe they might raise this with other trains if the railway persist in running 40+ year old trains indefinitely.

Yes the laws of physics suggest that any accident could be nasty, but if I was a driver or a passenger I would prefer to be in a train built today than one built 40 years ago, same as would prefer to be in a car built today than one built 40 years ago, and yes I accept you have to balance the fact that train crashes are rare, although sadly level crossing crashes are not as rare as one would like.

 

[Failed Unit]

I doubt that any cab would survive a 125mph impact. I know we will never know, but if you look at one of the worse accidents in recent times, I have a feeling the results would probably be the same if it was a 390 involved for the poor driver.

As for the HSTs still running, considering we still have mk1 on the network I suspect we will still have HST charters in 15-20 years (maybe not running at 125mph any more but some preservation group will keep some on the mainline.)

 

[47802]

I doubt that any cab would survive a 125mph impact. I know we will never know, but if you look at one of the worse accidents in recent times, I have a feeling the results would probably be the same if it was a 390 involved for the poor driver.

As for the HSTs still running, considering we still have mk1 on the network I suspect we will still have HST charters in 15-20 years (maybe not running at 125mph any more but some preservation group will keep some on the mainline.)

Well of course there will be some crashes which will not be survivable whatever, however for more moderate impacts possibly driving a train to more modern crash standards might make a difference

 

[Failed Unit]

Well of course there will be some crashes which will not be survivable whatever, however for more moderate impacts possibly driving a train to more modern crash standards might make a difference

I won't dispute that, but all the crashes I can think of involving HST and fatalities were at high speed as well (I am sure others may be able to give examples otherwise) - I can only think of Southall and Ladbrooke Grove for the HST itself.

 

[47802]

Well there's no perfect solution for any train crash other than to prevent from happening in the first, but the chances are a modern train built to modern standards in the cab and the train as a whole is likely to fair better than an older train, especially when it comes to obstructions on on the line.

Obviously In the case of Ladbroke Grove any form of survivable cab would be difficult to say the least, and having a HST power car between the passenger coaches likely reduced the number of HST casualties compared to the turbo unit, on the other hand at Grayrigg I think its likely that being in a Pendolino probably produced a better outcome than would have been the case with an 87 and MK3's, but of course you don't know that for certain.

Of course train's do have a long lifespan and maybe the comments that have allegedly been made about HST cabs will come to nothing.

If we continue to penny pinch on our railways then I guess some HST's might have to go on for a long time maybe with a beefed up cab?

 

[Failed Unit]

If I was a driver, give me the old HST over a pacer. Ok. I know the HST was built to higher standards irrespective because of its top speed.

 

[Murph]

Of course train's do have a long lifespan and maybe the comments that have allegedly been made about HST cabs will come to nothing.

If we continue to penny pinch on our railways then I guess some HST's might have to go on for a long time maybe with a beefed up cab?

There's no evidence being offered here that HST cabs are actually lacking in safety, only vague hand-waving. They were originally built to be safe for continuous operation at 125mph, demonstrated as being able to operate past 140mph, and there's no evidence that they are significantly less safe than a brand new cab rated for 125mph.

It's not just a case of penny pinching the railways, but being cost effective with the public's money. The economy is still relatively broken to the core, so there simply isn't a big pool of free cash which can be poured into making everything shiny and new for the sake of it. The HSTs are fully paid for in terms of capital investment, and the age is entirely irrelevant as long as they can continue to provide good service somewhere without insane maintenance costs.

The time will eventually come when maintenance costs and reliability forces them to be retired. Until then, every year that they can be used to postpone huge capital spending on new rolling stock is a positive thing for the British public who paid for them in the first place, and will pay for the new stock. One way or another, we all pay for the new stock, and it's very important to squeeze as much value as possible out of existing stock without compromising the service itself.

 

[47802]

There's no evidence being offered here that HST cabs are actually lacking in safety, only vague hand-waving. They were originally built to be safe for continuous operation at 125mph, demonstrated as being able to operate past 140mph, and there's no evidence that they are significantly less safe than a brand new cab rated for 125mph.

It's not just a case of penny pinching the railways, but being cost effective with the public's money. The economy is still relatively broken to the core, so there simply isn't a big pool of free cash which can be poured into making everything shiny and new for the sake of it. The HSTs are fully paid for in terms of capital investment, and the age is entirely irrelevant as long as they can continue to provide good service somewhere without insane maintenance costs.

The time will eventually come when maintenance costs and reliability forces them to be retired. Until then, every year that they can be used to postpone huge capital spending on new rolling stock is a positive thing for the British public who paid for them in the first place, and will pay for the new stock. One way or another, we all pay for the new stock, and it's very important to squeeze as much value as possible out of existing stock without compromising the service itself.

Well you say there is no evidence, maybe but would a HST cab meet the 2017 crash cab regulations which trains are now being designed to I expect not.

The trains will be 40 years old when they are replaced by IEP's so we are hardly buying new for the sake of it, yes ok they can kept going longer but it would seem to me that they are towards the end of their economic lifespan and should be replaced, I know there have been various suggestions abut using them on secondary routes which might be ok a stop gap to ease the diesel unit situation

However to me possibly retaining them long term to the south west instead of IEP doesn't seem very acceptable when you can justify HS2 in other parts of the country.

 

[Ash Bridge]

With all this talk about driving cab safety I can remember some mid 70s editions of a certain motoring magazine featuring an advertisement for the New Rover SD1 car featuring an all new Triplex laminated windscreen. The advert went on to explain this product was a spin off from new technology screens designed for British Rails APT, HST & also Concorde airliners.I can recall it was stated at the time the HST windscreen was designed to withstand an impact with a brick at 250 mph without caving in!

 

[Murph]

Well you say there is no evidence, maybe but would a HST cab meet the 2017 crash cab regulations which trains are now being designed to I expect not.

I expect that very little, possibly none, of the pre-existing stock will meet the latest standards, but that doesn't mean that any of the existing stock is actually significantly less safe than brand new stock. It certainly doesn't create a good case for upgrading or replacing existing stock. Safety can only be claimed to be a problem if there's evidence that something about an existing design creates a significant risk which is intolerable.

The trains will be 40 years old when they are replaced by IEP's so we are hardly buying new for the sake of it, yes ok they can kept going longer but it would seem to me that they are towards the end of their economic lifespan and should be replaced, I know there have been various suggestions abut using them on secondary routes which might be ok a stop gap to ease the diesel unit situation

However to me possibly retaining them long term to the south west instead of IEP doesn't seem very acceptable when you can justify HS2 in other parts of the country.

It's about the right time for them to be replaced on the top tier InterCity services, no argument with that (although I frankly look at the IEP as a poor replacement for them). Squeezing a few more years out of them on secondary IC routes gives the nation some time for more economic recovery/stabilisation, time to absorb the vast cost of HS2 and ECML IEP, time for those existing projects to be competed, new technologies to become mature/proven, etc.

In an ideal world, we'd have the latest and greatest 300kph trains and tracks on every IC route. We're never going to be in an ideal world, so continued use of HST may be a good option for some cases, as long as they are maintained to a high standard.

 

[455driver]

Well you say there is no evidence, maybe but would a HST cab meet the 2017 crash cab regulations which trains are now being designed to I expect not.

No of course they wouldnt, just like anything built more than 2 years ago wouldnt, should we replace all those trains as well?

You really are a broken record arent you!

 

[Yew]

The problem with HST's is that they have always been on the verge of being replaced, (APT, IC225, IC250, Pendolino, IEP) That they have never had the refurbishment (auto closers/power doors, and anciliaries like that) That perhaps they should have had. I Bet if GNER, MML, Or FGW and the RSOCOS knew their HST's would still be in front line service in 2015, they would have done some upgrades

 

[455driver]

If BR had an idea that they would have still been in service they would have been built with power doors, bog tanks and EP brakes.

 

[Failed Unit]

I thought the recent refurbishment of the power cars was fairly extensive. Rewiring, new engines etc. are the a bit like "triggers broom" now?