Mark III coaching stock

[47802]

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!

No of course not but when a train has essentially reached the end of its economic life, its may be one of many things to consider if you want to keep that train in service beyond that lifespan.

I'm sorry if you think that's a broken record but doesn't the railway have a previous record of pushing for the replacement of stock with stock that has better crash worthiness MK1 coaches were far better than many of the pre nationalisation stock they replaced but obviously that only likely to be practical towards the end of a trains economic life, there wasn't a big push to get rid of MK1 after Clapham because it wasn't really economically practical but 10 years later clearly it was.

 

[Harbon 1]

No of course not but when a train has essentially reached the end of its economic life, its may be one of many things to consider if you want to keep that train in service beyond that lifespan.

I'm sorry if you think that's a broken record but doesn't the railway have a previous record of pushing for the replacement of stock with stock that has better crash worthiness MK1 coaches were far better than many of the pre nationalisation stock they replaced but obviously that only likely to be practical towards the end of a trains economic life, there wasn't a big push to get rid of MK1 after Clapham because it wasn't really economically practical but 10 years later clearly it was.

They're not beyond their economic lifespan, they're still earning money and they're not languishing in sidings all day and breaking down all the time. The maintenance costs aren't through the roof and they provide a comfortable, fast and quiet service. As for crash worthiness, is there any cab you'd want to be in at 125mph heading for a crash?

Mk1s were not done away with straight after Clapham because you can't expect to have a full fleet of brand new safer rolling stock the week after! They were done away with presumably because of sky-rocketing maintenance costs and the possibility of uniform fleets of more efficient, more reliable units.

It may be old but if it still makes money why would anyone want to get rid of it? The HSTs eventually and regrettably will become much more of a pain in the arse for TOCs, but until then they will run trains every day.

 

[47802]

They're not beyond their economic lifespan, they're still earning money and they're not languishing in sidings all day and breaking down all the time. The maintenance costs aren't through the roof and they provide a comfortable, fast and quiet service. As for crash worthiness, is there any cab you'd want to be in at 125mph heading for a crash?

Mk1s were not done away with straight after Clapham because you can't expect to have a full fleet of brand new safer rolling stock the week after! They were done away with presumably because of sky-rocketing maintenance costs and the possibility of uniform fleets of more efficient, more reliable units.

It may be old but if it still makes money why would anyone want to get rid of it? The HSTs eventually and regrettably will become much more of a pain in the arse for TOCs, but until then they will run trains every day.

I think you will find that MK1 were done away essentially due to increasing restrictions from HSE with reference to Over Riding in particular, the need to fit Secondary door locks etc, and also the fact they were towards the end of their economic life at that point anyway, and who know maybe the HSE might raise concerns about other stock in the future if the railway persist in wanting to operate train for considerably longer than their economic life.

 

[al.currie93]

I personally don't believe they should go with the exception of electrification schemes, or other homes should be found for them. They are fantastic trains, still carrying out their duties perfectly well, are still arguably the preferred stock of many people, and as highlighted, are hardly falling apart. There are a number of routes that probably would be able to utilise them, possibly in five or six car forms, such as in routes in Wales or Scotland, and also the west country.

If she ain't broke, why change 'er; it's not going cheap or cost cutting, it's saving on unnecesaary spending :P

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.

I was chatting to a friend about this yesterday actually; BREL inadvertantly built arguably one of, if not the, best and most successful trains ever built, and it was intended to be a stop gap for APT with a design life of 20 years... now that begs the question of what they could have built if they were intending to build a train to last 45 years :P

I think you will find that MK1 were done away essentially due to increasing restrictions from HSE with reference to Over Riding in particular, the need to fit Secondary door locks etc, and also the fact they were towards the end of their economic life at that point anyway, and who know maybe the HSE might raise concerns about other stock in the future if the railway persist in wanting to operate train for considerably longer than their economic life.

I think the restrictions as you said and the DFT/SRA pressuring the TOCs was the reason they were withdrawn. As machines, they were incredibly simple, so relatively easy to maintain even at 50 years old.

I think the reason they were not withdrawn earlier were because they were incredibly profitable for the ROSCOs and the TOCs; they want more profit, so why would they want to replace them? I reckon that if it wasn't for DFT/SRA lobbying, restrictions, and Connex being kicked we may even still have them now.

 

[DT611]

I think you will find that MK1 were done away essentially due to increasing restrictions from HSE with reference to Over Riding in particular, the need to fit Secondary door locks etc, and also the fact they were towards the end of their economic life at that point anyway, and who know maybe the HSE might raise concerns about other stock in the future if the railway persist in wanting to operate train for considerably longer than their economic life.

the money isn't there to replace all trains at will. so the fact is even if stock reaches its economic life yet isn't costing to much to keep going, then keep going it will unless the cost and reliability become an issue.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The new crash regulations for cab design seem to be geared for train-versus-obstacle collisions, which are now the only rail accidents that occur now that signalling technology has become safer. Even if the rest of the train is intact, it's not good that a cab could crumple and kill the driver if a train hits a truck on a level crossing or a tree blown down by the wind.

 

[Harbon 1]

The new crash regulations for cab design seem to be geared for train-versus-obstacle collisions, which are now the only rail accidents that occur now that signalling technology has become safer. Even if the rest of the train is intact, it's not good that a cab could crumple and kill the driver if a train hits a truck on a level crossing or a tree blown down by the wind.

Even a collision with a tree at 90mph on an HST after the driver had dumped the brakes didn't do all that much damage in the grand scheme of things

 

[455driver]

The new crash regulations for cab design seem to be geared for train-versus-obstacle collisions, which are now the only rail accidents that occur now that signalling technology has become safer. Even if the rest of the train is intact, it's not good that a cab could crumple and kill the driver if a train hits a truck on a level crossing or a tree blown down by the wind.

The older cabs were designed to withstand an impact and so wouldnt really fold up, whereas the new cabs are designed to absorb the impact by folding up (to stop the forces going into the passenger saloon) so the driver of a modern train sits in the area which is designed to fold up in a large impact, guess what happens to the driver if he doesnt get out of the cab in time?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Do they not have a TGV style protective zone around the driver that keeps an intact cell even when the rest of the cab crumples?

 

[455driver]

Do they not have a TGV style protective zone around the driver that keeps an intact cell even when the rest of the cab crumples?

Probably but all the other stuff in the cab will end up in the drivers chest so it wouldnt really matter.

 

[AM9]

I think you will find that MK1 were done away essentially due to increasing restrictions from HSE with reference to Over Riding in particular, the need to fit Secondary door locks etc, and also the fact they were towards the end of their economic life at that point anyway, and who know maybe the HSE might raise concerns about other stock in the future if the railway persist in wanting to operate train for considerably longer than their economic life.

Wasn't the fact that most of the MkIs had asbestos primary insulation also a factor? That would be a major safety issue for maintainers, the public at large and anybody near a crash scene.

 

[yorksrob]

Wasn't the fact that most of the MkIs had asbestos primary insulation also a factor? That would be a major safety issue for maintainers, the public at large and anybody near a crash scene.

The Mk 1's that remained to the end would have been stripped of asbestos.

 

[47802]

Anyway It looks like HST's are going to be around for some time in view of the Scotrail announcement, it will interesting to see what level of Refurbishment they get.

 

[starrymarkb]

Even a collision with a tree at 90mph on an HST after the driver had dumped the brakes didn't do all that much damage in the grand scheme of things

The cab was pretty much totaled with the 'A' Pillar being smashed in two. If it had been a foot lower or the driver had been slower in ducking it would have been a fatality.

A good example of why these new regs have been brought in was the Barrow on Soar crash where a 158 hit a collapsed bridge at 90mph. The Driver suffered severe leg injuries. The new regs are designed to protect against that sort of impact rather then a high speed head on with another train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The older cabs were designed to withstand an impact and so wouldnt really fold up, whereas the new cabs are designed to absorb the impact by folding up (to stop the forces going into the passenger saloon) so the driver of a modern train sits in the area which is designed to fold up in a large impact, guess what happens to the driver if he doesnt get out of the cab in time?

Do they not have a TGV style protective zone around the driver that keeps an intact cell even when the rest of the cab crumples?

The new cabs do have a safety cell for the driver, hence the new sloped cabs on the 380s and 700s (and 345) - 70s and 68s are also compliant.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Are the HST cabs still made of plastic? I think they were made of plastic when new, don't know if they've been rebuilt out of metal since

 

[455driver]

Are the HST cabs still made of plastic? I think they were made of plastic when new, don't know if they've been rebuilt out of metal since

Fibreglass as built I think!

 

[Murph]

Fibreglass as built I think!

Yeah, some sort of fibreglass. It's a material that is easy for the layman to underestimate, and the use of it on the HST does not necessarily mean poor crash performance. Epoxy-kevlar fibreglass, for example, is stronger than the same weight of steel. There are even a variety of warships which have fibreglass hulls (minesweepers being a common example, such as the Deltic-powered Hunt class, or Valenta-powered Sandown class). It's a material that is as tough as the design engineer wants it to be.

 

[edwin_m]

There was a picture in a magazine in the 70s of an HST and a 47 that had suffered a lowish-speed collision. The HST was largely intact but the front of the 47 cab had been put back into a sort of reversed HST shape.

(yes I know cab crashworthiness standards were improved between the building of the 47s and the HSTs)