mk3s could be made accessible for operation up to 2035

[northwichcat]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/hsts-are-good-to-2035.html

 

[mallard]

As much as I love the HST, a remarkable piece of British engineering that will probably (unfortunately) never be surpassed, a 60-year lifetime is surely "pushing it" a bit.

By the time they're retired they'll be nearly as antiquated as the 1938TS on the Island Line, hardly a good image for our mainlines!

 

[anthony263]

hopefully a proper replacement will be designed to replace them.

Maybe the governemnt should have ordered some more electric IEP's for the east coast mainline and wired to Swansea & Exeter St Davids and transfered some of the class 19 & MK4's and then have a class 57 or similar diesel locomotive haul the trains to to Carmarthen & Penzance

 

[junglejames]

As long as they work, why bother replacing them.
It does show up badly though that we have never been able to design a better coach.

 

[Daimler]

As much as I love the HST, a remarkable piece of British engineering that will probably (unfortunately) never be surpassed, a 60-year lifetime is surely "pushing it" a bit.

By the time they're retired they'll be nearly as antiquated as the 1938TS on the Island Line, hardly a good image for our mainlines!

The thing is, provided they're comprehensively refurbished no one apart from those 'in the know' will be able to tell how old they are, so it wouldn't necessarily have a negative effect on image.

If they can be refurbished to a high standard and used for many years yet, why not? Scrapping a train that can keep going for a good while longer is shockingly wasteful both of money and resources.

 

[mallard]

The thing is, provided they're comprehensively refurbished no one apart from those 'in the know' will be able to tell how old they are, so it wouldn't necessarily have a negative effect on image.

If they can be refurbished to a high standard and used for many years yet, why not? Scrapping a train that can keep going for a good while longer is shockingly wasteful both of money and resources.

True, but it better be a truly comprehensive refurbishment. i.e. strip it to the bodyshell and construct an entirely new interior, replace the doors, etc. Even the best refurbishments so far show the true age of the stock in places, such as the vestibules, lighting, etc.

If the IEP debacle is anything to go by then life-extending the HST is certainly a better idea than a new train designed by a committee of politicians and bureaucrats, but that's more a testament to the ridiculous way our railways are run these days than anything else.

 

[gordonthemoron]

it may not be possible to re-engine them again though

 

[Daimler]

True, but it better be a truly comprehensive refurbishment. i.e. strip it to the bodyshell and construct an entirely new interior, replace the doors, etc. Even the best refurbishments so far show the true age of the stock in places, such as the vestibules, lighting, etc.

Absolutely, yes - the refurbishment needs to be thorough. However, if this is cheaper than buying new stock, and the Mk3 can cope with the demands placed upon it for many years to come, it seems like a sensible option.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I expect the issue really is modern crashworthyness regulations. It shows something when it's cheaper to totally gut and rebuild stock that is over 30 years old, including bringing it up to the latest accesibility standards (that will require far newer trains to also undergo major work or be withdrawn), than buy new. Since it's not accesibility that is benefiting from grandfather rights, it must be crashworthyness. The irony is that due to the extream standards for new build stock (IEP apparently has gained a lot of bulk due to improving the crashworthyness), we'll instead see old and "dangerous" stock being used for many more years. Now the danger levels of the Mk3s are controversial and I personally swing both ways on it (I think they are often over-rated but also often unfairly criticised) but if the Mk3s are "safe" then surely the same standards could be used for IEP and other new builds? Can't have it both ways!

Then again the DfT, HSE etc seem to be very good at twisting what is "safe" and what is "dangerous" to fit their needs.

 

[junglejames]

The Mk3s are very safe, and considering how few accidents there are on the railways, whilst they may not comply with the latest regs, giving them grandfather rights for the rest of their lives is a sensible way of going. It would be different if they werent safe, or if accidents happened everyday, but this isnt the case.
If vehicles never had sensible grandfather rights imposed on them, we would be building new stock every 5yrs.

 

[ChrisCooper]

The Mk3s are very safe, and considering how few accidents there are on the railways, whilst they may not comply with the latest regs, giving them grandfather rights for the rest of their lives is a sensible way of going. It would be different if they werent safe, or if accidents happened everyday, but this isnt the case.
If vehicles never had sensible grandfather rights imposed on them, we would be building new stock every 5yrs.

Exactly, so why do we need to build replacements to be so much better? Like I said, can't have it both ways, Mk3s are safe, and if Mk3s are safe new trains built to the same standards are safe.

 

[starrymarkb]

Grandfather rights have a place, but how long is too long? It's like with the accessablity rules. They gave grandfather rights for existing stock for 25 years (which is due to run out in 2020)

Is the crashworthyiness really that big problem. We knew from the start that IEP could never meet its weight targets...

 

[northwichcat]

The thing is, provided they're comprehensively refurbished no one apart from those 'in the know' will be able to tell how old they are, so it wouldn't necessarily have a negative effect on image.

People will be suspect that loco-hauled means old though. I think many people think the East Coast mk4 sets are older than they actually are because they are loco hauled.

 

[Daimler]

People will be suspect that loco-hauled means old though. I think many people think the East Coast mk4 sets are older than they actually are because they are loco hauled.

Nonsense! Most people don't even know if their train has a loco or not. I well recall being on a unit that was having issues a few years ago and hearing conversations over the phone referring to 'the engine'. I suspect that when people see a loco it hardly registers - and if it does, they probably think nothing of it.

 

[Royston Vasey]

They may be disabled friendly by 2030 but they will be heaps of scrap metal!

I don't get this accepted wisdom that Mk 3s are the pinnacle and the best coach ever made. Sorry, but they don't ride as smoothly as Mk 4s, bouncier and rockier, they are noisier in the vestibules in particular, and are not as crashworthy as Mk 4s by a long way.

I've said this before on this forum, but look at the coaches at Hatfield and Selby compared to those at Southall and Ufton Nervet, and I know which I'd rather be in in a crash. Buffet cars are a known weak point in both and can fold, but the first class coach at Southall is a thoroughly chilling and uncomfortable image to me. "Very safe" I think is an exaggeration. They are 1970s technology, and 1970s vintage.

In my days at uni when I didn't care about trains at all other than comfort, up to a few years ago, I knew the difference between a Mk 3 and Mk 4 (because I used to spot as a child) but I used to be very disappointed if an HST turned up rather than a 225.

Some rose tinted spectacles being worn around this forum?

 

[jopsuk]

As much as I love the HST, a remarkable piece of British engineering that will probably (unfortunately) never be surpassed, a 60-year lifetime is surely "pushing it" a bit.

By the time they're retired they'll be nearly as antiquated as the 1938TS on the Island Line, hardly a good image for our mainlines!

Perhaps, but this is report doesn't mean that this is now the plan- rather, the report says that as far as the structure of the vehicles is concerned, a sixty year lifetime should be fine. Now, the rport will have been commisioned with an eye to runnng them longer, yes, but it is merely a technical document, not a desicion.

 

[starrymarkb]

I don't get this accepted wisdom that Mk 3s are the pinnacle and the best coach ever made. Sorry, but they don't ride as smoothly as Mk 4s,

I hold up the 22x and 158 as examples of a smooth ride (engines not withstanding). 158's are all the more remarkable for being able to maintain a smooth ride on quite rough track.

 

[northwichcat]

Nonsense! Most people don't even know if their train has a loco or not.

There is a significant difference in noise levels when moving off between loco hauled and 22x and 390s. If you're in the subway between platforms at Doncaster when one East Coast service is moving off you really know about it, while at Stockport you could have a Northbound and Southbound 390 both moving off at the same time and it is a lot less noticeable. The extra noise at Doncaster over Stockport (plus the less smooth moving off and stopping if they're on the train) is what will make the average person think "old train" even if they don't notice the loco.

I well recall being on a unit that was having issues a few years ago and hearing conversations over the phone referring to 'the engine'. I suspect that when people see a loco it hardly registers - and if it does, they probably think nothing of it.

So DMUs and EMUs don't have engines? Does that mean they are horse drawn?

 

[Daimler]

There is a significant difference in noise levels when moving off between loco hauled and 22x and 390s. If you're in the subway between platforms at Doncaster when one East Coast service is moving off you really know about it, while at Stockport you could have a Northbound and Southbound 390 both moving off at the same time and it is a lot less noticeable. The extra noise at Doncaster over Stockport (plus the less smooth moving off and stopping if they're on the train) is what will make the average person think "old train" even if they don't notice the loco.

Yeeeeeeees. So presumably they think all DMUs are ancient, as they make a lot of noise even when at a stand? I'm not buying it, I'm afraid.

Furthermore, modern locos make very little noise when moving off, as anyone who's seen the latest TGVs can confirm (they start getting noisy at around 25-30mph, when some sort of fan system kicks in).

So DMUs and EMUs don't have engines? Does that mean they are horse drawn?

:roll: Specifically they were referring to the locomotive - I think they talked about it needing to be changed, or something. It's not the only occasion I've heard mention of 'the engine' (referring to 'the locomotive') applied to units.

 

[northwichcat]

Yeeeeeeees. So presumably they think all DMUs are ancient, as they make a lot of noise even when at a stand? I'm not buying it, I'm afraid.

I live under the flight path at Manchester Airport and can say that being in the subway between platforms at Doncaster when an East Coast service moves off is louder than a Boeing 747 flying directly overhead relatively low in the air.

A 150 (probably the loudest DMU in operation) is much quieter than the same Boeing 747 and a 150 is old anyway.

 

[MCR247]

I'm not convinced with the 'if it's cheaper than new stock then why not' because it is really short sighted.

If this refurb/rebuild happened in 2020, then that gives us 15 years. Then you will still need to build new stock. So the refurb being cheaper is irrelevant because new stock will have a longer life.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Plus of cource how many times does some news report relating to a train accident refer to the "engine" and "coaches", despite it being a unit?

Anyway, even enthusiasts can't agree on if HSTs are units or top and tail locos, so what chance do ordinary mortals have! *duck*

 

[DarloRich]

@ Royston Vasey - I don’t think the accident report form Ufton Nervet said the design of the coach was at fault
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RSSB_Ufton001.pdf

I would direct you to section 7 from page 40 and in particular 7.5.1.3 at page 46. Also have a look at 7.5.5 on page 49. 7.5.8 does make reference to the fact that the windows in use at the time were not up to the current and lead to deaths. Also look at 7.6.2 dealing with the design of the seats. 7.6.3 also deals with problems with the tables at the time.

I would suggest that people read the full report. it is not nice, but the only recommendation relating specifically to the coach design is number 12 on page 116 and deals with laminated glass provision.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I hold up the 22x and 158 as examples of a smooth ride (engines not withstanding). 158's are all the more remarkable for being able to maintain a smooth ride on quite rough track.

Agreed. The 390s have a lot wrong with them, but their smoothness and crashworthiness (on the limited evidence available) are remarkable.

 

[Daimler]

I live under the flight path at Manchester Airport and can say that being in the subway between platforms at Doncaster when an East Coast service moves off is louder than a Boeing 747 flying directly overhead relatively low in the air.

A 150 (probably the loudest DMU in operation) is much quieter than the same Boeing 747 and a 150 is old anyway.

Erm...so what? I was making the point that DMUs make noise 'all the time'* rather than just 'some of the time' - I don't dispute that 91s are very noisy when they set off. In fact, I'd say that they're a lot noisier than older electric locomotives, such as 90s. Anyway, new electric locomotives, as I also explained, can be very quiet when moving off.

* And not just all the time, but right on the area of the platform where people are getting on and off, as opposed to diesel locomotives, which are usually at least at the ends of the platform - compare a Voyager with a HST at a stand on Oxford station and you will find a very big difference in how 'quiet' the train appears to be to those people travelling.

I'm not convinced with the 'if it's cheaper than new stock then why not' because it is really short sighted.

If this refurb/rebuild happened in 2020, then that gives us 15 years. Then you will still need to build new stock. So the refurb being cheaper is irrelevant because new stock will have a longer life.

It depends - you may have a point. One has to work out whether in the long run it will work out to be cheaper to refurbish the existing stock. If, after an extensive refurbishment, a train is good for another 25 years, it's very likely to be more cost-effective than buying new stock.

It's only short-sighted if the 'per year' cost of the refurbished old stock exceeds that of the new. Otherwise, you could almost argue that as soon as a train needs its first refurbishment, it's time to replace it.

Of course, it's difficult to conclude one way or another without knowing how much the refurbishment would cost, and the cost of the replacement train (which, if it is IEP, is likely to be ridiculous).

So you may certainly have a point, but it is wrong to conclude that life-extension is necessarily short-sighted.

 

[Royston Vasey]

@ Royston Vasey - I don’t think the accident report form Ufton Nervet said the design of the coach was at fault
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RSSB_Ufton001.pdf

I would direct you to section 7 from page 40 and in particular 7.5.1.3 at page 46. Also have a look at 7.5.5 on page 49. 7.5.8 does make reference to the fact that the windows in use at the time were not up to the current and lead to deaths. Also look at 7.6.2 dealing with the design of the seats. 7.6.3 also deals with problems with the tables at the time.

I would suggest that people read the full report. it is not nice, but the only recommendation relating specifically to the coach design is number 12 on page 116 and deals with laminated glass provision.

Taking that to extremes, the fault was a guy who drove his car onto the tracks. The coach design was not to blame for the crash or its deaths but it may have been a factor. People were thrown out of the windows, yes, but even if the crumpling wasn't a direct cause of those specific deaths, Mk 4s perform better than Mk 3s, they crumple less.

I am saying that I feel sure that in an identical hypothetical accident, a Mk 4 would be more resilient. I feel strongly that if Mk4s were involved at Southall there would have been less deaths and if Mk 3s were involved in Great Heck there would have been more. Southall and Great Heck were broadly similar accidents.

 

[mallard]

Agreed. The 390s have a lot wrong with them, but their smoothness and crashworthiness (on the limited evidence available) are remarkable.

Well, we don't really know that much about a 390's crashworthiness, all we know is that one ~90mph derailment wrote off a unit. Unlike a mk3 or mk4, they have never been involved in a (serious) collision accident. I would expect them to hold up at least as well as a mk4, but until such time as there is evidence we can't say much more. I often hear people use crashworthiness as an excuse for the small windows on a 390, but then the only evidence of this enhanced crashworthiness they can give is the fact that the windows are small. That strikes me as a circular argument.

As for smoothness, the 390s have never struck me as particularly smooth; in fact they feel particularly bumpy at times, I don't know if that's an artifact of tilt or the quality of track on the WCML. Apart from a slight jolt at starting (especially with the 91 at the back), I've always found mk4s very smooth. Mk3s are good too, but you can certainly feel the pointwork at times.

Also, on my most recent trip on a 390 I noticed that the noise inside was about as loud as a 222 that I had ridden earlier that day - that may have been unique to the pantograph coach however.

Personally, I think that the government should stop interfering in the railways. Re-nationalise, give them a budget and some targets, then let the railwaymen run it without political influence. I'll reserve judgement until I actually see the thing, but it looks like the IEP is going to end up as a horrible one-size-fits-nobody, designed by committee, white elephant.

Keeping HSTs in service makes sense for now, if only because we can't produce anything better, but eventually a proper replacement will be needed.
How about a 22x-based train with dedicated powercars instead of underfloor engines? Or drop-in replacements for 43s and Mk3s? Or an EMU that's capable of receiving traction power from a locomotive/generator vehicle?

 

[ainsworth74]

Well, we don't really know that much about a 390's crashworthiness, all we know is that one ~90mph derailment wrote off a unit. Unlike a mk3 or mk4, they have never been involved in a (serious) collision accident. I would expect them to hold up at least as well as a mk4, but until such time as there is evidence we can't say much more.

Really? Have you read the report into Grayrigg? Several times in that report it praises the crashworthiness of the 390s. Also I would consider a derailment at 96mph to be serious accident especially considering the 390 vehicles went through several OHLE masts and suffered no penetration or loss of survival space. At Hatfield a collision with a OHLE mast completely gutted one vehicle.

Personally I think Grayrigg does perhaps provide limited evidence (it's the only accident to involve a 390) but I still think it gives plenty of evidence to suggest that the 390 is one of the strongest designs on the network today perhaps even stronger than the Mk4. Of course without running both Mk4s and 390s through identical accidents it's hard to know

Also there are other factors to the 390s strength other than it's small windows by the by:

Paragraph 606: Features of the train’s structure of particular note were:
• laminated windows which largely contained passengers within the vehicles
(paragraphs 557 to 561);
• the design of the couplers which generally kept the vehicles together (paragraph 577);
• the anti-roll bar links which ensured that most of the bogies remaining attached to the
train (paragraph 578);
• the resistance to penetration of the bodyshell (paragraph 576); and
• the roll-over strength of the bodyshell (paragraph 575).

 

[asylumxl]

Irrelevant of how much you refurb and overhaul, the fact is metal does not last forever. You could spend decades replacing all the rust and damage, but there will come a poInt where there will not be anything remaining of the original structure. In that case, you may aswell build a new coach/unit, rather than undertaking more and more expensive conversions.

I hear some people say have no proper replacement for the HSTs? By proper you mean LHCS? The fact is that units make more operational and economic sense. Passengers will ofcourse prefer different things, but since most folk will be going for the journey rather than the stock, i highly doubt most will have a major bias towards either.

 

[43021HST]

Irrelevant of how much you refurb and overhaul, the fact is metal does not last forever. You could spend decades replacing all the rust and damage, but there will come a poInt where there will not be anything remaining of the original structure. In that case, you may aswell build a new coach/unit, rather than undertaking more and more expensive conversions.

I hear some people say have no proper replacement for the HSTs? By proper you mean LHCS? The fact is that units make more operational and economic sense. Passengers will ofcourse prefer different things, but since most folk will be going for the journey rather than the stock, i highly doubt most will have a major bias towards either.

As you say metal only lasts a certain amount of time, but may I remind you that some steam engines were 60 years when they were scrapped,(they probably had a few more years left in them) and the metal holding them together has gone under more stress than any modern trains.