Pendolino seating vs LNER stock

[TheEdge]

And yet such accidents are incredibly rare.
It is questionable if the ridiculous resources expended on crash safety are actually worth it when only a tiny number of accidents ever actually occur.
In terms of fatalities per passenger-mile you will still come out better than almost any other form of transport.

OK then. We'll take Ram Air Turbines off jets, very rare to loose all engines. We wont bother with seatbelts and crumble zone, crashes don't happen too often. Ships don't sink much, no need for lifeboats. The stupidity of the above statement is genuinely shocking.

Harrow and Wealdstone is irrelevant - it simply would not have happened if an ATP system had been installed - the train would have come predictably, and safely, to a halt.

Ufton Nervet would have been avoided by properly engineered level crossings (obstruction detection or remote monitoring) and Great Heck is possily the only such event I remember in recent history.

Its not irrelevant, this is a discussion on how the structural integrity of coaches has improved despite a perceived loss of comfort for passengers.

H&W is perfect proof of how "well" Mk1 and similar design coaches hold up in a big crash. At Greyrigg pretty much everything stayed structurally sound despite carriages going down and embankment, rolling, and, If I remember correct the leading vehicle actually went end over end. Great Heck and Ufton Nervet both show how much better Mk3s and 4s held up in very high energy crashes.

 

[Taunton]

I really can't see the connection between the improved structural strength of vehicle bodies and the downturn in passenger ambience.

Cars, too, have increased their collision protection immeasureably over the same period. And yet we didn't need to have more squashed seats, half our back seat passengers standing, baggage storage racks across windows, destination indicators handily placed across half the window (class 377 a particular culprit here), draughts way beyond former times, seats where you need a straw to drink a cup of coffee, or anything like that.

 

[Mikey C]

Also the windscreen glass on a modern car is very much a structural element, whereas train windows are rarely bonded (ease & speed of replacement is likely a key factor in that design choice.) Hence cars have seemingly every-increasing amounts of glass, with no reduction in safety.

Actually I'm not sure that's true anymore, front windscreens may be very large these days, but the other windows are more shallow and pillars very thick to improve crash protection. The visibility for the driver is now far worse than it used to be

 

[tom1649]

I agree with Taunton. The new crashworthiness regulations don't have to make for an uncomfortable train. I see nothing in the regulations about the use of hard seats, or the sort of harsh lighting you might find in a branch of Matalan or B&Q for example. Just what is the reason for the recent obsession with using "cool white" fluorescent tubes in passenger accommodation?

Try comparing a XC 221 interior with that on an EMT 222. They have the same bodyshell but the interiors are a world apart in my opinion. If only they could refurbish the former to match the latter.

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree with Taunton. The new crashworthiness regulations don't have to make for an uncomfortable train.

Agreed.

I see nothing in the regulations about the use of hard seats, or the sort of harsh lighting you might find in a branch of Matalan or B&Q for example. Just what is the reason for the recent obsession with using "cool white" fluorescent tubes in passenger accommodation?

On the issue of lights I'm not sure if that's a safety issue or just 'the modern way'. Personally I don't mind it but that's an issue of taste. As for the seats there's nothing saying they have to be hard but there will be regulations of their fire resistance which affects what materials the covers can be made from and what the stuffing is made of.

Try comparing a XC 221 interior with that on an EMT 222. They have the same bodyshell but the interiors are a world apart in my opinion. If only they could refurbish the former to match the latter.

My understanding is that the bodyshell is the same but where various things are attached have changed. Stuff that on a 221 or 220 that is mounted on the roof is now under the floor increasing the overhead room (for example). The reason for this being that the 220s and 221s were designed with tilting in mind (so more room was needed underneath for tilt equipment). This could be rumour but and the truth might be different but that's what I've been told.

 

[HSTEd]

OK then. We'll take Ram Air Turbines off jets, very rare to loose all engines. We wont bother with seatbelts and crumble zone, crashes don't happen too often. Ships don't sink much, no need for lifeboats. The stupidity of the above statement is genuinely shocking.

People like to think people are infinitely valuable but they aren't. There comes a point where the resources necessary to improve safety are not worth the additional safety gained.
The cost of things like Ram Air Turbines are negligible. They are also not used to help people survive slamming into the ground - they are used to avoid the slamming into the ground and are thus far closer to fail-safe braking systems than crash safety systems.
Retiring the Mark 1s on the base of poor crashworthiness is like grounding airliners because they can't survive smashing into the deck at a couple of hundred knots with no damage.

The cost benefit ratio for retiring trains and replacing them with more crashworthy ones simply to improve safety is awful.

H&W is perfect proof of how "well" Mk1 and similar design coaches hold up in a big crash. At Greyrigg pretty much everything stayed structurally sound despite carriages going down and embankment, rolling, and, If I remember correct the leading vehicle actually went end over end.

And Eschede shows that far more modern stock cannot survive plausible accident conditions - surely we should withdraw all stock of that and similar vintage as similarly unsafe? Or newer stock built to comparable standards - which is most rolling stock in Europe.
The standards clearly aren't up to the job.
Attempting to build trains that will go through major accidents without fatalities is an exercise in futility.
The only reasonable way to prevent fatalities is to prevent the accidents in the first place - not build trains that are vaults on wheels.

Great Heck and Ufton Nervet both show how much better Mk3s and 4s held up in very high energy crashes.

Very Energy Crashes almost never occur.
Its like designing your cars to survive slamming into a reinforced concrete wall at 90mph and to still be drivable afterwards.

 

[Domh245]

And the fact that when a high energy crash occurs, the fact that possibly 80% of the people on board because the train had sacrificed safety so that people could have the option to look out of the windows, even though a number of them were looking at their laptops/phones/tablets? Don't forget that quite a few are also standing because less seats are installed, so that our seated passengers can look at their screens whilst also stretching out their feet an extra inch? Lets assume that it is something on the southern part of the WCML - a new build 12 car train is running fast at 100mph, and due to a signal fault, is shown a green aspect against a conflicting move (a freight train heading across the line en route to some freight yard). Our 12 car train has a very high loading (with a lot of them in the front 4 coaches to be nearer to the gates at euston) when it plows head first into a loaded wagon on the freight train - the driver has managed to put in the brake and by the time the trains collide they are still travelling at 80mph (and a closing speed of 100mph) the first 4 coaches get destroyed and out of the 160 people on the first 4 coaches, only 50 or so can walk away. Would you be able to live with the fact that 100 people have just died because you had decided "ah the chances are so low its basically ok if we don't"

Another example - when a hydraulic actuator is engineered, any calculations are often done with a much higher operating pressure than usual (300bar rather than 200bar for example) and then when a final value is arrived at, that value is often then subjected to another safety factor of at least 200% Whilst in theory the actuator should never go anywhere near such a thing - it is still designed as such - you can never know if you are really unlucky and have 6 flawed bolts holding on an endcap of an actuator being operated by some madcap chinese man who likes to take warning as advisory rather than factually.

 

[asylumxl]

Another example - when a hydraulic actuator is engineered, any calculations are often done with a much higher operating pressure than usual (300bar rather than 200bar for example) and then when a final value is arrived at, that value is often then subjected to another safety factor of at least 200% Whilst in theory the actuator should never go anywhere near such a thing - it is still designed as such - you can never know if you are really unlucky and have 6 flawed bolts holding on an endcap of an actuator being operated by some madcap chinese man who likes to take warning as advisory rather than factually.

The same is true for bridge structures and buildings. There is usually a safety factor of 200-300% for both dynamic and static loads.

 

[HSTEd]

And the fact that when a high energy crash occurs, the fact that possibly 80% of the people on board because the train had sacrificed safety so that people could have the option to look out of the windows, even though a number of them were looking at their laptops/phones/tablets?

That is not and never was the argument I was making.
I simply pointed out that replacing trians early on the basis of 'poor crashworthiness' is very expensive and causes serious problems for the industry.
I am also unable to think of a main line rail accident that led to 80% casualties that did not involve a massive fire which would not happen with modern stock.

Don't forget that quite a few are also standing because less seats are installed, so that our seated passengers can look at their screens whilst also stretching out their feet an extra inch? Lets assume that it is something on the southern part of the WCML - a new build 12 car train is running fast at 100mph, and due to a signal fault, is shown a green aspect against a conflicting move (a freight train heading across the line en route to some freight yard).

Outside of immediately-detected mistakes during installation I am not aware of a single wrong side failure in an SSI installation in the UK.... ever.
Indeed I believe the last accident triggered by such a fault in any signalling installation would be Clapham Junction in 1988.

How many people have died per year on the railway as a result of vehicles having poor crashworthiness in recent times?
Even the Mark 1 EMUs on the Southern managed a very impressive tally.

Our 12 car train has a very high loading (with a lot of them in the front 4 coaches to be nearer to the gates at euston) when it plows head first into a loaded wagon on the freight train - the driver has managed to put in the brake and by the time the trains collide they are still travelling at 80mph (and a closing speed of 100mph) the first 4 coaches get destroyed and out of the 160 people on the first 4 coaches, only 50 or so can walk away. Would you be able to live with the fact that 100 people have just died because you had decided "ah the chances are so low its basically ok if we don't"

How many died because you squandered all this money on early replacement of units with more crash-worthy stock which led to people being put off, or simply being unable to afford, travelling by rail, who then died in car accidents?

Another example - when a hydraulic actuator is engineered, any calculations are often done with a much higher operating pressure than usual (300bar rather than 200bar for example) and then when a final value is arrived at, that value is often then subjected to another safety factor of at least 200% Whilst in theory the actuator should never go anywhere near such a thing - it is still designed as such - you can never know if you are really unlucky and have 6 flawed bolts holding on an endcap of an actuator being operated by some madcap chinese man who likes to take warning as advisory rather than factually.

Yes, and this fault is still orders of magnitude more likely than the train crash scenario you laid out.

 

[Domh245]

Sorry, but it looks like I misread your post to say that new-build trains shouldn't be built to new crash standards, which obviously would be a very stupid thing to do, hence the (in hindsight) patronising post. Obviously building new trains very frequently to replace existing stock because someone in an office somewhere decided to move the goalposts by a bit, but not enough to make conversion viable is just as stupid! I would say that obviously new trains should only be built when a case is made for them and when the existing stuff is up for replacement - Keep on using the trains until they stop, why waste money, especially when capacity is needed

I think my point still stands about designing for an absolute worst-case scenario is still valid. Whilst in theory the chance of a crash as I described is practically 0, there is still that tiny tiny chance of a crash happening. I would rather be in a train which I can be pretty sure that I could walk away from something like graygigg than something that couldn't, and I suspect that a number of other people would also agree - particularly if it is a train where they wouldn't benefit from larger windows, and couldn't give a damn if they could as they'd probably be on their phone anyway (so commuters basically)

Sorry again for misreading your post and acting a bit patronising - I've had a long day dealing with lots of irritating 12 year olds.

 

[route:oxford]

Cars, too, have increased their collision protection immeasureably over the same period. And yet we didn't need to have more squashed seats, half our back seat passengers standing, baggage storage racks across windows, destination indicators handily placed across half the window (class 377 a particular culprit here), draughts way beyond former times, seats where you need a straw to drink a cup of coffee, or anything like that.

VW Golf Mk1 - 1610mm wide
VW Golf Mk2 - 1665mm wide
VW Golf Mk3 - 1694mm wide
VW Golf Mk4 - 1735mm wide
VW Golf Mk5 - 1759mm wide
VW Golf Mk6 - 1779mm wide
VW Golf Mk7 - 1799mm wide

So a fairly average car is 189mm or 7.5" wider than it was 30 years ago.

It's not as easy to make a railway carriage wider...

 

[Emblematic]

Actually I'm not sure that's true anymore, front windscreens may be very large these days, but the other windows are more shallow and pillars very thick to improve crash protection. The visibility for the driver is now far worse than it used to be

I think that may well be the case - if standards for rollover strength have been increased, there's not much more the windscreen can contribute so the metalwork has to do the job. Nonetheless, the amount of glass in new cars is impressive - panoramic glass roofs are a popular option, people don't like claustrophobic interiors.

 

[jc71]

Structural integrity of coaches has much to do with the welding quality and the construction material. Aluminium, properly welded, would allow a vehicle that was incredibly strong and allow huge amounts of window space, thus allowing for greater flexibility in seating arrangements from first class to cattle/commuter class, significant amounts of natural light (less of the harsh white light of modern vehicles), and be safe. This study goes some way towards illustrating that.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/newrail/assets/docs/Berlinseminar2010.pdf

 

[Taunton]

Don't forget that quite a few are also standing because less seats are installed, so that our seated passengers can look at their screens whilst also stretching out their feet an extra inch?

No. The widespread and unacceptable extent of standing nowadays is down to one simple fact - not enough carriages are provided.

I'll accept that if you run maximum length trains at minimum headway, you have done much of what you can. But such instances are few and far between. Most crowding is predictable and can be alleviated by just providing adequate accommodation to handle the tickets you have sold.

I recently arrived at Sheffield, full and standing inbound, where we found about 100 or more passengers waiting to board on the return. All predictable, it was the afternoon student homeward rush. Now over 100 paying passengers is a good trainload - or would be if it hadn't been a single car class 153. What chance all those squashed standees with no handholds in a crash? Certainly the "big high seats" wouldn't do them any good.

 

[asylumxl]

And if there are no spare units to strengthen the service?

And if you propose ordering more carriages, who will fund it? And they take time to build too, so what do you wish to do about it in the meantime?

 

[AM9]

.... What chance all those squashed standees with no handholds in a crash? Certainly the "big high seats" wouldn't do them any good.

Well that's just not true. For a start not all of the standing passengers will be down the centreline between the seat rows. They will be constrained by bulkheads, luggage racks etc. Those that are standing in the centre will be within easy reach of a setaback, which ideally would have a handhold fitted. Low-backed seating is useless in such a situation as the handhold would be at waist level so the upper body would rotate and probably result in loss of balance.
In a collision, seated passengers in high-backed seats are more likely to stay seated than with low-back seats where their CofG is high enough to lift them out of the seats and send them horizontally along the coach.

 

[Taunton]

And if there are no spare units to strengthen the service?

And what if there are?

For example, I have written here before about crush-loaded conditions on weekend services from Gatwick into London, where just a minimum four car train is provided, which by East Croydon is leaving passengers behind, unable to get in. Then you carry on past Selhurst depot where the sidings are stuffed full of units sunning themselves away for the weekend. If our service had come to grief with everyone thrown about, I wonder what excuses would have been trotted out at the enquiry. "Oh they were eventually constrained by the bulkheads, so that's alright then"? "There were no spare units to strengthen the service?". "New carriages take too long to build"?

How many died because you squandered all this money on early replacement of units with more crash-worthy stock which led to people being put off, or simply being unable to afford, travelling by rail, who then died in car accidents?

Yes, this narrow-mindedness does occur. The London Underground Marylebone station functioned perfectly well for a century without a PA system, without incident. One was installed, along with a procedure that it was essential equipment. It failed, and the station was closed. Arriving passengers were told to walk to Baker Street. One of these commuters was run down and killed at a road junction along the way. That was OK, not a railway accident so not counted in the figures.

 

[61248]

I don't think anyone is saying we should reduce safety on trains,but there is something called ALARP "as low as reasonably practicable"

(From Wikipedia)"For a risk to be ALARP it must be possible to demonstrate that the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained. The ALARP principle arises from the fact that infinite time, effort and money could be spent on the attempt of reducing a risk to zero"


Now as the only completely safe railway is one with no trains running where do we draw the line over safety critical features

Structural integrity of coaches has much to do with the welding quality and the construction material. Aluminium, properly welded, would allow a vehicle that was incredibly strong and allow huge amounts of window space, thus allowing for greater flexibility in seating arrangements from first class to cattle/commuter class, significant amounts of natural light (less of the harsh white light of modern vehicles), and be safe. This study goes some way towards illustrating that.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/newrail/assets/docs/Berlinseminar2010.pdf

If this is the case why do Pendolinos have such small windows?


Back on to comfort (Or lack of it)

I really can't see the connection between the improved structural strength of vehicle bodies and the downturn in passenger ambience.

Cars, too, have increased their collision protection immeasureably over the same period. And yet we didn't need to have more squashed seats, half our back seat passengers standing, baggage storage racks across windows, destination indicators handily placed across half the window (class 377 a particular culprit here), draughts way beyond former times, seats where you need a straw to drink a cup of coffee, or anything like that.

Hear Hear

Possibly because the railway is not a public service anymore but is there for the TOCs to service the shareholders

I'm wondering if I have to use bigger type to make the point that the trend, in Britain, started with the Mark 3s/HST that you all so love.

You prefer pendolinos then?

At least with a Mk3/HST you are unlucky to get a seat that's next to a pillar,on a Pendo you are lucky to get a seat with a good view
The original Mk111 seats were also more comfortable

I don't buy this view that everyone's on electronic equipment all the time and don't want a window
When I'm travelling I notice that on most trains the window seats are taken first,very few people go for a pillar seat if window seats are available

 

[ainsworth74]

The original Mk111 seats were also more comfortable

That is, of course, a matter of opinion...

 

[starrymarkb]

I

If this is the case why do Pendolinos have such small windows?

Fiat's construction technique - the structure is a grid with spars running above and below the windows. It gives immense strength for relatively little weight. European Pendolinos (and the Swiss ICN which is a licence built version) built up until ~2010 use the same structure. A 26M Pendolino trailer vehicle would have a similar weight per passenger as a Mk3

The New Alstom design from 2010 onwards Pendolino is much more like a Voyager in terms of bodyshell with big windows but is a lot heavier!

 

[Clip]

For example, I have written here before about crush-loaded conditions on weekend services from Gatwick into London, where just a minimum four car train is provided, which by East Croydon is leaving passengers behind, unable to get in. Then you carry on past Selhurst depot where the sidings are stuffed full of units sunning themselves away for the weekend. If our service had come to grief with everyone thrown about, I wonder what excuses would have been trotted out at the enquiry. "Oh they were eventually constrained by the bulkheads, so that's alright then"? "There were no spare units to strengthen the service?". "New carriages take too long to build"?


.

And I have written before on here that there has been extensive modelling of such crush loadings and has shown that there would be less casualties than you keep making out due to less people being flailed about the carriage.

I do believe the video is on youtube somewhere.

 

[Emyr]

Falling and flying are both safe, until you stop.

 

[asylumxl]

Yes, this narrow-mindedness does occur. The London Underground Marylebone station functioned perfectly well for a century without a PA system, without incident. One was installed, along with a procedure that it was essential equipment. It failed, and the station was closed. Arriving passengers were told to walk to Baker Street. One of these commuters was run down and killed at a road junction along the way. That was OK, not a railway accident so not counted in the figures.

What kind of simpleton was he/she?

It's at best a 7-8 minute walk with very little traffic until Baker St itself, and all the busier roads have traffic lights.

 

[AM9]

And what if there are?

Yes, this narrow-mindedness does occur. The London Underground Marylebone station functioned perfectly well for a century without a PA system, without incident. One was installed, along with a procedure that it was essential equipment. It failed, and the station was closed. Arriving passengers were told to walk to Baker Street. One of these commuters was run down and killed at a road junction along the way. That was OK, not a railway accident so not counted in the figures.

Smells a bit like a strawman here.

 

[90019]

Cars, too, have increased their collision protection immeasureably over the same period. And yet we didn't need to have more squashed seats, half our back seat passengers standing, baggage storage racks across windows, destination indicators handily placed across half the window (class 377 a particular culprit here), draughts way beyond former times, seats where you need a straw to drink a cup of coffee, or anything like that.

Cars are bigger than ever, and still growing - they also tend to have smaller windows and larger pillars, even compared to cars 15 or 20 years ago. Especially with more and more cars having airbags contained within the pillars and roof. The only windows that tend to be longer are the windscreens, which are generally much more raked back than they used to be, so have to be longer to achieve the same sort of height - you can see this in the number of cars which now have one very long wiper and one tiny one on a long arm, to achieve the same sort of clearing that two middling sized ones would do on a car with a shorter windscreen.
They also often have interiors that feel smaller compared to the size of the car itself, through a combination of the windows and pillars, but also through bodyshells and structures being thicker - open the door of a Mk2 Ford Fiesta and compare the width of it to the door of a Mk7 - there's a fairly significant difference.
There's also been a noticable increase in the size of the dashboards, with modern cars having increasingly long dashboards, partially to fit in all the electrical stuff required for all the gadgets everybody now wants in their car.

For a comparison, two photos (not mine) - 1984 Mk2 Ford Fiesta and a 2011 Mk7 Ford Fiesta.
The interior of the Mk2 feels more spacious (speaking from experience - a friend used to own one), despite the Mk7 being 502mm longer, 155mm wider and 113mm taller. Go figure.



TL;DR - Your claim is bollocks. Cars have smaller windows, larger pillars and feel smaller inside if you compare a modern car to one from a few decades ago with the same (or very similar) exterior size.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You prefer pendolinos then?

At least with a Mk3/HST you are unlucky to get a seat that's next to a pillar,on a Pendo you are lucky to get a seat with a good view
The original Mk111 seats were also more comfortable

I don't buy this view that everyone's on electronic equipment all the time and don't want a window
When I'm travelling I notice that on most trains the window seats are taken first,very few people go for a pillar seat if window seats are available

I have to say I prefer Pendolinos and I've been travelling up and down the WCML for the last 25 years ever since I first met my wife. And in all absolute honesty I tend to find the contents of my tablet far more interesting than the view between Euston and Preston.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People like to think people are infinitely valuable but they aren't. There comes a point where the resources necessary to improve safety are not worth the additional safety gained.

I consider my family, and in particular my wife and children to be infinitely valuable as without them I would be utterly heart broken. Would you like to challenge this?

 

[asylumxl]

I have to say I prefer Pendolinos and I've been travelling up and down the WCML for the last 25 years ever since I first met my wife.

Read: I have been travelling up and down the WCML longer than most posters have been alive. And through the forums much loved MK2s and MK3s.

I agree with everything you've said. I can also say that my parents who have both used the line for many years prefer Pendolinos over the old "slam doors".

 

[RichmondCommu]

Read: I have been travelling up and down the WCML longer than most posters have been alive. And through the forums much loved MK2s and MK3s.

I agree with everything you've said. I can also say that my parents who have both used the line for many years prefer Pendolinos over the old "slam doors".

Travel on a Pendolino and the train instrinically feels safe. The same cannot be said for the Mk3's.

 

[yorksrob]

Travel on a Pendolino and the train instrinically feels safe. The same cannot be said for the Mk3's.

Compared to what ?

A Mk 3 feels intrinsically safe to me. Especially compared to our death trap roads and air travel, (which, whilst safe statistically, you get the impression of less likelihood of surviving a crash).

 

[RichmondCommu]

Compared to what ?

A Mk 3 feels intrinsically safe to me. Especially compared to our death trap roads and air travel, (which, whilst safe statistically, you get the impression of less likelihood of surviving a crash).

The Pendolino compared to a Mk3.