Very lucky escape...

[whole diary]

[old original]

Dundee - Glasgow HST^▸ (High Speed Train) cab smashed by a fallen tree but no injuries

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/scottish-news/24014008.storm-gerrit-scotrail-train-glasgow-smashed-tree/

[ellendune]

From JenOnTheMove on Twitter

Every time I've ever criticised HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), I get replies along the lines of "but they're comfortable!"

How far are you willing to go to defend these things?

She was commenting on:

From Paul Sweeney on Twitter

Horrendous tree impact damage to a ScotRail InterCity 125 locomotive today, en route from Dundee to Glasgow. Thankfully, the driver is unharmed.

Whilst a British railway icon, the crashworthiness of the 125 does not meet modern standards. The driver's cab is a fibreglass shell.

[broadgage]

I would still defend HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) on comfort grounds, better on board facilities, and being Dawlish proof, unlike the more modern alternatives.
The limited crash worthiness is a cause for concern, but accidents are very rare.
I would be pleased to travel in one. I would be pleased to drive one, after suitable instruction of course.

[TaplowGreen]

I would still defend HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) on comfort grounds, better on board facilities, and being Dawlish proof, unlike the more modern alternatives.
The limited crash worthiness is a cause for concern, but accidents are very rare.
I would be pleased to travel in one. I would be pleased to drive one, after suitable instruction of course.

Seriously? What if this had happened at night, with the driver having no chance to react?

It's time for the HSTs to be consigned to history - nostalgia never saved a life.

[broadgage]

ANOTHER victory for my famous crystal ball. Near the beginning of the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train)  saga I stated that as soon as as some IETs were in service, that the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) would rapidly become "dangerous and non compliant"
In general, once new shorter trains have been delivered, the old and full length trains suddenly become "dangerous"

Once 4 car and 6 car networkers were available, then the old 8 car slam door units that has been used for decades were declared to be dangerous.

Once 3 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) were available for Waterloo to Exeter services, the full length loco hauled trains became dangerous.

[Electric train]

From JenOnTheMove on Twitter

Every time I've ever criticised HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), I get replies along the lines of "but they're comfortable!"

How far are you willing to go to defend these things?

She was commenting on:

From Paul Sweeney on Twitter

Horrendous tree impact damage to a ScotRail InterCity 125 locomotive today, en route from Dundee to Glasgow. Thankfully, the driver is unharmed.

Whilst a British railway icon, the crashworthiness of the 125 does not meet modern standards. The driver's cab is a fibreglass shell.

Rail vehicles are designed far more robustly than road vehicles, the driving cabs on a train are far stronger than any road cab.  I've not seen a photo of the tree the train hit by the looks of the damage it was a fairly substantial tree I'm not sure even a modern cab would have done any better, if anything the space in a modern cab for a driver to move to will be less than in an HST cab

[TaplowGreen]

From JenOnTheMove on Twitter

Every time I've ever criticised HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), I get replies along the lines of "but they're comfortable!"

How far are you willing to go to defend these things?

She was commenting on:

From Paul Sweeney on Twitter

Horrendous tree impact damage to a ScotRail InterCity 125 locomotive today, en route from Dundee to Glasgow. Thankfully, the driver is unharmed.

Whilst a British railway icon, the crashworthiness of the 125 does not meet modern standards. The driver's cab is a fibreglass shell.

Rail vehicles are designed far more robustly than road vehicles, the driving cabs on a train are far stronger than any road cab.  I've not seen a photo of the tree the train hit by the looks of the damage it was a fairly substantial tree I'm not sure even a modern cab would have done any better, if anything the space in a modern cab for a driver to move to will be less than in an HST cab

I have seen the photos and it seems miraculous that the driver escaped unhurt......again if it had happened at night the outcome may well have been different.

I'm unclear as to the relevance of a comparison with a road vehicle in this context, however I'd be surprised if there are many cars left on the roads with the same level of crashworthiness that  sufficed in the 1970s.

Could be of course that Network Rail need to look again at their management of lineside vegetation too?

Gareth Dennis has indicated elsewhere that several Scotrail drivers had already contacted him unhappy that these trains were still running without strengthening modification to the drivers cabs, which has apparently been ruled out on cost/obsolescence grounds.

Perhaps we have to wait for a driver to be decapitated?

[Mark A]

Trying (and failing) to avoid commenting on this as my involvement with railways is as a passenger, I'm not required to drive them: descriptions on social media of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) cab as 'The equivalent of a bathtub' are unhelpful to everyone but particularly rail staff.

Setting this against 'Oh, but the comfort'. Please, twitter commentators, rethink that: it's embarrassing that the 50 year old HSTs in terms of passenger environment often compare favourably with current trains.

Also me: ages ago, someone advised me that if driving a car, involved in an accident, and have a choice that doesn't involve maiming someone else, make it a priority not to hit a tree as they have brutal resilience to impact and will take whatever they can from any amount of the impactor's crumple zone.

The train driver, of course, does not have that choice: society needs to risk assess and maintain trees of a size that can fall and obstruct railways - which is complicated as this will extend to 'Lineside but not on railway property' - how that works I don't know.

Mark

[grahame]

Firstly, a very lucky escape (and thank goodness) for the driver and everyone on that train.

No matter how robustly a train is built, if an obstruction substantial enough is put in its way (or the railway line removed) and it's run into fast enough, there is going to be a problem.  It's Network Rail's primary responsibility to ensure that the line is kept clear, and where there is doubt for them to use systems of regulation (they are the signalling authority too) to prevent trains running or to have them stop short of obstructions.   Others have pointed out that this is no easy task, made harder by climate change, harder again by maintenance backlogs, harder again by a lack of funding to do the job, and harder again by pressure from operators and the public to continue to provide open routes even in the direst of conditions.

If a line that was 100% safe was provided by Network Rail, there would be no need for trains to be collision proof.  Of course, 100% will never be achieved and there are other aspects outside Network Rail's direct control - neighbouring land owners (at Lavington the tree that toppled stood off rail property), level crossing users, other trains passing signals at danger, bits falling off trains, and sadly people on the track where they should not be.  And so because of reasons such as those, trains need to be robust.

Why was the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) apparently considered safe (enough to use) in the past, but that is called into question these days?    Is it because we had nothing safer in the past?  Is it because the operating environment provided is now less safe?  Is it because our call for safety is to a higher standard?  Is it because we value life more highly? Is it because those with an interest in getting money spent on new trains call into question the safety of those they wish to replace?

Edit - just correcting a couple of my typos

[Mark A]

In terms of passenger doors, appreciation of risk has moved on: hence central door locking.

Regarding the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) cabs, did someone comment that when introduced, driver trainers would advise, whether informally or not I don't know, words to the effect: 'In the event of an impending impact with an obstruction, this isn't a good place to be: both of you leave the cab'.

Mark

[IndustryInsider]

Regarding the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) cabs, did someone comment that when introduced, driver trainers would advise, whether informally or not I don't know, words to the effect: 'In the event of an impending impact with an obstruction, this isn't a good place to be: both of you leave the cab'.

Yes, informal advice was to leg it as far as you could into the clean air compartment behind the cab area!

[Mark A]

Meanwhile, on the roads, 7 photos from the A82 through the Great Glen. The tree in photo number 6 might be a particularly unpleasant prospect for any vehicle road or rail. (Recollections of any similarly wild night on the line to Fort Augustus will probably be outside of human memory as that route closed amost 80 years ago...)

Mark

https://twitter.com/NWTrunkRoads/status/1740335560403849438

[Noggin]

Why was the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) apparently considered safe (enough to use) in the past, but that is called into question these days?    Is it because we had nothing safer in the past?  Is it because the operating environment provided is now less safe?  Is it because our call for safety is to a higher standard?  Is it because we value life more highly? Is it because those with an interest in getting money spent on new trains call into question the safety of those they wish to replace?

I believe it was as a result of the crash in Aberdeenshire a couple of years ago where the unexpectedly poor performance of the HST stock made it clear that their time was up, despite the investment that had been made in refurbishing them into 2+5 sets for Scotrail and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway).

I'm no expert but I suspect that corrosion and the deterioration of materials like plastics and fibreglass cabs take their toll over time and of course modern stock is designed, built and maintained to far higher technical standards thanks to computer-aided crash simulation, better materials and construction techniques etc.      

"How safe is safe enough" is an interesting question. Whilst the railway is generally very safe per mile traveled, the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) has some of the oldest and most intensively used mixed railway in the world. When things go wrong the consequences can be awful. Whilst I'd love to see an Italian-style programme of vintage rail vehicles being restored and run on the mainline in the UK, the thought of traveling in a Mk1 or older fills me with horror.

[Electric train]

Firstly, a very lucky escape (and thank goodness) for the driver and everyone on that train.

No matter how robustly a train is built, if an obstruction substantial enough is put in its way (or the railway line removed) and it's run into fast enough, there is going to be a problem.  It's Network Rail's primary responsibility to ensure that the line is kept clear, and where there is doubt for them to use systems of regulation (they are the signalling authority too) to prevent trains running or to have them stop short of obstructions.   Others have pointed out that this is no easy task, made harder by climate change, harder again by maintenance backlogs, harder again by a lack of funding to do the job, and harder again by pressure from operators and the public to continue to provide open routes even in the direst of conditions.

If a line that was 100% safe was provided by Network Rail, there would be no need for trains to be collision proof.  Of course, 100% will never be achieved and there are other aspects outside Network Rail's direct control - neighbouring land owners (at Lavington the tree that toppled stood off rail property), level crossing users, other trains passing signals at danger, bits falling off trains, and sadly people on the track where they should not be.  And so because of reasons such as those, trains need to be robust.

Why was the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) apparently considered safe (enough to use) in the past, but that is called into question these days?    Is it because we had nothing safer in the past?  Is it because the operating environment provided is now less safe?  Is it because our call for safety is to a higher standard?  Is it because we value life more highly? Is it because those with an interest in getting money spent on new trains call into question the safety of those they wish to replace?

Edit - just correcting a couple of my typos

Was the tree on Network Rail land?

Network Rail's neighbours or others of course never complain when Network Rail carried out a de-veg (cut down trees)

[grahame]

Was the tree on Network Rail land?

Network Rail's neighbours or others of course never complain when Network Rail carried out a de-veg (cut down trees)

I don't know.  I chose my words carefully - note my second paragraph referring to the Lavington accident a decade back where I'm pretty sure it was NOT on Network Rail.

Regarding the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) cabs, did someone comment that when introduced, driver trainers would advise, whether informally or not I don't know, words to the effect: 'In the event of an impending impact with an obstruction, this isn't a good place to be: both of you leave the cab'.

Yes, informal advice was to leg it as far as you could into the clean air compartment behind the cab area!

Thank you.  To give a comparative, is there any advice for drivers being trained on IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train)?   Thank goodness I don't think we have yet had such a major tree hit, have we?  Hope we never do but the law of averages suggests that with so many of them running around ...