HST - XC & GWR sets gone by the end of the year

[PaulRhB]

On 10/06/2023 at 20:44, cctransuk said:

 

If a railway can afford to, or be arm-twisted into junking assets such as these, the industry and it's militant employees deserve what is inevitably their future decline!

 

CJI.

Blimey the Daily Mail would love to give you a column with a viewpoint like that! 
 

I would recommend considering the Carmont report fully and reading the far more informative post about the real reasons above by Supaned and reconsidering such a sweeping statement. As said above Carmont revealed several weak points, some due to the age of the stock and the consequence of the couplings breaking that have to be involved in new risk assessments compared to new stocks crash performance. The TOCs will also look at how a repeat would look if they did nothing, the costs of modifying the stock to alleviate the failings found vs the replacement scheme in progress. If the TOCs felt it was unreasonable they had the legal option to challenge the Union stance too. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by PaulRhB

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Blimey the Daily Mail would love to give you a column with a viewpoint like that! 
 

I would recommend considering the Carmont report fully and reading the far more informative post about the real reasons above by Supaned and reconsidering such a sweeping statement. As said above Carmont revealed several weak points, some due to the age of the stock and the consequence of the couplings breaking that have to be involved in new risk assessments compared to new stocks crash performance. The TOCs will also look at how a repeat would look if they did nothing, the costs of modifying the stock to alleviate the failings found vs the replacement scheme in progress. If the TOCs felt it was unreasonable they had the legal option to challenge the Union stance too. 

 

Carmont was a situation whereby there could never have been a good outcome.

 

No matter how many safety features are incorporated into new stock, there will be the occasional occurrence that defeats them all.

 

Total safety is unachievable; sh*t happens, despite our best efforts; and the world is a sadder place because of it.

 

Nonetheless, the exceptional operational and safety record of the HSTs speaks for itself, and knee-jerk reactions can only damage the industry.

 

CJI.

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Carmont was a situation whereby there could never have been a good outcome.

 

No if the powercar hadn’t hit the end of the parapet it would likely have been less catastrophic, much like the point at Ufton causing the powercar to flip. It was deeply unfortunate that the slip was in close proximity to the parapet and it deflected enough to hit it. Backed up by some information from one of the first two on site who happened to be a friend of a friend it’s sobering the difference between the Pendilino at Grayrigg and this. The HST is superb but it does have weaknesses that have since been addressed because of incidents with them so after one major life extension and the later door mods maybe it is time to go with newer technology that has performed better in a serious crash?

 

 

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

No matter how many safety features are incorporated into new stock, there will be the occasional occurrence that defeats them all.

 

True but this particular part of crash vulnerability in the breakup and rolling occurred before at Ufton. 

 

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

Total safety is unachievable; sh*t happens, despite our best efforts; and the world is a sadder place because of it.

 

I agree but the HST has been frontline for 40 years so it’s done extremely well. In a severe derailment it is now out performed by other stock that has proved in a similar situation to cause less fatalities so as it comes round to another round of major overhauls surely another small step towards safety is actually a good thing? 

 

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Nonetheless, the exceptional operational and safety record of the HSTs speaks for itself, and knee-jerk reactions can only damage the industry.

I don’t think it is a knee jerk, these issues have been known before the Scotrail and Castle stock cascades and they were only intended as a mid term stop gap while newer stock could be specified and sourced. 
Few other trains have done what the HST’s have done for so long at the top level and drivers still like them but they are aware of their vulnerability after those two major accidents. A high speed run in a HST cab is quite an experience and I’ve had a couple on the NMT plus some lower speed runs as a pilotman on them. 
The HST hasn’t been ‘blacked’ but it is recognised there are advances that could make the difference and save lives in a severe crash so why wouldn’t the Union push for that for their members and passengers sake? The HST can retire with its reputation safe because everyone knows it did well considering it’s age but there were structural failings that only a total rebuild can now address. 

[The Stationmaster]

Two things have become conflated here and that is regrettable.  I'll avoid the union angle beyind saying that it has its good points but in my view was very badly put. And now to teh trains.

 

In the first place as noted by Paul they are old and in terms of froint line high speed  terms they are dated.  The BR Mk 3 bodyshell was without doubt one of the best and strongest passenger coach bodyshells ever built anywhere in the world but like various other BR stock designs corrosion is  happening and damaging structural integrity.  the coaches are be nearing the end of their reliable life and maintenance costs will only rise.

 

The power car driving cab was a very strong structure as I've already remarked but its integrity relies on that structure remaining firmly attached to the underframe and if there is any corrosion or degradation in the attachment method the integrity will reduce.  But the high speed nature of clllisions which have destroyed the cab or parts of it can't be ignored as particular factors and raise the question 'what could survive those sorts of impacts?'  As ever safety and vehicle integrity can only go so far.  For example the HST windscreen was tested by firing solid piec es of metal at it at soeeds greatly in excess of those the train could achieve - how else could you test the integrity of the screen?  Yet it failed at Ufton.

 

In the end it also comes down to money.  if the railway wishes to offer a service to passengers and to attract potential passengers it needs the trains to do that.  sommeone has to buy those trains and either own and operate them or lease them to an operator.  that needs political will even if the owner of the vehicles and the operator who leases them are private companies because even they need the reassurance of consistent long term transport policy.  If it involves public money the situation becomes more complex because the cost of building new trains is, for example,  in competition with the cost of building new hospitals and school; and we all know what most people want.  It would be great if somebidy could solve that cnundrum but I doubt those with more extreme views in either direction will ever manage it.

 

As for me - yres please. new trains to relace HSTs and they should be bought bya leasing company and leased by operators for a minimum of 25 years in order to secure the best lease deal.   But how many politicos can count up to 25?

[cctransuk]

43 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

 

No if the powercar hadn’t hit the end of the parapet it would likely have been less catastrophic, much like the point at Ufton causing the powercar to flip. It was deeply unfortunate that the slip was in close proximity to the parapet and it deflected enough to hit it. Backed up by some information from one of the first two on site who happened to be a friend of a friend it’s sobering the difference between the Pendilino at Grayrigg and this. The HST is superb but it does have weaknesses that have since been addressed because of incidents with them so after one major life extension and the later door mods maybe it is time to go with newer technology that has performed better in a serious crash?

 

 

 

True but this particular part of crash vulnerability in the breakup and rolling occurred before at Ufton. 

 

 

I agree but the HST has been frontline for 40 years so it’s done extremely well. In a severe derailment it is now out performed by other stock that has proved in a similar situation to cause less fatalities so as it comes round to another round of major overhauls surely another small step towards safety is actually a good thing? 

 

I don’t think it is a knee jerk, these issues have been known before the Scotrail and Castle stock cascades and they were only intended as a mid term stop gap while newer stock could be specified and sourced. 
Few other trains have done what the HST’s have done for so long at the top level and drivers still like them but they are aware of their vulnerability after those two major accidents. A high speed run in a HST cab is quite an experience and I’ve had a couple on the NMT plus some lower speed runs as a pilotman on them. 
The HST hasn’t been ‘blacked’ but it is recognised there are advances that could make the difference and save lives in a severe crash so why wouldn’t the Union push for that for their members and passengers sake? The HST can retire with its reputation safe because everyone knows it did well considering it’s age but there were structural failings that only a total rebuild can now address. 

 

Having read the list of 'demands' emanating from the union leadership, I did not detect the same moderation of tone that you put forward.

 

New technology - you have far more faith than I have. Hardly a new design seems to emerge that is not sidelined for significant periods, due to perceived deficiencies; and some have never turned a wheel in anger after many months (years?).

 

My points are that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that the industry must be far better at procuring reliable new stock when it decrees that old stock must go, despite its proven reliability.

 

From the passengers' perspective, new stock must be of at least equal quality, comfort and usability as the old stock that it replaces.

 

Failure to ensure these basic requirements will inevitably lead to a decline in demand for the services of the railway staff that the unions purport to support.

 

CJI.

[PaulRhB]

9 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Having read the list of 'demands' emanating from the union leadership, I did not detect the same moderation of tone that you put forward.

 

Yes the rhetoric can be a bit strong but equally it’s just that not an active blacking so it’s putting pressure on. I’m not a fan of the posturing approach either but there is a strong point to be made and I guess they feel that by doing it this way the public will understand it better. 

 

9 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

New technology - you have far more faith than I have. Hardly a new design seems to emerge that is not sidelined for significant periods, due to perceived deficiencies; and some have never turned a wheel in anger after many months (years?).

 

Well yes there have been some clangers and people I know working on the GWR 800 mods and on the SWR 701’s have interesting things to say on why but equally concede some things are better. The Pendilino did perform well in the Grayrigg crash and although the low speed incident with a LNER Azuma seemed poor at first the side displacement was actually due to the crash structure not being crushed as it’s safety fail point was higher than the loads imposed so it actually performed as intended at low speed. 

 

9 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

My points are that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that the industry must be far better at procuring reliable new stock when it decrees that old stock must go, despite its proven reliability.

 

From the passengers' perspective, new stock must be of at least equal quality, comfort and usability as the old stock that it replaces.

 

Failure to ensure these basic requirements will inevitably lead to a decline in demand for the services of the railway staff that the unions purport to support.

I agree on those points but the failing is the lack of procurement in higher levels. Why aren’t they replaced with a four car 800 style unit? I suspect there’s an element of cost saving to eke out the last drop of life from them. Even the HST’s have seen poorer modern seats installed on some, that’s either poor specification and testing or cost saving. 

Modern practices of paring everything down  to just enough are rife in all industries and testing costs money so has been replaced with a lot of computer modelling, some things get through. It’s not a unique problem to the railway but the government focus on cutting costs inevitably means they interfere in procurement and chop back the brief to make good enough the defining level.
Our social media policy means certain aspects of the discussion are out of bounds online but generally any Union safety campaign usually holds equal benefits to the public as to the staff. 

[The Stationmaster]

22 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Having read the list of 'demands' emanating from the union leadership, I did not detect the same moderation of tone that you put forward.

 

New technology - you have far more faith than I have. Hardly a new design seems to emerge that is not sidelined for significant periods, due to perceived deficiencies; and some have never turned a wheel in anger after many months (years?).

 

My points are that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that the industry must be far better at procuring reliable new stock when it decrees that old stock must go, despite its proven reliability.

 

From the passengers' perspective, new stock must be of at least equal quality, comfort and usability as the old stock that it replaces.

 

Failure to ensure these basic requirements will inevitably lead to a decline in demand for the services of the railway staff that the unions purport to support.

 

CJI.

Yes - BUT - we have to recognise the practicalities and stand side the raucous bleating of the uniuons (who said something like the right thing but in a wrong manner.  Simp,e fact is that old traons need to be replaced within the next 18 months or so and that either means new build (ordered a few months back - and I didn't hear that it was) or moving around existing fleets (at the expense of somewhere else of course)

 

And to be hnest I'm striving to recall any higher speed fleet which has been introdiced without 'teething troubles'.   Dead easy to forget all the problems which beset the HSTs in their early days or not knpw abbout troubles which beset other fleets but were unknown to the British public.  If you watched the caution with which SNCF bring into service new train fleets you would be amazed.  And we couldn't afford to operate in Britain with 100% spare capacity in a train fleet when we introduce it to public service and continuing for several months afterwards in the manner used by SNCF.

[railroadbill]

 

Just come across this very interesting thread. 

This is a Scotrail HST at Perth on 10/6/23, taken recently while I was using a 4 day "Spirit of Scotland" rover ticket.  A lot of miles for your money.  A major purpose of the trip was to travel on HSTs while they are still running, although I hope from both a "railfan" and passenger point of view that they do continue to at least 2030.

From a passenger perspective, (regardless of how difficult it may be to operated stock that is getting pretty vintage, although having had various mods over the years), the great advantage is it's comfortable, quiet, lots of luggage space and imho has best seats in current trains. You are in a hauled coach, not sitting over a diesel engine.   Azuma seats make you feel like you are sitting on an ironing board by comparison. :-)

On some routes, such as Perth-Inverness, a lot of cyclists used the train, and were able to store their bikes ok, but that wouldn't be at all easy with say an Azuma or equivalent, or indeed 170. So HSTs good for tourist areas of Scotland, the railways seemed well used there. 

We had some good chats with Scotrail staff who were all very friendly and helpful.

 

So- I hope Scotrail can keep these running at least until the end of the contract, I'd like to have another trip!

 

 

 

[railroadbill]

As an aside to this, when Scotrail HSTs were going to be left in a terminus platform for some time before working their next train,  one power car was shut down and the other left running. Noticed this several times - could Brinkly or others say if it's necessary to leave one engine running  (perhaps it keeps a/c or heating going?) with all HSTs or is it just a Scotrai! thing?

Edited June 21, 2023 by railroadbill

[david.hill64]

It will be for providing power to the trailer cars for the A/C. It used to be the case that drivers used the rear power car to provide hotel power. This kept the engine revs (and noise) down for them at station stops.

[Mike_Walker]

At one time, HSTs were plugged in to a shore supply whilst at Paddington to allow both power cars to be shut down and the a/c kept working.  With shorter turn round times the practice ceased.  The same shore supply was originally used for the Blue Pullmans for the same reason.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

At one time, HSTs were plugged in to a shore supply whilst at Paddington to allow both power cars to be shut down and the a/c kept working.  With shorter turn round times the practice ceased.  The same shore supply was originally used for the Blue Pullmans for the same reason.

I'm fairly sure that the Blue Pullman shire supply was not compatible with HSTs.  One big difference wa that with the Piullman one of the auxilliary engines had to be running when the shore supply was connected or disconnected and the controls were different as well.  I suspect the Pullman shore supply might have been modified but a lot of the supply points for HSTs were new and of course thetrains came to a stand in a different place on Platforms 1- 8

[Supaned]

5 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

It will be for providing power to the trailer cars for the A/C. It used to be the case that drivers used the rear power car to provide hotel power. This kept the engine revs (and noise) down for them at station stops.

 

The train supply is normally provided from the rear power car because if for any reason the train supply drops out or the power car providing it shuts down, you can only switch the train supply on from the power car you are in, so thus the driver can do so on the move in the leading power car rather than having to stop and walk back a train length to sort it out. The train supply also charges the batteries in the power car which supply essential kit such as brake control unit, AWS/TPWS , Fire protection to name but a few, so it's important to keep the train supply on.

 

Noise is a minimal concern as with ETS on a power car usually runs in notch 2 of 5 to supply.

[Davexoc]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'm fairly sure that the Blue Pullman shire supply was not compatible with HSTs.  One big difference wa that with the Piullman one of the auxilliary engines had to be running when the shore supply was connected or disconnected and the controls were different as well.  I suspect the Pullman shore supply might have been modified but a lot of the supply points for HSTs were new and of course thetrains came to a stand in a different place on Platforms 1- 8

 

Well HSTs were 415 volts 3 phase whereas LHCS was a DC supply, as for the Blue Pullman, before my time I'm afraid. I do know that trying to plug a powercar into the shore supply from the inspection pit bridge on shed is a right PITA....

[Covkid]

On 10/06/2023 at 20:44, cctransuk said:

If a railway can afford to, or be arm-twisted into junking assets such as these, the industry and it's militant employees deserve what is inevitably their future decline!

 

CJI.

Unfortunately John, it is not quite as simple as that. Because of the long lead times of training and certifying competency ASLEF have an absolute stranglehold on the UK industry, It takes pretty much an entire year to get an employee trained up from scratch to become a competent train driver, and even then they can probably only work a single core route for another 12 months.  Part of that training and development will probably involve colleagues being detached from their normal train driving duties to carry out assessments and instruction. Multiply this by literally dozens for the likes of TPE and Northern and Avanti and you can see why the cancellations are so high, and why ASLEF can demand the salaries for it's members.

 

One of the big issues with the current dispute is a senior figure in the DfT has been sharpening his knife for a battle with the train drivers.  Look up Peter Wilkinson and Croydon around five years ago to flesh out the bones of the current dispute.  

[Supaned]

13 hours ago, Covkid said:

Unfortunately John, it is not quite as simple as that. Because of the long lead times of training and certifying competency ASLEF have an absolute stranglehold on the UK industry, It takes pretty much an entire year to get an employee trained up from scratch to become a competent train driver, and even then they can probably only work a single core route for another 12 months.  Part of that training and development will probably involve colleagues being detached from their normal train driving duties to carry out assessments and instruction. Multiply this by literally dozens for the likes of TPE and Northern and Avanti and you can see why the cancellations are so high, and why ASLEF can demand the salaries for it's members.

 

One of the big issues with the current dispute is a senior figure in the DfT has been sharpening his knife for a battle with the train drivers.  Look up Peter Wilkinson and Croydon around five years ago to flesh out the bones of the current dispute.  

 

Point of order , it's the ORR that stipulate the amount of time needed to train a driver and the amount of handling hours they have to achieve to qualify. From what I recall the one route stipulation is also one of theirs , and partly stems from lessons learnt following incidents such as Ladbroke Grove, where driver training was thrown into sharp focus.

 

I really don't think ASLEF have quite the dramatic influence that you might infer , I'd argue that perhaps on a TOC not too far from the one that you and I might be more familiar with, a certain "God" figure holds a lot of sway, but less so elsewhere. As you should also be well aware , drivers salaries are a product of both the politician's beloved "market forces" where TOCs chose to pay more to attract and retain staff rather than training enough to do the job, and because in some cases drivers have "sold" a lot of T&Cs to achieve that salary. 

 

I do however agree that Wilkinson's stench is lingering around the current situation.....

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, Davexoc said:

 

Well HSTs were 415 volts 3 phase whereas LHCS was a DC supply, as for the Blue Pullman, before my time I'm afraid. I do know that trying to plug a powercar into the shore supply from the inspection pit bridge on shed is a right PITA....

I can' delve out the voltage of the Blue Pullman supply and all O know is that it was 120 kW and was generated by a 1980hp auxiliary engine when teh train was rubnning.  However the second auxiliary engine was started at times of excessive demand due t teh state of teh weather.

[keefer]

On 21/06/2023 at 15:50, Supaned said:

 

The train supply is normally provided from the rear power car because if for any reason the train supply drops out or the power car providing it shuts down, you can only switch the train supply on from the power car you are in, so thus the driver can do so on the move in the leading power car rather than having to stop and walk back a train length to sort it out. The train supply also charges the batteries in the power car which supply essential kit such as brake control unit, AWS/TPWS , Fire protection to name but a few, so it's important to keep the train supply on.

 

Noise is a minimal concern as with ETS on a power car usually runs in notch 2 of 5 to supply.

Hence when at, or first pulling away from a station stop, the rear PC was louder (esp. in Valenta days) as it was always at least in notch 2 for the ETS. Whereas the lead PC would be at idle,  start to pull away in notch 1, then 2 etc.

Edited June 22, 2023 by keefer

[hexagon789]

21 hours ago, keefer said:

Hence when at, or first pulling away from a station stop, the rear PC was louder (esp. in Valenta days) as it was always at least in notch 2 for the ETS. Whereas the lead PC would be at idle,  start to pull away in notch 1, then 2 etc.

Notch 1 is an identical engine speed to idle.

 

Traditionally the technique was straight to 3, 4 when rolling and then 5. Some drivers did go right to 5 - with mixed results at times, some load governors didn't appreciate the 'whack it open' technique and would consequently give no power.

 

The modern technique is to start in 2, and go through each notch in turn as amps settle.

 

Usually getting into 5 at 20-25mph.

 

The short sets accelerate pretty quickly, so not uncommon (at least with ScotRail) to not always use 5 starting away from intermediate stations if the permitted speed isn't very high.

 

Braking is another thing which has changed - use of the higher steps and Full Service was common for stations stops and speed restrictions as much as for signal checks.

 

Post-defensive driving, most TOCs adopted a Step 2 'initial' policy.

 

Step 5 and 6 remained frequently used for signal checks, especially as some TOCs adopted a further policy of requiring speed to be reduced to 60mph by the single yellow on four-aspect multiple aspect signalling.

 

 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

The HSTs were a total step-change in the 1970s, in a way that the IETs in the 2010s could never hope to emulate. 

 

But all good things, etc., etc.

 

Still going strong on some GW metals...

 

[cctransuk]

30 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Still going strong on some GW metals...
 

 

...... and will be hugely missed when we are eventually deprived of them!

 

CJI.

[Davexoc]

3 hours ago, hexagon789 said:

Notch 1 is an identical engine speed to idle.

 

Traditionally the technique was straight to 3, 4 when rolling and then 5. Some drivers did go right to 5 - with mixed results at times, some load governors didn't appreciate the 'whack it open' technique and would consequently give no power.

 

The modern technique is to start in 2, and go through each notch in turn as amps settle.

 

Usually getting into 5 at 20-25mph.

 

The short sets accelerate pretty quickly, so not uncommon (at least with ScotRail) to not always use 5 starting away from intermediate stations if the permitted speed isn't very high.

 

Braking is another thing which has changed - use of the higher steps and Full Service was common for stations stops and speed restrictions as much as for signal checks.

 

Post-defensive driving, most TOCs adopted a Step 2 'initial' policy.

 

Step 5 and 6 remained frequently used for signal checks, especially as some TOCs adopted a further policy of requiring speed to be reduced to 60mph by the single yellow on four-aspect multiple aspect signalling.

 

 

 

The old way could be impressive, depending on where you were. I did see a notch 5 departure from Paddington once, which must have been loud under the roof, but it had to be cut short due to the speed restrictions across the pointwork towards Westbourne Park.

 

Always thought this was a good gettaway....    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1ICcOu0NkM

 

Looking back I don't remember the cooling fans competing with the turbo scream, but due to the fans being engine driven, I guess the temperature if at an intermediate stop means the coolant is pretty hot in its heat cycle, and as soon as the revs rose, the coupling engaged and the fan(s) ran flat out too...

 

[railroadbill]

This looks like one of the final runs for the XCs.  Sort of farewell party.

 

https://www.modernrailways.com/railtour

[railroadbill]

 

Before they go... I managed to travel on an XC back in March from Exeter to Plymouth. Certainly a comfortable train to travel on as a passenger.  Here it  is at Plymouth. (13/3/23).

[Siberian Snooper]

I saw a GW power car heading up the A38 this lunchtime, as heading home from Kingsteignton, I wondered if it was surplus to requirements at Laira.