HS125's to Mexico.

[John Isherwood]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Because as @Mike_Walker referred to - they look ok from the surface but being 40+ years old they have a lot of hidden corrosion.

 

They are getting old and it's time to retire them from the UK - the Mexican climate will probably aid battling the corrosion.

 

Perhaps you should tell this to Eastern Rail Services, and the Mexican and African railways who are buying these?

 

Presumably, they're not aware that they are selling / buying life-expired locos and rolling stock.

 

Good to know that we have superior knowledge over here!

 

I am reassured (not)!

 

CJI.

[adb968008]

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Because as @Mike_Walker referred to - they look ok from the surface but being 40+ years old they have a lot of hidden corrosion.

 

They are getting old and it's time to retire them from the UK - the Mexican climate will probably aid battling the corrosion.

Wasnt that why they spent £150k+ per coach replacing doors and pillars to remove corrosion and give a 15 year life extension?
 

or was the tax payer mislead ?

 

certainly Carmonts accident enquiry didnt suggest corrosion was anything more than a tertiary point…

and given they pressed the big red button on the 800’s cracks, if corrosion was an issue, surely they would have done the same with these ?

 

yes old things rust, but if its not safety critical its routine life… everything metal rusts.

if the coaches are freshly overhauled, and rust is mere surface or sheeting, then its really not an issue, beyond a routine works visit.

There was some guy on twitter going hysterical suggesting HST were plastic.. not sure how rust fits that narrative, but hey he was trying to make a name for himself in Mexico.

 

At the end of the day, i’m sure the buyer has looked at what they are buying and if they've not done due diligence then its more fool them, but knowing where they are going, i’m sure their standards on old stock will see the HSTs fit very well…. If they are still running in 20 years, some people here in the UK will be looking rather silly to historians… if they are gone in 2 years, well either the price was right and they knew what they were doing, or we did.

 

I heard a suggestion some might be going down under for spares to keep some XPT going until 2026/7, could be wibble, but it was the same guy who told me Nigeria back in September.

Edited November 8, 2023 by adb968008

[John Isherwood]

2 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Wasnt that why they spent £150k+ per coach replacing doors and pillars to remove corrosion and give a 15 year life extension?
 

or was the tax payer mislead ?

 

certainly Carmonts accident enquiry didnt suggest corrosion was anything more than a tertiary point…

and given they pressed the big red button on the 800’s cracks, if corrosion was an issue, surely they would have done the same with these ?

 

yes old things rust, but if its not safety critical its routine life… everything metal rusts.

if the coaches are freshly overhauled, and rust is mere surface or sheeting, then its really not an issue, beyond a works visit.

 

I do wonder as to the occupational background of those busily justifying the disposal of the HSTs.

 

The purchasers are not buying a pig-in-a-poke; they will have exercised due diligence, and be confident that the stock has an economical lifetime.

 

Bear in mind that shipping these trains halfway round the world is far from cheap - and would not have been necessary if they could have been re-utilised in the UK!

 

CJI.

[Mike_Walker]

Having heard first hand from those actually involved in the fitting power doors to two Mk3 fleets I can tell you there was serious corrosion in the bodies particularly at the ends and around the toilets.  This was cut out and replaced as part of the work.  Unfortunately thanks to the DfT changing its mind, others are getting the benefit of this not us - the trailers being exported to both Mexico and Nigeria all have power doors.

 

Similarly the power cars have corrosion issues which had to be corrected alongside the power door programme.

 

At least on a HST power car the driver isn't in danger of putting his feet through a rotten cab floor like is happening on the IETs!

Edited November 8, 2023 by Mike_Walker

[adb968008]

10 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

 

10 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

 

At least on a HST power car the driver is in danger of putting his feet through a rotten cab floor like is happening on the IETs!

lot of folk ride horses in Mexico, give him some stirrups he’ll be ok.

[Mike_Walker]

6 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Bear in mind that shipping these trains halfway round the world is far from cheap - and would not have been necessary if they could have been re-utilised in the UK!

 

CJI.

They could not be reused in the UK because the DfT has specifically instructed both GWR and XC to withdraw them as they claim they are too expensive to operate.

 

It is therefore only to be expected that the ROSCOs that own them and spent huge sums on their upgrades should seek to find new pastures for them to recoup their losses.

 

Please remember, our railways are not run by experienced managers but by clueless civil servants and ministers who give the orders .

[John Isherwood]

22 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

They could not be reused in the UK because the DfT has specifically instructed both GWR and XC to withdraw them as they claim they are too expensive to operate.

 

It is therefore only to be expected that the ROSCOs that own them and spent huge sums on their upgrades should seek to find new pastures for them to recoup their losses.

 

Please remember, our railways are not run by experienced managers but by clueless civil servants and ministers who give the orders .

 

..... and that is the PRECISE point that I was, indirectly, making - that the withdrawal and disposal of the HSTs has nothing whatsoever to do with their being life-expired.

 

There is clearly a political imperative behind this, combined with questionable union pressure; (awaits howls of protest)!

 

Is political leverage being applied, from either or both side(s) of the political divide? You may think that - but I could not possibly comment!

 

Whatever; Mexican and African railway companies clearly have greater faith in 20th century UK railway stock than UK railways / rail operatives / politicians.

 

CJI.

[PhilJ W]

My understanding is that some of the new built line(s) in Mexico were intended to be electrified but electrification was delayed by cost/time overruns and the HST's were a stop gap measure, sound familiar? If they're anything like similar projects here in the UK they will certainly be still running in 20-25 years time. 

[johnofwessex]

From travelling on them they certainly seemed to have corrosion issues.

 

I also do wonder how sensible the 'short formed' units are with 2x2250hp power cars and four trailers

[ruggedpeak]

5 hours ago, admiles said:

 

I have a passing knowledge. The TCA doesn't fully replicate the EU - Mexico trade deal despite what the government would have you believe.

So was there actually any difference in import duties as originally asserted? Strangely difficult to get a clear answer.

[PhilJ W]

14 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

So was there actually any difference in import duties as originally asserted? Strangely difficult to get a clear answer.

Don't forget you're talking about politicians.

[PaulRhB]

10 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Precisely - he should know - what the h*ll are we letting them go for - government directive"?!?

 

Buying more foreign rubbish that takes months / years / if ever to get type approval - and is incredibly uncomfortable - when the UK-built stuff has "a lot of life left in them"?!?

 

On 07/11/2023 at 09:51, Reorte said:

I wouldn't mind so much if the newer stuff wasn't considerably more unpleasant to travel on.

Read the Ufton or Carmont reports about corrosion and crash worthiness. The report doesn’t go into detail about fatalities but the powercar and coaches didn’t perform anywhere near as well as the Pendilino at Grayrigg. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62274fe0e90e0747a49c94ca/R022022_220310_Carmont.pdf

 

 

 Your bum may get sore, self inflating seat pads can solve that and take up the same room as a flask, but the newer trains do perform better in a crash and if they do nothing then when people are killed all hell breaks loose in the media against the railways in general because ‘they knew they were unsafe’. 
Solving the seat issue should be the focus not keeping the admirable but less safe train just because the seats are better, that would be mad. 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by PaulRhB

[Reorte]

10 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

 

Read the Ufton or Carmont reports about corrosion and crash worthiness. The report doesn’t go into detail about fatalities but the powercar and coaches didn’t perform anywhere near as well as the Pendilino at Grayrigg. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62274fe0e90e0747a49c94ca/R022022_220310_Carmont.pdf

 

 

 Your bum may get sore, self inflating seat pads can solve that and take up the same room as a flask, but the newer trains do perform better in a crash and if they do nothing then when people are killed all hell breaks loose in the media against the railways in general because ‘they knew they were unsafe’. 
Solving the seat issue should be the focus not keeping the admirable but less safe train just because the seats are better, that would be mad. 

 

 

I disagree with "that would be mad" - I'd rather take my chances and travel on the more comfortable train, because even though the risk might be lower on the less comfortable one in both cases it's low enough (not zero in either, and never will be) in both they're at a level I'm satisfied with. So my chances are good enough on both. No two different designs (or even two trains of the same design) will perform exactly the same in a crash anyway. Are they "unsafe"? I've not heard anything to convince me of that at any rate.

 

Quite honestly it's not even the right comparison, because increasingly getting in the car looks like the more appealing option.

 

That's assuming they're working as intended, of course. Due to the age of the HSTs it doesn't seem unreasonable that corrosion might start to shift that balance. Just means I wish there were some new ones instead :)

Edited November 9, 2023 by Reorte

[009 micro modeller]

10 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

 

Read the Ufton or Carmont reports about corrosion and crash worthiness. The report doesn’t go into detail about fatalities but the powercar and coaches didn’t perform anywhere near as well as the Pendilino at Grayrigg. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62274fe0e90e0747a49c94ca/R022022_220310_Carmont.pdf

 

 

 Your bum may get sore, self inflating seat pads can solve that and take up the same room as a flask, but the newer trains do perform better in a crash and if they do nothing then when people are killed all hell breaks loose in the media against the railways in general because ‘they knew they were unsafe’. 
Solving the seat issue should be the focus not keeping the admirable but less safe train just because the seats are better, that would be mad. 

 

Also, did the refurbished HSTs still have accessibility issues or had the sliding doors largely taken care of that?

[PaulRhB]

31 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I disagree with "that would be mad" - I'd rather take my chances and travel on the more comfortable train, because even though the risk might be lower on the less comfortable one in both cases it's low enough

You can disagree with my opinion all you like, you’re welcome to too 🤣 but that’s the world we live in where risk and liability rule decisions. 
Personally I’d rather have a better chance if the unthinkable happens and carry a seat pad in my bag on long journeys 😉

[John Isherwood]

10 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

 

Read the Ufton or Carmont reports about corrosion and crash worthiness. The report doesn’t go into detail about fatalities but the powercar and coaches didn’t perform anywhere near as well as the Pendilino at Grayrigg. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62274fe0e90e0747a49c94ca/R022022_220310_Carmont.pdf

 

 

 Your bum may get sore, self inflating seat pads can solve that and take up the same room as a flask, but the newer trains do perform better in a crash and if they do nothing then when people are killed all hell breaks loose in the media against the railways in general because ‘they knew they were unsafe’. 
Solving the seat issue should be the focus not keeping the admirable but less safe train just because the seats are better, that would be mad. 

 

 

Let's get this in proportion.

 

How many drivers have been killed / suffered life-changing injuries when driving HSTs?

 

How many miles service did the HST combined fleet of power cars achieve prior to withdrawal.

 

Now I am the first to concede that any fatality / serious injury to a driver is deeply regrettable but - sh*t happens.

 

From our first breath, we are subject to risk to life, and life can be terminated / changed radically in any occupation if the fates so determine.

 

What is certain is that two railways, on two continents half the globe away, are sufficiently convinced of the ongoing performance of HSTs to be investing very large lumps of capital in shipping them from the UK.

 

When you have a success on your hands - and a UK-built one at that - you should not be throwing it aside and spending mega-money on inferior replacements.

 

Finally, I realise that this decision was made at government level - but it is nonetheless downright stupid. It is a shame that it was given a sort of legitimacy by support from unions.

 

Not something that the Tories often achieve!

 

CJI.

 

 

[Reorte]

51 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

You can disagree with my opinion all you like, you’re welcome to too 🤣 but that’s the world we live in where risk and liability rule decisions. 
Personally I’d rather have a better chance if the unthinkable happens and carry a seat pad in my bag on long journeys 😉

That depends on whether the discussion is about whatever the rules say or what we'd like it to be :) On the former the rules are the rules so there's usually a straightforward, unambiguous "correct" answer (well in theory, in practice, no, otherwise the legal profession wouldn't make a fortune out of trying to interpret them), but statements like "it would be mad" rather suggest a discussion about personal preference. Of course we can disagree on that because there's no definitive, correct answer there. My preference is that risk in most aspects of everyday life is low enough it's rarely a consideration (there are times when it very much is part of a consideration of what I'm doing - I used to be in a group who explored disused mines, and you've got to put it very high up the things you're thinking of there, but I wouldn't call that everyday life!)

 

On the preference though, is there no consideration of just how likely it is to happen to you in the first place, and a point where the difference isn't sufficient, or high enough, to be a considering factor? It doesn't seem to be a factor in most peoples' travel decisions (for British trains, nowadays), when deciding whether to drive or take the train, since whatever train you're on it's still statistically safer than driving.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Reorte

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I feel that cost, comfort, time and convenience are forefront in most folks minds, as regards deciding what mode of transport to take. Safety isn't really a major consideration, otherwise we'd all leave the car at home. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Peter Kazmierczak

[Mike_Walker]

24 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Finally, I realise that this decision was made at government level - but it is nonetheless downright stupid. It is a shame that it was given a sort of legitimacy by support from unions.

It might have been supported by the unions but not by their members who were not consulted.  GWR drivers are furious that their HSTs are being taken away regarding their cab as considerably safer than those of Sprinters.  The objections largely come from Scotland and are more a case of objecting to being given the castoffs of those nasty Sassenachs..

Edited November 9, 2023 by Mike_Walker

[John Isherwood]

16 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

It might have been supported by the unions but not by their members who were not consulted.  GWR drivers are furious that their HSTs are being taken away regarding their cab as considerably safer than those of Sprinters.  The objections largely come from Scotland and are more a case of objecting to being given the castoffs of those nasty Sassenachs..

 

God save us from factionalism !!

 

CJI.

[PaulRhB]

55 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

How many drivers have been killed / suffered life-changing injuries when driving HSTs?

Two sadly died, Brett McCullough, along with the conductor Donald Dinnie and passenger Christopher Stuchbury at Carmont. 
 

Stan Martin And four of his passengers at Ufton Nervet. 

Also the driver who had a tree smash both from pillars suffered quite serious injuries at Lavington. 
 

55 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Now I am the first to concede that any fatality / serious injury to a driver is deeply regrettable but - sh*t happens.

It may but would you say that to the families of the above?

 

55 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

but it is nonetheless downright stupid.

I agree but the liability has become too great in the current situation. 
 

55 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Let's get this in proportion.

Thats why I said in the crash worthiness about your safety versus carrying a small seat pad. The trains are demonstrably safer, the seats are crap so you either campaign to sort out the seat, stop railing against it or carry a seat pad 😉

 

36 minutes ago, Reorte said:

but statements like "it would be mad" rather suggest a discussion about personal preference.

It would ‘be mad’ in the litigious society to do nothing when safer alternatives have been available for many years and a report has highlighted the degraded performance of the HST. If some like the much missed Adrian Shooter had found a way to life extend the HST with new front and vestibule crash structures and new draw boxes I’d also much rather ride an HST. Simple fact is the comparison is a seat pad vs safety, in my opinion you would indeed be mad not to choose the seat pad with what we know from the Carmont report. I happen to work on a different Region but with a guy who knows one of the first on site and what he saw. As a result I’ll take safety in the choice we currently have rather than ideas about what they could do. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by PaulRhB

[Reorte]

22 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

I feel that cost, comfort, time and convenience are forefront in most folks minds, as regards deciding what mode of transport to take. Safety isn't really a major consideration, otherwise we'd all leave the car at home. 

Quite.

 

It is important to keep things in perspective though - we're at that position because all major forms of transport are safe enough that most simply don't worry. The only possible exception is cycling on busy roads; the prospect of that definitely makes me uncomfortable, and is something I actively try to avoid on safety grounds (although not to the degree of ruling out a bike ride altogether if it would involve 100 yards on such a road).

 

This certainly wouldn't always have been the case, and once, say, the risks of an arduous overland journey versus a possible (slightly) less arduous but potentially riskier sea journey would've been a very real consideration, although most people probably never travelled more than a few miles from their home then.

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Simple fact is the comparison is a seat pad vs safety, in my opinion you would indeed be mad to choose the seat pad with what we know from the Carmont report.

From the rest of your post I assume you meant "mad to not choose the seat pad."

 

But "mad" implies you'd be dicing with death. Does the level of risk, the danger you're putting yourself in really justify the use of "mad"? Am I mad any time I choose to drive rather than use a train? We're really talking about a very small level of risk indeed, compared to a slightly smaller one. Not zero, as we've seen, but go down that path and you'd be "mad" to travel at all if you could possibly avoid it.

 

Personally I'd much prefer to reserve the use of such terms for, say, people who pose on railway lines for photographs. That's mad. Using it for this vastly smaller level of risk difference diminishes the term.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Reorte

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I shudder to think of the high-speed dual carriageways I once cycled along when young...

[PaulRhB]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

From the rest of your post I assume you meant "mad to not choose the seat pad."

Correct the autocorrect removed not somehow ;)