Should the HSTs be withdrawn? The Carmont Legacy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 апр 2022
- In the wake of the tragic Carmont accident, there have been calls from Train Driver's Union ASLEF to withdraw the High Speed Trains from service, with the union claiming they are unsafe. Today, we will investigate the practicality of these ambitions, and evaluate whether the HSTs are fit for service in the 21st Century.
CREDITS:
------------------------------ Dawn by KV / kvmusicprod Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0 Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/3JogzjP Music promoted by Audio Library • Dawn - KV (No Copyrigh... ------------------------------
Initial photograph of accident by Anonymous - www.gov.uk/government/news/pa..., OGL 3, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
Newton Hill Viaduct by Iain Millar, CC BY-SA 2.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
Scotrail HST photograph by Geof Sheppard - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
Oliver Dixon for the Carmont Signal Box photo- commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Rail Accident Investigation Branch for all the information, and many photographs.
Scotrail, for CCTV footage
Richard Webb for Dundee Speed limit signs.- commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
#hst
My uncle was the driver of this train and my life has felt hollow without him. Even with it being 2 years already, I still cry at least once every week thinking abt him
Poor you
For all it’s worth I send my apologies from London. I’m so sorry that you lost your uncle and hope accidents like these happen less and less in future.
I'm so sorry to hear that, but It sounds as if You're coping well. Grief is normal and it can take a while to move past things, but I know you can do it
Take it easy
@@powernetworker6526 thank you.
I’m sure that this isn’t the truth because this video was only posted about six months ago at the time of posting this comment.
The scandal from Carmont in my view, as a railwayman, is that the train was travelling at full line speed. In an area prone to landslides, in an ongoing weather event that causes landslides, near where there had just been a landslide, that train should have been travelling at caution (i.e. very slowly). I don't know enough about the specifics to suggest blame for that decision, but I hope the families and injured have lawyers and extract maximum compensation for an awful foreseeable accident caused by negligent decision making. NR regularly impose weather related speed restrictions, it is well understood.
ASLEF know full well that the train's design had no impact on survivability, frankly death and injury would surely have been higher in a more modern DMU? HSTs need to retire, they're roughly the age Mallard was when HSTs were introduced, but this is a distraction.
Yes, I agree with you. I find it extraordinary that the HST driver was instructed to drive at line speed knowing the awful weather conditions and that a land slide had already occurred just earlier in the locality.
The hsts need to stay
here here, the train is just a distraction from the failings of the actual safety proceedures and network rails safety considerations in the area. had they all followed a good protocall this event could have been entirely avoided and the train not crashed and raised all these such concerns. becides 125mph in a car vs train is how im looking at it. most modern car vs 60 year old HST, your still more likely, probably 10 times more likely if not more to survive in the train. unfortunately drivers of both wont stand much of a chance
The distraction is on climate change and people wanting to get rid of a perfectly good train over real safety and maintenance
@@MattBuckfalconfiera not necessarily. They are ageing and suffered engine replacement already to last a few more years, so de "Use By" date is reaching an end, although not as glorious as expected due to infamous Carmont disaster. Meanwhile I would keep Mark 3 coaches although no modern diesel traction for them beat the smooth and silence of an HST locomotive. Perhaps a class 57. Whereas class 67s and 68s are too noisy, so noisy that is nearly impossible to have a quiet journey on the coach immediately behind them.
I think it's reasonable to suggest the HST's are at the end of their life. Yes, "everyone" loves them, and they've provided a good 50 years of service, but now they're just inefficient and whilst I think some of points against them safety-wise are a bit over-blown it's still a rather clear fact that they're just not adequate anymore. I dont think an immediate replacement should be undertaken but i definitely see them coming out of service within the next decade or so. They've had a good run, but they're well past their peak and they're just outdated now.
Trains don't have a best before date. As structures, they are prone to corrosion and fatigue, and also suffer from wear and tear, which eventually result in repair costs which do not justify the work. A Mark 3 coach was inspected and dismantled by a team associated with IMechE at the request of Porterbrook ROSCO; it was found that they would be good until about 2025.
@@physiocrat7143 I explicitly stated that I expect them to come out of service within the next decade or so, and the information you provided backs that up. I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here?
@@minusjos My point is that trains do not have a "life". The idea that they do is one of the reasons for the costly and inefficient replacement of stock which could have continued in service for several decades more. This has been going on since nationalisation. The result for the passengers is overcrowding and cramped, uncomfortable newer trains.
The HST units and the mark 3 fleet generally is another example. It they had not been neglected in recent years they could have continued indefinitely, and these include the 120 Irish mark 3 fleet and the class 442 units. The HST power cars are another matter because the engines have a limited life, but these are a replaceable component, or the locomotives could be re-purposed as DVT or electric units.
Heavy engineering components such as trains, ships and bushes can reasonably be kept going for 60+ years if they are properly designed in the first place. Replacement is itself technically risky, and the operation of large standard fleets is asking for trouble in the future. Complex and innovative trains such as the 800 series and LUL S stock are liable to develop faults which could leave the entire fleet being grounded and the operators with no trains. We are already seeing this with the 387 stock having to stand in for the Hitachis.
@@physiocrat7143 I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. The idea that trains can just be perpetually modified and "upgraded" to keep them running is extremely flawed and fails to consider aspects such as capacity, changing demands and operations. Trains from 50 years ago aren't designed for today's railway, and continuously modifying them to simply make them able to match modern operations is simply inefficient, both in labour and cost - it reaches a point where it is simply more cost effective to replace them with new models - not to mention that heavy modification was already tried with 442s, and it ended up as a monumental faliure - there were simply far too many issues encountered to for it to be viable.
I dont think that 800s are particularly good trains either - they are barely innovative and quite cheaply made (and i'm not even gonna bother discussing the aventras), but I think the problems with new trains are a seperate issue entirely (mostly because of various cost-cutting actions by the DfT) and does not support the idea that we should just keep older, inadequate trains running - keyly because there are numerous examples of modern trains that made for efficient and reliable replacements of older stock (such as desiros, both the original examples and the updated "city" variants). Comfort-wise the only truly awful trains are the 720s, which have one of the worst interiors i've ever seen (which is entirely down to the awfulness of the DfT), otherwise most other trains are fine. "Ironing boards" have never bothered me, and again, that's not a new train issue, it's a DfT issue. I guess the short version of this paragraph is that new trains aren't bad because they're new, they're bad because of the DfT.
This isn't to say that ALL older trains currently need to be replaced though. Some (such as the networkers) simply need a refurbishment, as they are otherwise rather decent at running the services they're made for. The things I've discussed apply to only the oldest and most outdated examples, which I think the HSTs squarely fall in to.
@@minusjos The HST issue is two separate questions: the locomotives, and the unpowered passenger vehicles, which are basically just a steel box running on the BT10 bogies Traction equipment has a limited life and when it becomes due for major overhaul the question that arises is whether further investment is value for money. Some locomotive types have evidently been able to provide good service since the 1960s. The engines HST power cars will just run out of hours. The mark 3 inter city vehicles suffered from premature corrosion mostly confined to the toilet floors and bogie frames due to leakage, but this was well managed and the vehicle surveyed in the IMechE investigation was considered to have 20 years + of future service life. Once the decision to replace them was made, around 2012 they were presumably neglected, which would account for the difficulties encountered during the refurbishment. The vehicles which have been refurbished now provide a fleet which should be good for a good few years even if they end their service as locomotive powered sets.
The class 455 family of stock suffered from severe premature corrosion due to internal condensation and required a major repair scheme.
The future life of the stock constructed of seam-welded aluminium plank extrusions has always been uncertain due to the nature of aluminium fatigue failure, an issue which does not affect steel structures.
The mistake was to go against the recommendations of the Foster Report and proceed with the Hitach fleet.
There are plenty of aircraft in front line service, based on 1970s designs. The Southern Railway and BR Southern set an example of how to obtain best value for money from its assets, often very old ones.
Accidents happen, that's life, please don't blame the HST for the Carmont accident, although being nearly 50 years old the HST still has a lot of life left, they are far more comfortable than Voyagers on Cross Country routes and should replace Voyagers on the Manchester to Poole service, the Voyagers could then replace 170s on Nottingham to Cardiff service and Birmingham to Stanstead Airport
There definitely should be more utilisation of Cross Country's HSTs.
Having built and serviced the BP10 bogies (HST power bogies) and BT10 bogies (trailer coach) for 40 plus years at Crewe Works....they are life expired. The amount of work to get ship shape is not worth considering...great unit...but the bulk of torment is the bogies...they are poorly...they are a complex thing..awful accident...but they are life expired...we are now doing no more repairs to HST bogies and BT10 bogies for GWR as they are withdrawing the Castle class HSTs....RIP...
@@gordonjohnson8432 Indeed, they are good trains but too old. The problem is many new trains can't match the HSTs quality.
@@GWVillager refurbishment would take them up to standards as all people seem to whine about is seats
@@pessi976if you refurbish them, you have to keep the current seats so you can not have a iet seat situation
Prioritising safety over comfort does not necessarily bring to the desired result if it leads to people choosing road transport instead.
Indeed. In retrospect I think I came out a bit harsh on the HST, the major issues weren't really down to its design.
@@GWVillager I think the gwr hst sets should be retired but keep them alive and not end them for them so new hst sets like a 43 6 mk3s and a dvt so it would be better for the envierment
I have not read this report. As an ex railway man myself, a couple of things strike me. The type of train was completely irrelevant, as in similar circumstances every single train would have met the same fate. With the nature of the first landslide, it would have been prudent to have considered it to be a danger anywhere there is s a cutting in the vicinity. But this is with the benefit of hindsight. Would I have cautioned the returning HST? Why did it take so long for the signal man to decide to return the HST anyway? Was he delayed by advice from control, or whoever is in charge these days? I was shocked to learn that the cab was totally detached from the power car. Clearly to do with the design, but unforseen until that moment. HSTs have been involved in significant accidents on several occasions, and their crash worthiness has been praised often.
On a historical note, back in semaphore days, landslide wires where run along lineside in areas where landslides may have occurred, to alert a signalman to an event. I wonder what the modern equivalent might be? There clearly were none at all in this particular case.
Landslide wires are still in use in certain high risk areas, but they do also have a more digital equivalent that detects movement in the ground, I believe. However there were none at Carmont and never have been, presumably it wasn't considered vulnerable enough. The impression I got was there was essentially no reason why the cutting should have collapsed, it was negligence on Network Rail's part for failing to maintain the drainage. There could be a question raised that all cuttings should have some form of landslide detection in this day and age.
I agree with you on the former point, no train would have performed well in the situation, but it is interesting to note that the exceptional crash worthiness seen in previous accidents didn't seem to affect the train's structure (as you mention) anywhere near as much as the landslide did here. Is metal fatigue taking its toll, or was this just much more significant?
@@GWVillager Thanks for that. I'm not really convinced that age of the trains is particularly valid either, thinking about it. They are generally well maintained, and I'm sure if structural failure was a concern it would have been raised during maintenance.
I remember this accident being in the news at the time and thinking what an awful dilemma it had been. I've read the classic Red for Danger a number of times and can't recall a similar set of circumstances. A once in a lifetime incident surely.
@@GWVillager i think the stonehaven HST did a good job at retaining its structure, the only coach that was destroyed was inverted and crushed by two other coaches. doesnt matter how well you build your coach or what material you build it out of, it simply will not retain its structure if two 33 tonne coaches now reside on top of it. frankly i couldnt see any modern train performing any better since the mark 3 coaches were a fully integral monocoque, the only difference between them and modern stock is they were made of steel whereas modern stuff tends to be aluminium and we all know which metal is better at withstanding impact loads. frankly i can only see an aluminium train coming off even worse, if i were on a train thats crashing i would certainly rather be in a steel coach than an aluminium glorified coke can
@@GWVillager i get the feeling that the Sliding door modifications could have played a part in carriage ends collapsing, they may need strengthening.
Your videos are utterly excellent. You deserve much more exposure and many more subscribers. Nice one.
Thank you very much, the channel's only young though!
Absolutely! Came here from you, and thanks for that
@C3ParaplegicErik thank you ever so much! I get so much hate, its why my comments are turned off - your comment has made my day.
@@RoryGilmartin aw thanks
Yeah we're in contact.
It's a lot of nostalgia but then again - nothing reaaaaally wrong with them, they're truly iconic, brilliant, comfortable, stylish trains - just old. I'd hate so see them scrapped as a class.
people accept that in a car going at 125mph your not likely to walk out alive in the event of any crash but on a train the expectations are so much higher. your going at 125mph and compared to a car its much safer. its an unfortunate and horrible event to happen but personally I have never felt that the class 43 fleet are lacking and most accidents like this can be avoided with improved health and safety practices and guidelines, having a train thats adequately prepared for every crash scenario is simply impractical and there will always be fatalities (like when people spoke about the windows in a few HST crashes being... well uno)
your right about the 4 car set being a bit wastefull. people asked years ago about the 43s becoming shorter sets (3-4 cars long) to replace the ghastly pacers and sprinters on some of the routes and the answer given as to why not is because the HST units are gas guzzlers and that it would be harder to make a profit with these reduced sets, then ofcourse some years later they were forced to do it when ghastly pacers were made redundant and scrapped.
personally I think the unions need to focus more on the practices around safety proceedures than the rolling stock. let me put it like this...
a landslide happens in an area thats high risk for landslides in a track placed right in the path of possible landslides, they warn the train of one landslide and then clear it not to operate at cautionary speed but normal speed in an area that is high risk for landslides and already had one serious one. the rail companies thinking this is acceptable because if they impact the timetable too much with cancellations and delays they will get a huge fine and network rail not wanting to admit that they could probably have prevented this by use of walls and other specially built trackside protections. train crash worthiness should be a just incase but to me this is being treated in such a way where they are expecting it to happen repeatedly and simply using it to try to accellerate modernisation programs that really and truthally were meant to have come about 40-50 years ago. at this point screw modernisation
If HST formations are dangerous for passengers, others have same safety issue such Chiltern Railways sets whose rakes are made of Mark 3 coaches same as HST sets.
As a retired driver firstly my thoughts are with those affected by this tragic event.
On the subject of action to be taken.
Operating rules should be changed requiring speed restriction where landslides are possible in areas prone due landslides caused by weather conditions or have been reported. Ladbroke Grove proved modern rolling stock won't save everyone. Far better to be able to stop short of any obstruction.
The train in the Carmont accident hit what amounted to an immovable object, a huge concrete block, immediately after coming off the rails. I don't believe any other train would have protected its occupants any better. The Ladbroke Grove accident involved a head-on collision between an HST and a much more modern train, a class 165 "Networker" DMU, both of which were going at about 50mph. There were far more people in the HST which was heading into London in the morning rush hour than there were in the 165 which was heading out of London. 24 people died in the 165 and seven in the HST. One carriage of the 165 (which is built from extruded aluminium sections) completely disintegrated into pieces no longer easily recognisable as a railway carriage.
3 years ago this morning. Brett, Donald and Chris R I P, and my thoughts go to all of their relatives and friends, a terrible tragedy which was preventable.
The sheer unpleasantness of almost all contemporary rolling stock is an incentive not to travel by rail at all, but to resort to less energy-efficient and less safe modes of transport. The recent bonanza of new stock and premature replacement of relatively new ex-BR stock has been driven by the ultra low interest rates of the past 10 years. With the price of money now rising to its average level, this waste is not longer affordable and we can expect that the future will see refurbishment rather than scrapping.
The Mark 3 fleet was good for until 2035-2045. The HST sets could have become electrically hauled push-pull units. A third of the service life of this stock has been thrown away.
A video on scotrail's possible replacement options for IC stuff would be good too (ranging from an 80x or flrt order all the way up to a bespoke order or OBB Railjet type system)
Refurb and order or adapt locos to deliver the 400 V 3-phase heating and AC systems used by the mark 3 HST coaches. Old HST cars can become DVTs. Cheap and cheerful, and passengers can have a comfortable journey.
@@physiocrat7143 I'd also electrify all the mainlines.
@@Dexter037S4
Many main lines are not busy enough to be worth the investment.
great video, you handled it seriously which is good as it is a very serious thing, only comment is maybe include something about the incident in the title. but great video
Thank you very much. I'll add something to the title
Some argue HSTs are out of scene too soon. I'd rather say that has been too late the introduction of brand new classic formation trains to replace them and more important than that to keep a reasonable interior capacity that multiple units can hardly fulfil. Is such a shame to pass Longsight TMD and see a whole day for a few years a number of Mark 5A formations not in full operation using diesel units on their diagrams instead when TOCs are struggling with high demand after get rid of their HSTs and other loco hauled sets. Britain must learn something with Central Europe TOCs that are strongly bringing back loco hauled services.
I'm not so sure it's that Central Europe has been bringing back loco hauled services, but more that they never abandoned them in the first place!
The Cross County Voyagers are uncomfortable, overcrowded, dingy and stuffy. They are the only train which makes me suffer motion sickness and their seats give me backache for days after a long journey. Please don't suggest that they should replace the few HSTs on their services.
The voyager trains are so claustrophobic in contrast to the spacious HSTs
There will be a fleet of 27 Class 222 without a home, shortly.
Came across RUclips from Kyoto, Japan and ended up here.
I listened with great interest to the detailed account of the accident.
That's certainly quite a way away, I hope you don't regret finding my channel!
A number of areas here on this side of the big puddle, there are problems with rock fall and slips in the mountains. The Pennsylvania had a solution many decades ago: A rock fence. It's a series of wires along the face of the mountain/hill that have an electrical signal applied to send a message to dispatch and the signals about 1-2 miles away outside of the slip area. Any rock fall or slip breaks the signal wire and stops the trains. Why has that not been implemented there? There's no excuse for an an accident when there is a technical solution available. Is it a result of track and operations being pulled apart? Or just "we don't want to spend any money to save lives?"
Unfortunately the latter. In the few years since the accident (and indeed this video), Network Rail has seen funding cuts and increased pressure to spend less on maintenance. It has now reached the point where they are saying they simply don’t have enough money to do everything they are required to, which has led to an explosion in emergency speed restrictions dotted all over the country where a defect can’t be repaired.
It is worth noting that rock fences are already used widely in high risk areas in the UK, but increased frequency of extreme weather events (climate change etc.) has meant that areas previously of little concern are now vulnerable to subsidence, as was the case at Carmont. Alarmingly, plans to roll out more wires in these newly identified areas have been slashed due to the aforementioned cuts.
I think it's more to do with the cost of building a better and safer line next to a scottish mountain. I think that you should cut the trees back and put in a swiss style avalanche shelter then all the water trees and soil can go over the top and save the money on building a tunnel. Gabions up the side of the mountain would cost too much to try and stop all the water and soil.
Would there not be any possibility to replace Mk3 coaches with say Mk4 coaches and keep top tail cl 43s on the routes they serve?
Not really with Mk4s, there aren't enough left with them going to either TfW or scrap. The thing is, the 43s are old, expensive and relatively polluting, so GWR isn't in a rush to keep them around. Any measure to use alternative coaches would probably be more complicated than just getting different trains entirely.
No chance, HST MK3s have their own wiring completely different to other coaches, including the loco hauled MK3s
Seems to me the major factor in this accident was the speed of travel. In an area with active landslides happening. Why was the train allowed to run at full line speed?
This was a major problem, and cannot really be explained. Whilst the signaller was cleared of any wrongdoing - in theory it should have been safe to send the train back at full speed, there are certainly lessons to be learnt from this practice.
GWR replaced some of the Class 43 HST's when the Class 800 and Class 802 IETs came into service. And LNER also replaced the Class 43 HSTs when Class 800 Azumas also came into service.
Except that came with a price: cracked yaw dampers.
"We should prioritise safety over comfort concerns."
If train passengers are so miserable that they decide to drive, more of them will be killed than if they'd been allowed to ride in the comfortable, "dangerous" trains.
Yes, this was the view taken by many and I broadly agree with. However, the counter argument is that it is very much possible for high standards of comfort to be provided in a safer environment than the HST.
@@GWVillager Indeed, and as a long-term goal, that's how it should be. As you pointed out in the video, simply pulling the HSTs before replacements are built would lead to overcrowding on smaller, crappier trains, and hence to people abandoning the train for the road, so knee-jerk reactions like ASLEF's are unhelpful.
I've seen some calculations from the US that TSA has killed more Americans than al-Qaeda by making flying so miserable that people chose to drive instead. Secondary consequences are a bitch.
I think 222s should be cascaded to Scotland to replace the HSTs as soon as they're replaced by the 810s on the Midland Mainline.
Will be sad to see these go, but I guess like the A-stock on the London Underground before them. They have probably had their time. :(
The 800s look incredible and hopefully whatever replaces the last of the 43s will be at least as good.
I get that these trains are not as strong as modern day conuterparts, however, it was the lack of draining and the land, if you get another heavy train going at that speed, you would have gotten just as much of a mess, if not more, since the driving cab and the driving choach are now allowed, it would have potentially caused more causalities
1:08 Very tiny correction, HSTs go to Glasgow Queen Street
Apologies, of course it's Queen Street.
@GWVillager it's fine, mistakes happen to everyone
Bring back HSTS To The GWML Would Be The Best Step Forward 👍
Sadly we'll never see the InterCity125 sets operating on the Great Western Mainline again
The hsts should stay if you want my opinion you should look at how Scotland maintains its railways in the case of this crash mentioned the line should have been inspected and repaired before sending another train through it in this case the railway repair team did no such thing so before blaming the 125 for the disaster try looking at why nothing was done to repair the line first?
3:39 why do i happen to be viewing this on the 12th of august, the exact day they propose
What makes the HST more dangerouse to passengers when actually HST are just the locomotives itself and not the coaches they provide traction? They are Mark 3 coaches like many others whith minimal or almost non differences appart of no buffers on HST coaches formations and connecting cables to operate Push-Pull system!
Class 43s are the locomotives, HSTs are the entire train including the Mk 3 coaches. The main concerns are with the crew and locomotive design, rather than the coaches, so it's more of an HST exclusive issue.
We love the HST but they was built for a life of 10 years not 50. Replacement should been ordered years ago CC only useding then because the train built to replace then was too small and not enough of then .
No they shouldn't they can go 125MPH and are iconic
I want to ask why in the name all that is holy is there a downright suspicious amount iets
I love these trains and I think it's quite harsh to withdraw them all just because of one set crashing
Even though they are almost or are 50 years old of if they could slow them to 80 or 90 mph max
Slowing them down isn't really a good solution, you either have a high performing train or no train at all if you ask me. But yes, the factors in Carmont were definitely beyond the HST's control.
@@GWVillager yeah, that makes sense after all hst’s have had their time on the rails and I wonder when a fairwell will happen if they retire hst’s great video though.
@@inter7city452 The reason Scotrail introduced them was because passengers asked them to.
Inverness and Aberdeen are quite a long way from the Central Belt and passengers preferred the LNER HSTs to DMUs for longer journeys. As a 2+4 they are limited to 100mph but that doesn't matter as there isn't anywhere north of the Central belt with 100+ line speeds.
@@bazzacuda_yeah Glasgow to Aberdeen was painful before in DMUs, even the ones they dressed up nicer. The HSTs (tho when I travelled on them they were clearly ex-GWR coaches not LNER ones) were so much more comfortable.
One time they even got the HST assigned to my final destination station, saving me a transfer and letting everyone else on that trip enjoy not going to a DMU for their final leg. That was lovely, though it was pretty funny seeing the comparatively giant HST next to the usual DMU going the other way!
why not this*
Glasgow Queen Street*
This is only the second video of yours that I have watched and will not be watching any more. You give the distinct impression of not being a rail enthusiast or advocate.
I'm really disappointed to hear that, as I am most definitely both. What exactly gave you that impression?
Yes, the enthusiast side of your videos is lacking.
@@olliestrains841 Whilst I very much am disappointed, I wasn't exactly intending to come across as a massive enthusiast in this video. It has a rather sombre tone and my other videos are more representative I think.
@@GWVillager ignore them, this is a very in-depth video and it's hard to come to a solid conclusion with an argument like this.
@@GWVillager Please ignore them it was a very serious video and you have a large level of technical details in your videos without being pushed by personal biases
It would probably be reasonable to withdrawn HSTs if they are too dangerous.
How many fatalities have occurred in the mark 3 vehicles since they came into service in 1972? How many passenger miles have been travelled in those 50 years?
I think EMR and Cross Country need to order more AT300 rolling stock with powerful emergency brakes and atleast 8-10 coaches to replace these aged trains. HSTs are very old rolling stock and should not be allowed to cross 65-70 mph (110 Kmph) while the rest of the HST units are in service and successor units of these are not delivered to the operators. These trains are bi-mode trains, having both pantograph for electric mode and a diesel power pack under some coaches for diesel mode.
The HST is the best, let it stay! it's not got many years left anyway.
They’re not going to be withdrawn until a replacement is in place. Otherwise the industry ends up pushing passengers from rail to road - where cars are far more dangerous.
@@bfapple Solution: let the HST's stay. Maybe I'm too much of an enthusiast but it just seems obvious.
@@olliestrains841 Which is what I said in my first sentence…
@@olliestrains841 stop being blinded by nostalgia, they are beautiful but honestly their past it and i love the new 800s tbh
@@pessi976 Stop being blinded by the future. The stupid electric trains sponsored by an ecomentalist in Kent, are too expensive and no good. We need diesel and coal! Bring back the locomotive days! Let's wake up too our broken railways. And not let the ecomentalist vegetable eaters from South England take our railways!
Reduce the speed of HSTs throughout the network to 50 mph, everyone to wear seatbelts. Or just don’t get out of bed in the morning. Climate change my *rse.
Even if climate change were to be disregarded, the HSTs are quite fuel hungry, which is unsustainable as oil is of course an unrenewable resource. However I do agree with you on your general point, everything has its issues and to pick apart the HST is hardly fair.
The HSTs are still more efficient per passenger than doing the same journey by private car at typical passenger densities.
@@bazzacuda_ Without doubt. But a, say, 170 is more efficient still.
No keep them running
I'm too sad. I honestly think heritage lines should inherit. The pacer got it? Why not? If
these trains are all scrapped, I will rage at aslef. I'm already thinking of protesting. I mean I cried having just heard this.😨😠
*gets angry in hst enthusiast*
Few care about carbon emissions. They just want trains to run. Trains have nothing to do with carbon or anything else related. Trains are green regardless, no matter the emissions. When I go to catch a train I don't give a damn about its emissions, neither do 99% of the public. This is such an internal issue. The mistake is companies thinking anyone cares. If we want lecturing we'll go to a lecture hall, otherwise, just run the f**king trains and run them on time. They are already slower than the 1970's, 80's and 90's.
I would say significantly more people care about it than 1%, but regardless, it's not the best use of fuel.
Replacing HSTs would probably help with efficiency, though. They are pretty sluggish by modern standards, they have a high top speed but it takes forever to get there, and on an operational scale they are simply outclassed by most modern trains.
You may want to bury your head in the sand and ignore the climate emergency but it's still an issue that isn't going away. Whilst cars are greener we still run too many diesel trains on electrified routes and whilst bi-modes have gone some way to reduce that kind of waste there are still operators like Cross Country and Grand Central who run a lot of diesel under the wires and don't appear to be getting bi-modes any time soon.
There is no climate emergency so the point is irrelevant. Trains are the most environmentally form of travel and always were per ton of anything carried. They do not need the attention. The new trains that are lighter are pretty crap - rough riding, clunky, cheap inside, noisy, and now I take the car again after horrendous experiences compared to the past where I enjoyed taking the train. So there we are. Build cheap and with brainwashed ideology at the heart, and you get poor results not built to last. @@davidbull1914
no... they shouldnt
You said glasgow Central but its Glasgow Qst Your after not Central the class 43 scotrails don't go to central!
Apologies, this is an old video.
HSTs are going to Mexico.
Three powercars
@Battleskip No, it is going to be 12 sets of HST are going to Mexico.
@@A-Trainspotter-From-BerkshireI wish the InterCity125 sets were still operating in the UK instead of sending them abroad
Please use the phonetic alphabet in these sort of videos. Also the train was travelling to Glasgow queen street no central.