There has been an awful lot of frothing on various rail forums about the RAIB report, the vast majority of which has been about the HST, while much less seems been about the primary cause of the derailment i.e. failure to ensure that the drainage works had been carried out to specification, and the contributory factors - procedures and operational decisions which, in hindsight, could have been better and could be improved. Reducing the likelihood of an accident occurring in the first place - something which the railways in the UK have historically been good at - makes marginal improvements in train crashworthiness a low priority. Unfortunately "shiny new trains" seems an easier concept for people to grasp than "fewer crashes".
The attitude is not dissimilar to roads, in some ways: it's easier for people to buy ever heavier and more "crashworthy" cars - though arguably less effective in terms of reducing overall casualty rates - than it is for them to improve their own driving behaviour (or for LAs and highway authorities to improve infrastructure). There's a similarity in the underlying thinking as well: a common justification for enhanced car crashworthiness is that it provides protection against "the other driver" i.e. against factors over which you feel (rightly or wrongly) that you have no control - almost like a victim mentality. The same subconscious reasoning - that there's nothing I can do to stop the train I'm on crashing, but at least I'm more likely to survive if it does - a could easily be behind the calls the replace the HSTs.
There may be an interesting comparison to air travel: leaving aside flawed aircraft designs, most people do seem willing to accept that the operating and maintenance procedures for commercial aircraft, and the supporting infrastructure (ATC and so forth) are sufficient to minimise concerns about aircraft crashworthiness. And to be fair the statistics would seem to bear that out. As they probably would do for railways as well, if certain people could be persuaded to stop banging on about "fifty-year old trains".
As for what could replace the HSTs: in the absence of electrification of the "seven cities" network, other 125mph-capable diesel trains certainly exist e.g. Voyagers. That said, I'm not even sure that there is much if any mileage on that network on which 125mph running is permitted, which would open up the choice to include 100mph capable DMUs as well. Buying new would be expensive and likely very difficult to justify vs the costs of improving the primary and contributory causes of the Stonehaven crash. Suitable trains might be obtained more economically by cascading stock from other operators (which is how the HSTs were obtained in the first place, albeit heavily refurbished before going in to ScotRail service) but that probably wouldn't satisfy some of those who love to whinge about "having to put up with others regions' cast-offs".
posts
