Slammer comeback!

[LeeEAS]

Knights Rail Services Ltd has purchased the remaining 63 stock at Shoeburyness with the intent of getting them back on the mainline...

See here: http://wimbledonparkdepot.spaces.live.c ... 3127.entry

Also, here's a photo of unit 1881 as mentioned in the article: http://paul-mackay.fotopic.net/p11206177.html

[chriscooper]

Whilst they could be returned for none passenger use, I think they would struggle to get a safety case for passenger mainline use due to "crashworthyness" problems (regardless of OTMR and CDL fitting). The only Mk1s allowed on the mainline at the moment are for companies that previously operated them on railtours, and have been given exemptions from the 2005 deadline for their withdrawal, but I can't see a new operator being given an exemption for new stock. The HSE actually wants the numbers to reduce over time, probably to none eventually, not increase. Aswell as this, the exempted stock have a fair number of restrictions such as a 75mph top speed, and the (totally stupid and pointless) requirement for barrier vehicles at each end of the train that are either not Mk1, or don't carry passengers (73s could be used, but that somewhat spoils things, or the end coaches could be locked out of use, but that reduces capacity).
Oh well, we'll see.

[allypally]

The stated aim is to run rare tours with 73s working in multiple with the slammers at first to act as barrier vehicles, and then possibly when the second set is on line, to lock the end two coaches out of use.

[chriscooper]

Hopefully that will be good enough for the HSE. Still do wonder though if they will be able to get exemption for a new operator with new trains (current exemptions all apply to hauled Mk1s, or Hastings Diesel's Thumpers), especially when the HSE wants to reduce numbers, not increase them. Nice if it does happen, but I can't help thinking in our risk adverse nanny state it's not going to happen, even if the risk is microscopic.

[yorkie]

if HSE were as concerned about cars as they were trains, then frankly there wouldn't be any!

They are a laughing stock.

[ianmacmillan]

The irony is that this silly regulation did not save any lives because there has never been any accidents.

All it did is cost the operators an lot of money hauling fresh air.

As a guard I travelled in these coaches and would not have been there if there had been the slightest danger.

It reminds me of the Harrow disaster in 1950 when BR were forced to re-design the MK1s to have a door in the centre to allow people to escape if the doors at both ends were destroyed in a crash.
Never mind that such an accident would smash every widow for those who could to crawl out.
it was not until 1967 that this rule was lifted after BR had smashed up some Mk2B bodyshells to prove their safety.

I call this bum bee safety.

Every year around 20 people die of bee stings.
If HSE rules applied the railway would be required to save these lives by killing all the bees.

[chriscooper]

My favourite irony about these regulations surrounds the barrier coaches. The idea is that in an accident, they would act as crumple zones and save passengers in other coaches. This totally goes against the main issue with Mk1 crashworthyness which is that they do not crumple in a controlled way. The strong underframe will rarely be seriously damaged, but will tend to ride up onto the adjoining coach and crush the fairly weak body. This can happen at any point along the train, at Cannon Street, which was the biggest demonstration of the failings of the Mk1 design (more so than Clapham, even a modern train would have struggled to come out of that well) the overriding occured about half way down the train, those in the leading coach were uninjured.
Also, all designs have weaknesses, Mk3s are weak in terms of side loadings, with a nasty tendancy to bend in half. Welded aluminium designs (like the Networkers) are weak at the joins. Even modern designs would likely perform badly in high speed collisions.
Of cource, with TPWS, general measures to reduce the likelyhood of an accident, plus the incredibly low frequency of the sort of accidents where Mk1s might contribute to the number or severity of casualties, means that even if every Mk1 vehicle still in existance was in regular service on the mainline the risk would be microscopic.
Another irony is that the area where Mk1s perform worst compared to other stock is in lower speed collisions, the sort that are just as likely if not more to occur on preserved railways as on the mainline (a 50mph head on isn't going to look pretty, or even a 25mph rear ender). The risks are still incredibly low (when was the last collision of that sort on a preserved line, err never) but greatly more than from low scale operation of Mk1 stock on the mainline (probably more so than from the levels of Mk1 use in the last few years of normal use by the TOCs, especially after TPWS fitment, which preserved lines don't have).

[yorkie]

..at Cannon Street, which was the biggest demonstration of the failings of the Mk1 design ...

I don't think underframes built in 1928 and 1934 count as Mk1 design!