• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Network Rail urges drivers to stop hitting low bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
Can they not fit a barrier at the same height either side of the bridge? Then the collisions would still happen, but they wouldn't hit the railway and so it wouldn't be NR's problem.
 

daikilo

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Messages
1,623
Can they not fit a barrier at the same height either side of the bridge? Then the collisions would still happen, but they wouldn't hit the railway and so it wouldn't be NR's problem.

Somebody needs to pay for the barriers, but if positioned far enough from the bridge a strike would be avoided as would delays to the trains. The insurance would cover repairs to or replacement of the barrier.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,849
Location
Epsom
Can they not fit a barrier at the same height either side of the bridge? Then the collisions would still happen, but they wouldn't hit the railway and so it wouldn't be NR's problem.

Some bridges, but not enough of them, do have those. They should be built around all vulnerable bridges.

Such barriers would, presumably, be the responsibility of Network Rail but would obviously be cheaper and less disruptive to repair after being hit than the actual bridge would.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,914
Somebody needs to pay for the barriers, but if positioned far enough from the bridge a strike would be avoided as would delays to the trains. The insurance would cover repairs to or replacement of the barrier.

There used to be a legal problem against doing that, in that the person who deliberately erected such a barrier would become liable.

Having seen such a barrier erected at Redhouse Lane Disley, perhaps that has now been overcome.

Co-incidentally, erection of the barrier occurred just AFTER the closure of the factory which generated the high HGVs. No HGVs now go that way!
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,581
Location
Lancashire
There used to be a legal problem against doing that, in that the person who deliberately erected such a barrier would become liable.

Having seen such a barrier erected at Redhouse Lane Disley, perhaps that has now been overcome.

Co-incidentally, erection of the barrier occurred just AFTER the closure of the factory which generated the high HGVs. No HGVs now go that way!

Indeed and the very expensive alarm system also put in for that bridge was redundant at the same time without ever being used in anger. I ripped the supply out for it about 4 years ago, the equipment is still in the loc by the bridge though.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,581
Location
Lancashire
The delay repay would be considered as consequential damage and probably not covered by most vehicle insurance companies.

I would have thought that NR can claim the delay minutes back from the insurers as it is not consequential losses of the insured, but true losses to the 3rd party, it's the Lorry owner that couldn't claim for delays in not delivering the goods ontime if they are on fixed time delivery regimes.
 

Swaffrail

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2014
Messages
6
Its time these drivers were charged with careless driving if not dangerous driving seeing how their actions could result in serious damage to a bridge and even derail a train. All bridges I have seen all have well marked signs showing height etc, so what is their problem other than lack of concentration. I watched one foregn driver hit a bridge carrying the east coast mainline, he stopped with most of his roof peeled back, then got back in his cab and drove on as though nothing had happened. Called police don't know whether they caught him.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
It's the A52!

If that's the one by the main town centre junction, just down from the station, I'm surprised that it's not been hit many, many, more times. Offhand, I can't think of any bridge more vulnerable.
 

Juniper Driver

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Messages
2,154
Location
SWR Metals
You can't really seem to stop idiots driving or people making mistakes...Isn't there any way they could raise the bridge?

I know it'd probably cost too much wonga.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,533
Location
LBK
Can they not install a big gantry with a dangling rubber bar on it? If you made contact with the bar then a big sign would illuminate on the bridge saying you should stop at once.
 

TheEscapist_

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
150
People should just take responsibility for their own actions. The signs are there telling people, it's just careless to ignore them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
18,940
Location
Devon
Can they not install a big gantry with a dangling rubber bar on it? If you made contact with the bar then a big sign would illuminate on the bridge saying you should stop at once.

That could work. Another one could be something that triggers those prongs you get at some car park entrances so that if the driver still tried to go under the bridge their front tyres would burst :).
I remember reading somewhere about a bridge strike putting a massive kink in the railway above the bridge as the deck shifted and a first generation DMU derailing and running down a bank maybe in the early 1980s? Something like that could still happen if a few things went wrong at once.
 

tellytype

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2016
Messages
131
That bloody thing is always being hit!

As for urging them to stop,hitting it.....this shouldn't even be necessary. It's painted in day glow green, well signed, overweight detection....hitting it would be a wilful act!
 

380101

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Messages
1,141
Its time these drivers were charged with careless driving if not dangerous driving seeing how their actions could result in serious damage to a bridge and even derail a train. All bridges I have seen all have well marked signs showing height etc, so what is their problem other than lack of concentration. I watched one foregn driver hit a bridge carrying the east coast mainline, he stopped with most of his roof peeled back, then got back in his cab and drove on as though nothing had happened. Called police don't know whether they caught him.


There is a specific offence for ignoring height warnings, can't remember what Act it comes under now (7years since I left the police).
 

dviner

Member
Joined
7 Oct 2010
Messages
246
There is a specific offence for ignoring height warnings, can't remember what Act it comes under now (7years since I left the police).

How interesting...

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2280477&postcount=21

Also, the arch bridge on the A36 at Wilton west of Salisbury (carries the West of England line) marked up as 14ft on the signs, my truck is above that height, when I head north the electronic signs flashes up 'Over height vehicle, turn back' when I head south, the electronic sign flashes up 'High vehicle, use middle of the road' so not even the electronic sign can make its bloody mind up if the truck will fit or not.... oh, and by the way, I routinely use the route, and never once hit the bridge, in fact I stopped under it once and got out and looked...... it had a good 8-10 inch clearance!

So the signs, are useless!
 

Foxcote

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2014
Messages
67
Location
Wrexham
As someone who used to be called to attend 'bridge bashes' to assess their condition for permitting train movements with a speed restriction, or placing a stop on all movements pending a full Engineers examination, I welcome anything that will reduce these incidents.

In many cases, at the time no vehicle details can be obtained for the report, as the vehicle has departed, - unless a public spirited local can be found who noted vehicle details, or the BT Police can obtain information from the local traffic Police, who may be aware of it or not. Without vehicle details a claim cannot be made against the driver or owing firm. It seems that most of the drivers caught were the ones with vehicles jammed under the bridges or free but unroadworthy to proceed.

Perhaps well placed cameras could be helpful here? All bridges have signs advising the public of a phone number, perhaps the offer of some financial reward should be considered to a person reporting? I do however realise that this could be open to abuse.

There is often a delay in a competent person arriving on scene as they could be on duty many miles away, or get stuck in traffic en route. I recall my old boss castigating me over a delay in arriving on site; "What, -it took you over an hour to get there." I explained that I was about 45 miles away and it was during the evening peak. I heard no more, but thought afterwards, should I have asked for a Police blue light escort through North Wales and Cheshire? I have used this service in the past, but as no lives were in danger it did not seem appropriate to ask.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,924
Location
UK
I'm amazed that lorry drivers actually use satnav units without the extra data, when the major mapping companies have been providing essential data for years.

Obviously it costs more to have a product with that data, but it's amazing a lorry driver would not understand the risk of using a system that will navigate based on the assumption that you're in a car, or perhaps a van at most. In effect, directing you directly at bridges and narrow dirt tracks and through tiny villages.
 

Sean Emmett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
522
Media discussion yesterday that HGV drivers should be banned from using car sat navs.
In this day and age amazed that bridge strikes still happen.
NR should press harder for compensation for delays from insurers and any excess from HGV driver or their firm.
Maybe convictions and jailing of those involved in Bath runaway tragedy will get more HGV drivers to stop and think, but not holding out too much hope.
 

daikilo

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Messages
1,623
I'm amazed that lorry drivers actually use satnav units without the extra data, when the major mapping companies have been providing essential data for years.

Obviously it costs more to have a product with that data, but it's amazing a lorry driver would not understand the risk of using a system that will navigate based on the assumption that you're in a car, or perhaps a van at most. In effect, directing you directly at bridges and narrow dirt tracks and through tiny villages.

Whilst I agree with your view, there is also the issue that a satnav, like a map, is an aid to navigation, it is not an aid to driving. I am sure many of us have cases of the satnav telling us to turn only to find that it is a one-way street in the other direction. Hitting a bridge shows the driver does not know/consider what he has behind him/her..
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
I'm amazed that lorry drivers actually use satnav units without the extra data, when the major mapping companies have been providing essential data for years.

Obviously it costs more to have a product with that data, but it's amazing a lorry driver would not understand the risk of using a system that will navigate based on the assumption that you're in a car, or perhaps a van at most. In effect, directing you directly at bridges and narrow dirt tracks and through tiny villages.

That brings me to this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38775559

Lorry drivers should be banned from using sat-navs specifically designed for cars, council chiefs have said.

The Local Government Association (LGA) wants legislation brought in to make sure lorry drivers in England and Wales use a GPS system suitable for HGVs.

Which makes me think they are using car ones to save money or using thier phones.
 

Scotty

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2009
Messages
463
Location
Boston, Lincs
If that's the one by the main town centre junction, just down from the station, I'm surprised that it's not been hit many, many, more times. Offhand, I can't think of any bridge more vulnerable.

There are 4 low bridges, close together. I think the one mentioned is the northern most, which leads out to Barrowby/Nottingham.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,924
Location
UK
Whilst I agree with your view, there is also the issue that a satnav, like a map, is an aid to navigation, it is not an aid to driving. I am sure many of us have cases of the satnav telling us to turn only to find that it is a one-way street in the other direction. Hitting a bridge shows the driver does not know/consider what he has behind him/her..
Of course you shouldn't just do whatever your satnav says, but this isn't a system directing you off a cliff, railway line or down a one way street the wrong way. The map data is sound, it just isn't capable of giving extra warnings.

Naturally you'd assume a lorry driver would read signs, but ideally they'd be guided away from these areas to save awkward turns (which might prompt the 'give it a go' attitude) and so on.
 

G0ORC

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
227
That could work. Another one could be something that triggers those prongs you get at some car park entrances so that if the driver still tried to go under the bridge their front tyres would burst :).
I remember reading somewhere about a bridge strike putting a massive kink in the railway above the bridge as the deck shifted and a first generation DMU derailing and running down a bank maybe in the early 1980s? Something like that could still happen if a few things went wrong at once.

I don't recollect any serious accident like that at this bridge, but when I was in the erstwhile Nottingham Divisional Control in the 70s and early 80s there was certainly an incident where a lorry struck the bridge and lifted the whole structure upwards.

It was fortunate that we were advised before any train was due as the Hinckley signaller (a manual box in those days) was not aware of the incident. A light engine was on hand to examine the line from the Nuneaton direction and the driver of that reported the line to be impassable in both directions.

I recollect the line was blocked for several weeks after that one, but its quite true this bridge has been struck repeatedly and often over many many years and its strange a solution like a sacrificial bar has not been installed here.
 
Last edited:

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
Of course you shouldn't just do whatever your satnav says, but this isn't a system directing you off a cliff, railway line or down a one way street the wrong way. The map data is sound, it just isn't capable of giving extra warnings.

Naturally you'd assume a lorry driver would read signs, but ideally they'd be guided away from these areas to save awkward turns (which might prompt the 'give it a go' attitude) and so on.

there are Truck specific sat nav systems
http://www.satnavcompany.com/tomtom-pro-5250-truck.html

You can choose you vehicle type from the pre-set list available then enter and save the dimensions of the vehicle being driven.

1. Height, Width, Length
2. Weight and Weight per axle
3. Hazmat (load type)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,693
Location
Nottingham
I remember reading somewhere about a bridge strike putting a massive kink in the railway above the bridge as the deck shifted and a first generation DMU derailing and running down a bank maybe in the early 1980s? Something like that could still happen if a few things went wrong at once.

I think you are thinking of the Oyne accident included in the link below, which also shows the other accidents on Railways Archive from the same cause.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/ev...opment=all&published=no&acctype=all&submit=Go
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top