Same bridge struck three times in under a week

[43066]

A physical barrier just before the bridge, as has been installed in some places, results in the same amount of damage to the vehicle (or its load) and the same amount of debris on the road (so no worse than actually hitting the bridge) but does at least leave the bridge itself unscathed.

Some potential drawbacks with this approach were brought up in post #34 upthread:

This comes up frequently. There’s two issues with that:

1) liability for maintenance of said gantry
2) overall safety - if a collision knocks it over; yes the railway will probably be protected, but damage to other vehicles and people; is much more likely than if a vehicle hits a bridge (which generally is a low consequence incident)

The structure would have to be enormous to physically stop the truck and remain standing. Plus, in addition to nobody wanting to pay for it, many people would no doubt prefer the risk of an occasional bridge bash to having steel monstrosities built at every possible location.

 

[norbitonflyer]

A physical barrier just before the bridge, as has been installed in some places, results in the same amount of damage to the vehicle (or its load) and the same amount of debris on the road (so no worse than actually hitting the bridge) but does at least leave the bridge itself unscathed.

Nevertheless an improvement. There have been cases of derailments caused by bridge strikes

Report on the Derailment that occurred on 12th May 1978 near Oyne in the Scottish Region British Railways :: The Railways Archive

Archive of UK railways documents

www.railwaysarchive.co.uk

 

[AndrewE]

The structure would have to be enormous to physically stop the truck and remain standing. Plus, in addition to nobody wanting to p ay for it, many people would no doubt prefer the risk of an occasional bridge bash to having steel monstrosities built at every possible location.

The gantries that I have seen aren't that big or gross... and why need it remain standing? It just needs to be simple and quickly/easily replaced (before the next potential strike!)
and I suspect that many locals would prefer a lorry damaged by a gantry (which can be relatively simply removed) to a bridge struck and then closed for much longer to road traffic while it is inspected - especially if some of the locals are commuters stuck on a train which can't access their station for them to alight!

 

[racyrich]

The gantries that I have seen aren't that big or gross... and why need it remain standing? It just needs to be simple and quickly/easily replaced (before the next potential strike!)
and I suspect that many locals would prefer a lorry damaged by a gantry (which can be relatively simply removed) to a bridge struck and then closed for much longer to road traffic while it is inspected - especially if some of the locals are commuters stuck on a train which can't access their station for them to alight!

You can't have a gantry that gets knocked over onto a car, motorbike, cyclist, whatever coming the other way.
Plus you now have a knocked-over gantry to get off the road. Which probably takes longer than checking a bridge takes.

 

[AndrewE]

You can't have a gantry that gets knocked over onto a car, motorbike, cyclist, whatever coming the other way.
Plus you now have a knocked-over gantry to get off the road. Which probably takes longer than checking a bridge takes.

You had better share your wisdom with NR as they obviously don't understand... see https://www.networkrailmediacentre....m-to-be-installed-on-edinburgh-railway-bridge and https://www.networkrailmediacentre....ms-to-be-installed-on-railway-bridge-in-stoke
and a picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.009...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEyNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

 

[Bald Rick]

The gantries that I have seen aren't that big or gross... and why need it remain standing? It just needs to be simple and quickly/easily replaced (before the next potential strike!)
and I suspect that many locals would prefer a lorry damaged by a gantry (which can be relatively simply removed) to a bridge struck and then closed for much longer to road traffic while it is inspected - especially if some of the locals are commuters stuck on a train which can't access their station for them to alight!

Theres two types of ’gantries’ to protect overheight road vehicles)

1) Literally a gantry, as a separate structure some distance back from the bridge. This can be of various forms, from a string of bells across the road (still used on some farm crossings, and in the chocolate teapot category to my mind*) to big steel gantries. The latter need to be strong enough for a driver to a) know they have hit it and b) not to collapse on to the street potentially causing consequent damage, injury or worse. They are also off railway property (thereby needing rights to use the land, and planning consent), and are technically part of the highway and therefore needing the highway authority’s agreement. Not all insurmountable, but still lots that can stop it.

2) a protection beam immediately adjacent to the bridge. Within railway property, and essentially part of the bridge concerned. No need for land deals, planning permission etc. The key word is ‘protection’, as an offending vehicle will hit that, but it still means it is a bridge bash and appropriate action needs to be taken. The station road bridge at Harpenden has one of these, but when it is bashed it is still trains stopped / speed restrictions until confirmed ‘clear’. However it is usually the protection beam that gets damaged rather than the bridge itself.


* I did once see a lorry delivering roof trusses not fit under the bells in place for OLE clearance at Cheshunt. One of the chaps in the lorry jumped out, clambered up the trusses, and lifted the string of bells up over the point of the trusses.… and stayed there whilst it then went under the OLE. Very fortunately for him it was isolated at the time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2025 ==

You had better share your wisdom with NR as they obviously don't understand... see https://www.networkrailmediacentre....m-to-be-installed-on-edinburgh-railway-bridge and https://www.networkrailmediacentre....ms-to-be-installed-on-railway-bridge-in-stoke
and a picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.0092803,-2.1842088,3a,75y,82.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svfthHwr1hgal0Sryvly1bA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=7.609425992046923&panoid=vfthHwr1hgal0Sryvly1bA&yaw=0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEyNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

These are protection beams, as per my (2) above.

 

[norbitonflyer]

You can't have a gantry that gets knocked over onto a car, motorbike, cyclist, whatever coming the other way.
Plus you now have a knocked-over gantry to get off the road. Which probably takes longer than checking a bridge takes.

There is already a risk from bits of lorry falling onto the road or other road users, so a gantry won't create a new hazard where none existed before.

 

[Prime586]

2) a protection beam immediately adjacent to the bridge. Within railway property, and essentially part of the bridge concerned. No need for land deals, planning permission etc. The key word is ‘protection’, as an offending vehicle will hit that, but it still means it is a bridge bash and appropriate action needs to be taken. The station road bridge at Harpenden has one of these, but when it is bashed it is still trains stopped / speed restrictions until confirmed ‘clear’. However it is usually the protection beam that gets damaged rather than the bridge itself.

There's one of these on the West Coast Main Line bridge over the B5251 Spendmore Lane in Coppull, which was installed about 10 years ago due to trucks using the route as a short cut between Chorley and the M6 and A49. As you can see, it's seen it's share of action:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bi8k3AEqedH6ttiH6
There isn't one on the other side as anything coming that way would hit the redundant span first.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's one of these on the West Coast Main Line bridge over the B5251 Spendmore Lane in Coppull, which was installed about 10 years ago due to trucks using the route as a short cut between Chorley and the M6 and A49. As you can see, it's seen it's share of action:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bi8k3AEqedH6ttiH6
There isn't one on the other side as anything coming that way would hit the redundant span first.

Indeed, and you can see clearly that it is attached to the bridge itself, hence the need for inspection if it is struck. However it reduces the risk of damage to the bridge proper, thereby keeping disrupton to a minimum.

 

[43066]

1) Literally a gantry, as a separate structure some distance back from the bridge. This can be of various forms, from a string of bells across the road (still used on some farm crossings, and in the chocolate teapot category to my mind*) to big steel gantries. The latter need to be strong enough for a driver to a) know they have hit it and b) not to collapse on to the street potentially causing consequent damage, injury or worse. They are also off railway property (thereby needing rights to use the land, and planning consent), and are technically part of the highway and therefore needing the highway authority’s agreement. Not all insurmountable, but still lots that can stop it.

2) a protection beam immediately adjacent to the bridge. Within railway property, and essentially part of the bridge concerned. No need for land deals, planning permission etc. The key word is ‘protection’, as an offending vehicle will hit that, but it still means it is a bridge bash and appropriate action needs to be taken. The station road bridge at Harpenden has one of these, but when it is bashed it is still trains stopped / speed restrictions until confirmed ‘clear’. However it is usually the protection beam that gets damaged rather than the bridge itself.

Thanks. So the only realistic gantry-type solution is (2) above, and that doesn’t really move us on from the current position.

Back to the drawing board!

 

[Prime586]

Indeed, and you can see clearly that it is attached to the bridge itself, hence the need for inspection if it is struck. However it reduces the risk of damage to the bridge proper, thereby keeping disrupton to a minimum.

It's attached to the parapet (the anchors were drilled through into the concrete lintels that the deck sits on) rather than the bridge itself, but yes it does still require an inspection if it is struck (though there's no way to monitor if a strike has taken place).

The freestanding steel girder gantry fitted in front of the infamous 11 Foot 8 bridge seems to do a pretty good job of protecting the deck and standing up to anything that hits it. That is a pretty good example in that no matter how many height warning signs, flashing lights and red traffic lights triggered by height detectors they installed, it still hasn't stopped zombified drivers trying to drive under it. The majority of 'hits' come from rental trucks where the drivers presumably aren't thinking about the height of the vehicle, or out of town/state removal vans.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

as discussed above, drivers have total control of their vehicles. If
they choose to drive one straight into a tree or a bridge there is nothing to stop them

I don't believe anyone thinks "I know, I'll drive into that bridge". The question is why do drivers who presumably don't want to drive into a bridge, who should know the height of their vehicle, and should be able to see the height restriction fail to put those bits of information together.

The gantries that I have seen aren't that big or gross... and why need it remain standing? It just needs to be simple and quickly/easily replaced (before the next potential strike!)
and I suspect that many locals would prefer a lorry damaged by a gantry (which can be relatively simply removed) to a bridge struck and then closed for much longer to road traffic while it is inspected - especially if some of the locals are commuters stuck on a train which can't access their station for them to alight!

Thinking aloud, depending on how far from the bridge the gantry is, it could fall forward onto the road and strike something else (or worse, someone else)

There is already a risk from bits of lorry falling onto the road or other road users, so a gantry won't create a new hazard where none existed before.

True, but depending on the gantry design, it could increase the levels of risk

 

[AndrewE]

Thinking aloud, depending on how far from the bridge the gantry is, it could fall forward onto the road and strike something else (or worse, someone else)

... or it could be braced off the bridge abutment.

True, but depending on the gantry design, it could increase the levels of risk

Which depends on how carefully you think it through - and what the level of risk is now e.g. if it is on a line out in the country where train speeds are up in the 90s.
Which is the least-worst option?

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

... or it could be braced off the bridge abutment.

Which depends on how carefully you think it through - and what the level of risk is now e.g. if it is on a line out in the country where train speeds are up in the 90s.
Which is the least-worst option?

The least worst option? Easy. Figure out why the bridges keep being hit and mitigate against that rather than throwing in another layer of mitigation that clearly isn't working.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You had better share your wisdom with NR as they obviously don't understand... see https://www.networkrailmediacentre....m-to-be-installed-on-edinburgh-railway-bridge and https://www.networkrailmediacentre....ms-to-be-installed-on-railway-bridge-in-stoke
and a picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.0092803,-2.1842088,3a,75y,82.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svfthHwr1hgal0Sryvly1bA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=7.609425992046923&panoid=vfthHwr1hgal0Sryvly1bA&yaw=0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEyNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

I have to say that "Low Bridge Ahead" sign is pretty dumb.
Driver thinks, that's OK I will "cross that bridge" so to speak further along and look out for it.
Surely the sign should say "Low Bridge HERE" ?.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Another factor I haven't seen mentioned is pressure on drivers to complete deliveries on time, particularly those doing multi-drop work. Whilst I'm not suggesting that we go back to pre-tachograph days with nothing preventing lorries being driven by those who are dangerously fatigued, needing to complete a job before running out of hours is another factor that could lead to inattention or distraction.

The suggestion of a non-blame-apportioning body to investigate risks on the road is definitely something I'd support. Perhaps there's an (in my opinion) unfounded belief that such a body would mean that blame isn't apportioned at all, even when it should be. However this is not the case in sectors that do have such a body. For example if an incident occurs in aviation and it's found that a pilot was intoxicated, that pilot will still lose their job- but if the investigation discovers that opportunities to prevent the incident were missed (over and above the wrongdoing of the pilot) those factors can be mitigated.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Another factor I haven't seen mentioned is pressure on drivers to complete deliveries on time, particularly those doing multi-drop work. Whilst I'm not suggesting that we go back to pre-tachograph days with nothing preventing lorries being driven by those who are dangerously fatigued, needing to complete a job before running out of hours is another factor that could lead to inattention or distraction.

I suspect that one of the (unspoken) blockers to a road industry AIB is that it would be highly likely to start picking apart management systems that impose time pressure on drivers. It would also be highly likely to start picking apart the way that public bodies approach road safety.

Weirdly, the MAIB is probably the closest analogue to such an organisation - shipowners are engaged in a pretty cutthroat business, with lots of different operators. It regularly investigates accidents where there's no link to the UK beyond happening to occur in UK waters. And the barrier for entry is, if anything, lower - it investigates accidents involving private pleasure craft (no licencing required) and even migrant boats.

By way of example of the latter... an MAIB report into the death of a person who fell overboard and drowned from a self-operated hire boat makes a recommendation that the operator actually make sure the hirer knows how to operate the boat.

 

[AndrewE]

The least worst option? Easy. Figure out why the bridges keep being hit and mitigate against that rather than throwing in another layer of mitigation that clearly isn't working.

Don't you think that "working it out" is what people have been trying to do for a couple of decades at least? If it was easy it would have been done by now and we all agree tha tthe current system isn't adequate - even red traffic lights. Which is why I look forward to a good satnav interlocked with the lorry transmission system.

 

[Spartacus]

... or it could be braced off the bridge abutment.

Which means it's a protection beam that's part of the bridge and the bridge still needs inspecting.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==

Don't you think that "working it out" is what people have been trying to do for a couple of decades at least? If it was easy it would have been done by now and we all agree tha tthe current system isn't adequate - even red traffic lights. Which is why I look forward to a good satnav interlocked with the lorry transmission system.

You'd have to have some sort of 'interlocking' with the trailers and 5th wheels too (I've known drivers to plead that they're under height and the signs are wrong based on the height of their cab, not the taller trailer behind!) as well as any loads carried by flatbeds. Trailers with diggers on, large or small towed by vans, are a big cause of bridge strikes, and often cause more damage than anything else.

 

[43066]

Don't you think that "working it out" is what people have been trying to do for a couple of decades at least? If it was easy it would have been done by now and we all agree tha tthe current system isn't adequate - even red traffic lights. Which is why I look forward to a good satnav interlocked with the lorry transmission system.

The current system probably is considered adequate by default, in the sense that there isn’t any cost effective or technologically realistic alternative available. “Satnavs interlocked with lorry transmission” doesn’t sound like a viable solution either, for the reasons noted above.

The least worst option, also the only option, is to continue as we are, with bridge strikes occurring from time to time.

 

[Magdalen Road]

If you have a look at my earlier post, it includes a photo representative of the majority of Ely bridge strikes.
A rental van that will trigger the flashing warning signs to turn back but the driver ignores the sign because they think it will fit under anyway.
Even if all hire companies ask the person hiring said van if they are intending to drive near Ely station and if so DO NOT go under the bridge (sign here to acknowledge the warning) people will still do it anyway because people are stupid.
The warning signs are really obvious. Here's another example from May 2023, zoom in to see the van stuck under the bridge and it's roof on the right hand side. Like taking the top off a boiled egg.

 

[Deepgreen]

Presumably one source of error is a tractor unit pulling several trailers of different heights in a day, and someone forgetting to change the display.



If it happens consistently they might point to an issue with suitability for the job, but it’s known that punishing people for human error won’t generally make any difference (see “just culture” etc.).

If a train driver has a SPAD they certainly won’t be banned for six months, they’ll be put onto a development plan addressing why it happened (if they do it more than once, and in a short space of time, they may still find themselves out of a job, of course).

No, but the difference is that the lorry actually hits the bridge, whereas the SPADs of which you speak presumably involve no collision. I would have thought the difference between actual and possible accident is very important. Apart from the shock of the bridge hit itself, I would hope a short driving ban would lodge the issue firmly in the mind. Of course, if a lorry driver hits a bridge and presumably writes off a large part of the vehicle, would he/she be retained in the role by the employer anyway?

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Don't you think that "working it out" is what people have been trying to do for a couple of decades at least? If it was easy it would have been done by now and we all agree tha tthe current system isn't adequate - even red traffic lights. Which is why I look forward to a good satnav interlocked with the lorry transmission system.

Actually, I *don't* think that's what people have been trying to do. I think there's a bit of an assumption that the driver has been a numpty and he's blamed for hitting a bridge, without a thought as to why.

If a train driver has an incident, the reaction here is very different - we're told not to prejudge the situation, that it's not necessarily their fault, and we should examine the factors that led to the accident, and we then get an RAIB report that looks into what happened. The only report we get about the lorry driver is usually under court news.

I'm not saying he's not a numpty, but if we start getting a string of strikes in the same place, I'm starting to think we need to see what's going on rather than assuming we've got a string of numpties.

No, but the difference is that the lorry actually hits the bridge, whereas the SPADs of which you speak presumably involve no collision. I would have thought the difference between actual and possible accident is very important. Apart from the shock of the bridge hit itself, I would hope a short driving ban would lodge the issue firmly in the mind. Of course, if a lorry driver hits a bridge and presumably writes off a large part of the vehicle, would he/she be retained in the role by the employer anyway?

Remember when you're campaigning to ban that driver, you're taking away his way of earning a living and that we've a shortage of truck drivers.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I'm not saying he's not a numpty, but if we start getting a string of strikes in the same place, I'm starting to think we need to see what's going on rather than assuming we've got a string of numpties.

And it might well turn out that there's a string of numpties driving lorries. In which case the questions to be asked ought to be (a) how do we stop numpties from driving lorries, and (b) how do we make it so that if a numpty does get behind the wheel, it's as hard as possible for them to hit a bridge.

Now that I think about it, we've been making the comparison to SPADs - but that isn't the right comparison at all. The direct rail equivalent would be out-of-gauge loads striking structures. Obviously, that hardly ever happens - and when it does, it's because there have been multiple failures in a system designed to make sure it doesn't.

It's obviously not possible to apply exactly the same management system for trains and lorries. But one gets the impression that the management system for at least some HGV operators is 'here's a load, remember not to go over your hours'.

Remember when you're campaigning to ban that driver, you're taking away his way of earning a living and that we've a shortage of truck drivers.

Reference has been made to the much higher standards expected of train drivers. We didn't get those standards by just sacking the bad ones.

 

[Haywain]

Remember when you're campaigning to ban that driver, you're taking away his way of earning a living and that we've a shortage of truck drivers.

At the same time we are also campaigning to save lives by getting dangerous and incompetent drivers off of the roads. And a bit of a shortage of HGV drivers is good for the rest as it will drive earnings upwards. If we accepted the same standards on the railway we would have a lot more train drivers but earning less than they do now.

 

[43066]

No, but the difference is that the lorry actually hits the bridge, whereas the SPADs of which you speak presumably involve no collision. I would have thought the difference between actual and possible accident is very important. Apart from the shock of the bridge hit itself, I would hope a short driving ban would lodge the issue firmly in the mind. Of course, if a lorry driver hits a bridge and presumably writes off a large part of the vehicle, would he/she be retained in the role by the employer anyway?

Most SPADs don’t result in collisions, but they’re an example of something that’s usually (not always) the fault of the driver, but which has various causal factors, be it poor signal sighting leading to “reading across” from another signal, distraction on a platform with no starting signal where the last signal was single yellow etc.

Then there are low speed collisions with other trains or buffer stops where damage is caused, but again the same approach is applied.

A short driving ban may “lodge the issue in the mind”, but that’s after the event has already happened, whereas we’re talking about prevention. It’s again focussing on punishing the driver, but isn’t going to have much of a deterrent value, because nobody (I hope!) is going out and deliberately crashing lorries into bridges.

Now that I think about it, we've been making the comparison to SPADs - but that isn't the right comparison at all. The direct rail equivalent would be out-of-gauge loads striking structures. Obviously, that hardly ever happens - and when it does, it's because there have been multiple failures in a system designed to make sure it doesn't.

Out of gauge loads generally won’t involve fault on the part of the driver, though, so I’m not sure they’re a better comparison.

Reference has been made to the much higher standards expected of train drivers. We didn't get those standards by just sacking the bad ones.

Precisely!

At the same time we are also campaigning to save lives by getting dangerous and incompetent drivers off of the roads. And a bit of a shortage of HGV drivers is good for the rest as it will drive earnings upwards. If we accepted the same standards on the railway we would have a lot more train drivers but earning less than they do now.

You aren’t saving lives by just sacking drivers after they’ve had an accident and giving no other thought factors beyond the error made by the driver. Seemingly no consideration at all here to training put in place by HGV companies, rostering arrangements to ensure drivers don’t drive multiple height loads in a shift etc.

Train drivers absolutely do make mistakes (and the bad ones are sacked), but someone having a SPAD, perhaps once in a long driving career, isn’t evidence of them generally being “dangerous and incompetent”, and the same could no doubt be said for a lorry driver hitting a bridge. Although if someone has multiple such incidents, especially in a short space of time, then clearly that might call into question their suitability for the role.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Out of gauge loads generally won’t involve fault on the part of the driver, though, so I’m not sure they’re a better comparison.

There won't be a direct equivalent, because lorry drivers are (at a minimum) driver and signaller all in one. Arguably guard and despatcher as well, and possibly a few other things.

 

[norbitonflyer]

rostering arrangements to ensure drivers don’t drive multiple height loads in a shift etc.

Difficult arrange that, given that the purpose of most lorry journeys is to deliver or collect something, be it a trailer or a load on a flatbed.

 

[gavinro]

I doubt any of that would make much difference. A bit like SPADs and other operational incidents on the railway, bridge bashes will always occur while ever human beings are involved.

TPWS massively reduced SPADs. Recent SPAD incidents (Salisbury and West Wales) weren't driver error

 

[Haywain]

You aren’t saving lives by just sacking drivers after they’ve had an accident and giving no other thought factors beyond the error made by the driver.

You are saving lives by improving driving standards and the threat of losing the job is a part of that. The driver who has a loss of concentration and hits a low bridge today, may just as easily have had a loss of concentration and hit a cyclist or pedestrian causing death or serious injury. This doesn't ignore other factors but it has to be recognised that the driver is in ultimate control of the vehicle. In railway terms, much of the problem is alleviated by route knowledge whereas on the roads there is nothing remotely close to this for HGV drivers.

Seemingly no consideration at all here to training put in place by HGV companies,

No, it is not something I am considering at all but I am pretty sure that plenty of firms do not provide any training over and above the requirement to hold an HGV licence and to be insurable.