Report of Partial Bridge Collapse WCML 11/6

[snail]

Reported on the BBC today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39y0pj1j92o

Some facts from the article:

Network Rail there were 1,666 reported bridge strikes between 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

A spokesperson said most of the vehicles that hit railway bridges were lorries and buses, at a cost of about £13,000 each time – costing about £23m in a year in repairs

Research as part of a campaign, they added, found more than two-fifths of lorry drivers admitted not measuring their vehicle before heading out on the road, and 52% admitted to not taking low bridges into account.

So do we really want Network Rail or whoever installing expensive deterrents, or taking the hit on incidents and let the insurance companies bear the cost?

 

[AndrewE]

So do we really want Network Rail or whoever installing expensive deterrents,

yes...

or taking the hit on incidents and let the insurance companies bear the cost?

No - because insurance spreads the costs to all the rest of us in our premiums - the industry certainly cross-subsidises some sectors as I am sure that the enormous costs of things like bridge bashes won't be covered by the premiums paid just by bus and lorry firms...

 

[Peter Wilde]

This is idiotic. If a vehicle hits a beam at the height of the following bridge they were going to hit the bridge, NR will have done them a favour by reducing the damage they cause.

Imo free-standing advance beams are the most effective way to prevent strikes. These drivers are thinking they can get away with it and the only way they're going to stop is if they hit something. They don't know the height of their vehicle so additional signs or penalties are not going to help.

I agree, Surely the right approach is (1) adequate signage, (2) a moderately heavy girder arranged at least 5m in advance of the bridge and secured as a freestanding structure (a kind of goalpost consideration) and (2) money for this to come from roads budget not rail’s money. It is the roads users that are the problem! Also the roads people would find these structures had some earnings potential - put vibration-sensitive cameras up and pursue large fines from any drivers who scraped the “goalposts”.

Of course in a rational world there would be a cheaper, tech-based solution - require all sat navs to issue a stop command to vehicle engines/brakes if the driver approached any low bridge. Not easy to get that past the roads lobby though.

Finally, if road traffic ever goes over to autonomous AI-using vehicles that too would deal with the problem. Not holding my breath.

 

[The Planner]

yes...

No - because insurance spreads the costs to all the rest of us in our premiums - the industry certainly cross-subsidises some sectors as I am sure that the enormous costs of things like bridge bashes won't be covered by the premiums paid just by bus and lorry firms...

So the cost of doing that, which could be spent on other rail projects, outweighs the fact bus and lorry firms should have higher premiums due to their drivers being stupid?

 

[AndrewE]

So the cost of doing that, which could be spent on other rail projects, outweighs the fact bus and lorry firms should have higher premiums due to their drivers being stupid?

and you think that the stupid firms and drivers would actually carry the costs? That's not how insurance works... I do think that they should have much higher premiums, but given that the insurance companies work in a competitive market it ain't gonna happen.

 

[snail]

and you think that the stupid firms and drivers would actually carry the costs? That's not how insurance works...

Yes it is. Make claims and your premiums go up. Not in direct proportion to the payouts but you will pay more if you've had claims than someone who hasn't. That's why you have to declare claims when you take out or renew a policy.

 

[MadMac]

I understand the police arrested the driver yesterday evening and they have been charged on suspicion of both the offence you outline and the rather more serious offence of 'endangering the lives of persons travelling on the railway'.

I think the more serious one may still, albeit technically, carry a potential penalty of transportation to Australia (with hard labour)…..

 

[zwk500]

I think the more serious one may still, albeit technically, carry a potential penalty of transportation to Australia (with hard labour)…..

The offence doesn't appear to have ever carried the penalty of transportation directly (according to the legilsation available on government website https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/34), and hard labour was removed from all legislation by the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.

Current version:

34Doing or omitting anything to endanger passengers by railway.​

Whosoever, by any unlawful act, or by any wilful omission or neglect, shall endanger or cause to be endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway, or shall aid or assist therein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, . . . F1

Textual Amendments
F1Words omitted by virtue of Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), s. 1(2)

Original as enacted:

34Doing or emitting anything to endanger Passengers by Railway.​

Whosoever, by any unlawful Act, or by any wilful Omission or Neglect, shall endanger or cause to be endangered the Safety of any Person conveyed or being in or upon a Railway, or shall aid or assist therein, shall be guilty of a Misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the Discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour.

The offence name doesn't exactly match but it seems to be the closest one.

 

[RJ]

I disagree. A sign is something a driver can easily ignore ("they're just being overcautious"). Hitting a bar is something that cannot be ignored. Unless they're running from the police or something they will stop.

Bars as overheight enforcement are common on car parks etc. Using them here shouldn't be controversial except that apparently there are some ridiculous legal issues.

Never underestimate people’s ability to see things in a different way. I’ve known a driver to hit a low bridge, continue driving then drive into the poles suspended from a gantry on the other side, smashing the upper windscreen in 4 places then drive to the station, swap buses over and continued in service.

 

[Falcon1200]

Fifty years ago some student friends acquired a double-deck bus. Before every trip they meticulously scrutinised OS maps on which every low-height bridge had been carefully marked and they determined the itinerary accordingly. So it can be done!

The AA produce a Trucker's Atlas;

AA Trucker's Atlas Britain | Waterstones

Buy AA Trucker's Atlas Britain from Waterstones today! Click and Collect from your local Waterstones or get FREE UK delivery on orders over £25.

www.waterstones.com

Which, among other things, includes;

Information of particular importance to truck drivers is emphasised on the mapping which includes over 3,600 bridge heights, with the most frequently struck rail bridges highlighted.

So do we really want Network Rail or whoever installing expensive deterrents

yes...

From what part of Network Rail's budget is the money for these deterrents coming?

 

[DelW]

Of course they need to be and they are as they really hit motorists cruelly. Why, the driver who put his concrete mixer on top of a 455 at Oxshott in 2010 was given five points, fined £100, had a £15 victim surcharge and £43 costs. That is a real deterrent, I tell you.

While I agree entirely with your point, I suspect that that driver was fortunate that his truck landed on an almost empty train and caused no serious injuries. Had it landed on, or immediately in front of, a well loaded train, he might well have faced manslaughter charges. The driver who caused the Great Heck crash was sentenced to five years; although he only served half that, which seems quite light for killing ten people.

Possibly also worth noting that the Great Heck driver's insurers were reported to have paid out £30m (nearly £60m in 2026 prices).

Wikipedia report here

Selby rail crash - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Selby rail crash (also known as the Great Heck rail crash) was a railway accident that occurred on 28 February 2001 near Great Heck, Selby, North Yorkshire when a passenger train collided with a car which had crashed down a motorway embankment onto the railway line. The passenger train then collided with an oncoming freight train. Ten people died, including the drivers of the two trains, and 82 were injured. The driver of the car, Gary Hart, was convicted of ten counts of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to five years in prison after a jury found that he had fallen asleep while driving. Hart's insurers paid out £30 million in claims.

 

[edwin_m]

The AA produce a Trucker's Atlas;

Former colleagues of mine at British Rail contributed to or at least encouraged the production of the original version back in the 90s.

 

[Falcon1200]

Former colleagues of mine at British Rail contributed to or at least encouraged the production of the original version back in the 90s.

It is an excellent publication. We had a copy in Glasgow Control, although maybe not every truck driver did....

 

[thenorthern]

Given it's 3 lines where the bridge is, was it the Up Trent Valley Slow line that was taken out?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Although it's described as the 'Up Slow' does anyone know the speed on it?
I've certainly been on an Up Pendolino on it, and pretty certain on a Down one, too, when there were problems. Don't recollect particularly 'hanging about'.

The nearest crossovers southbound from TV Slow (at Attleborough North) to TV Fast and back to TV Slow (at Newbold approaching Rugby) are about 10.5 miles apart, so that capacity will be lost until repairs are carried out.
That's going to complicate pathing on the Up TV Fast, particularly for freight.
These appear to be 50mph crossovers which is good for keeping speeds up.

I don't think there were ever 4 tracks between Shilton and Attleborough.
WCRM reinstated the 4th track between Rugby TV Jn and Shilton further south (but reversed the designations with the Down Slow on the inside and new Down Fast on the outside).

During the gauge-cracking meltdown in 2000, the Fast lines were reduced to 20mph, but the Up Slow stayed at 75mph so most trains were routed over it.

 

[AndrewE]

From what part of Network Rail's budget is the money for these deterrents coming?

Well, BR in its latter days had a Director, Safety who must have had a budget. I can't imagine a company the size of GBR not having some sort of forward-looking fund to head off obvious and current safety risks - as you clearly can't expect individual department heads to invest in precautionary measures... (or if such funding isn't available it's plainly stupid.) At one time it was called "Spend to save..."

 

[waveyswirley]

I am completely stunned at how minimal the disruption to services has been. I thought for certain that the whole section of the WCML would be out of action

 

[Jaso]

Hopefully also a thorough investigation and robust action for the company's O Licence and Traffic Manager by the Traffic Commisioner.

How does this work in practice if the company has to robust policies, but a driver ignores these of his own violation?

Would a company still be sanctioned?

 

[Starmill]

Of course they need to be and they are as they really hit motorists cruelly. Why, the driver who put his concrete mixer on top of a 455 at Oxshott in 2010 was given five points, fined £100, had a £15 victim surcharge and £43 costs. That is a real deterrent, I tell you.

Those were the criminal penalties perhaps, but bereft of context. Did they receive a discount? Was there any relevant mitigation? Was there a separate civil claim? Was the driver insured or not, and if they were, what compensation did their insurer pay? Was it settled or did it go to a judgement? How might a similar claim be decided today, given that since then, Network Rail won a series of appeals which established that Schedule 8 costs do form part of the recoverable losses for claims where negligent driving has been established?

One fact is great and I'm sure you're correct. But please maybe consider the point in the round rather than jumping to a quick answer? Network Rail, the Traffic Commissioner and the Department all knew this was a big problem a long time ago and action has been taken to deal with it. Further reading is available in [2011] EWCA Civ 644: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/644.html

 

[hexagon789]

I am completely stunned at how minimal the disruption to services has been. I thought for certain that the whole section of the WCML would be out of action

If the bridge wasn't able to be re-opened it probably would've been very disruptive.

As it is, some services have been thinned out and the reduction to two from three tracks does seem to be causing some delays to certain services.

I agree though, it's much better than I expected from the initial photos yesterday.

 

[Starmill]

How does this work in practice if the company has to robust policies, but a driver ignores these of his own violation?

Would a company still be sanctioned?

If negligent driving were established they could seek damages from their own former employee. In reality they would probably have a valid insurance claim. If the company had hard evidence of following best practice I'd expect that to be taken into consideration in the first place though.

I am completely stunned at how minimal the disruption to services has been. I thought for certain that the whole section of the WCML would be out of action

One top of the sound point made by @hexagon789 was another sound point made by @Bald Rick - it probably looked worse than it was.

 

[Russel]

I am completely stunned at how minimal the disruption to services has been. I thought for certain that the whole section of the WCML would be out of action

Yeah same, when I saw the photos, my initial thoughts were that we'd be in for weeks of disruption.

 

[hexagon789]

it probably looked worse than it was.

Combination of the absolute mess being I think among the worst most of us have seen in various threads related to bridge strikes and probably the usual as you put it 'looked worse than it was'.

On other forums as well as here, many current and former rail employees were saying how the mess was about the worst they'd seen in 20/30 years worth of bridge strikes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am completely stunned at how minimal the disruption to services has been. I thought for certain that the whole section of the WCML would be out of action

I am also very pleasantly surprised.

Yeah same, when I saw the photos, my initial thoughts were that we'd be in for weeks of disruption.

 

[Bald Rick]

No - because insurance spreads the costs to all the rest of us in our premiums

Not across all of us. The risk of an overheight behicle being driven into a low height structure will not work its way into the premiums of the cars most people drive. It will be in the premiums of those with high vehicles.

Source: my friends who run insurance companies.

Given it's 3 lines where the bridge is, was it the Up Trent Valley Slow line that was taken out?

Yes see my posts upthread.

Well, BR in its latter days had a Director, Safety who must have had a budget. I can't imagine a company the size of GBR not having some sort of forward-looking fund to head off obvious and current safety risks - as you clearly can't expect individual department heads to invest in precautionary measures... (or if such funding isn't available it's plainly stupid.) At one time it was called "Spend to save..."

There hasn’t been a bespoke all system safety fund for some time, but there is general principle that the system is funded to maintain current safety levels and to do that it needs to assess risks. When risks are found that can be mitigated, they are evaluated to determine what options there are to reduce those risks as far as is reasonably practical. I have written on these pages (at some length) what that actually means.

In this case, it is quite clear that there is a small risk from bridge bashes, as can be seen from the number of fatalies and injuries from such incidents over recent years. It is reasonable to assume that if the railway is to spend money improving the safety risk profile of the system, bridge bash protection is going to be low down the list compared to, say, improving level crossings, improving the platform / train interface, improving staff safety.

 

[AndrewE]

T
One fact is great and I'm sure you're correct. But please maybe consider the point in the round rather than jumping to a quick answer? Network Rail, the Traffic Commissioner and the Department all knew this was a big problem a long time ago and action has been taken to deal with it. Further reading is available in [2011] EWCA Civ 644: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/644.html

That legal summary is quite interesting, and ends up with "appeal dismissed" - if I read it correctly [so awarded damages to Network Rail Infrastructure Limited stood]
but it reminds me of the court scenes towards the end of a lovely comedy novel by Gerald Durrell "Rosie is my relative!" A book I have really enjoyed re-reading...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2026 ==

Not across all of us. The risk of an overheight behicle being driven into a low height structure will not work its way into the premiums of the cars most people drive. It will be in the premiums of those with high vehicles.

Source: my friends who run insurance companies.

That is good to hear.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Sectional Appendix has 75mph all the way from Bulkington to Nuneaton South Junction, the section that includes the bridge.

Thanks,
Perhaps the reason for naming it 'Slow' is because only

The nearest crossovers southbound from TV Slow (at Attleborough North) to TV Fast and back to TV Slow (at Newbold approaching Rugby) are about 10.5 miles apart, so that capacity will be lost until repairs are carried out.
That's going to complicate pathing on the Up TV Fast, particularly for freight.
These appear to be 50mph crossovers which is good for keeping speeds up.

I don't think there were ever 4 ltracks between Shilton and Attleborough.
WCRM reinstated the 4th track between Rugby TV Jn and Shilton further south (but reversed the designations with the Down Slow on the inside and new Down Fast on the outside).

During the gauge-cracking meltdown in 2000, the Fast lines were reduced to 20mph, but the Up Slow stayed at 75mph so most trains were routed over it.

My bold.
Thanks for the information.
The reason given for the LNWR only widening to 3 tracks along this stretch (generally, the line was widened to 4) was given as 'because of the proximity of the canal'. This doesn't altogether make sense, as they could surely have widened on then other side. It's mystified me for years...

 

[snail]

Not across all of us. The risk of an overheight behicle being driven into a low height structure will not work its way into the premiums of the cars most people drive. It will be in the premiums of those with high vehicles.

I would expect premiums for a skip hire company to be pretty high, and a lot of insurance companies probably won't touch them because of the risk!

 

[Russel]

Thanks,
Perhaps the reason for naming it 'Slow' is because only

My bold.
Thanks for the information.
The reason given for the LNWR only widening to 3 tracks along this stretch (generally, the line was widened to 4) was given as 'because of the proximity of the canal'. This doesn't altogether make sense, as they could surely have widened on then other side. It's mystified me for years...

Interesting, I was going to ask why this stretch was only 3 track!

 

[david_g]

The nearest crossovers southbound from TV Slow (at Attleborough North) to TV Fast and back to TV Slow (at Newbold approaching Rugby) are about 10.5 miles apart, so that capacity will be lost until repairs are carried out.
That's going to complicate pathing on the Up TV Fast, particularly for freight.
These appear to be 50mph crossovers which is good for keeping speeds up.

I don't think there were ever 4 ltracks between Shilton and Attleborough.
WCRM reinstated the 4th track between Rugby TV Jn and Shilton further south (but reversed the designations with the Down Slow on the inside and new Down Fast on the outside).

During the gauge-cracking meltdown in 2000, the Fast lines were reduced to 20mph, but the Up Slow stayed at 75mph so most trains were routed over it.

I think you mean Brinklow rather than Shilton , the down fast and down slow merge just south of the site of Brinklow station which was where the Fosse Way crosses the Trent Valley line. Shilton is where the up slow has the 50mph speed restriction as it wiggles past the site of Shilton station and an overbridge support and is a couple of miles north of Brinklow. The sections where the railway line is next to the Oxford Canal mentioned upthread are the parallel embankments north of the Fosse road bridge and as the canal is approaching Ansty.
I work there so know the area well.