Bridge Bashing - Collision Beams work!

[Baxenden Bank]

From The Sentinel / Stoke-on-Trent live today.


I haven't linked to the story as it is in the constantly updating 'latest news' section. The 'pipe' in the picture is the collision beam installed around 2015.

LIVE: Police shut road as lorry crashes into Stoke railway bridge​

Stoke Road, in Shelton, is 'partially blocked'
Police have blocked off a busy road after a lorry has crashed into part of a railway bridge. A photograph from the scene - on Stoke Road, in Shelton - shows the stricken wagon stuck by the bridge.

It has become a common sight in the Potteries over the years with trucks colliding with bridges in the city - including the one on Stoke Road as well as those in Longton and Abbey Hulton.

Today's collision has seen the lorry smash into a large steel pipe which runs in front of the bridge itself. An image from the scene shows police have blocked off the route from the Stoke side by the A500.

Meanwhile traffic monitoring system Inrix is reporting that Stoke Road is 'partially blocked' due to a collision between Station Road and the A500. We have contacted Staffordshire Police for further details.

Here's a link to the Network Rail press release for installing them at this location.

Monday 19 Jan 2015
Collision protection beams to be installed on railway bridge in Stoke
Network Rail is to install collision protection beams on a railway bridge on Stoke Road to reduce the risk of damage if the bridge is hit by vehicles.
The bridge has a history of incidents where drivers have failed to observe the height restriction and driven their vehicle into the structure.
While damage is often minimal, the beams will provide additional protection to the bridge, reducing the risk of structural damage and potential disruption to rail services.
To install the beams Stoke Road will be closed to traffic from 8am on Sunday 1 February until 4.30pm on Wednesday 11 March and work will take place between 7am and 5pm, Monday to Friday.
There will be overnight work on Saturday 21 February from 10pm until 6am on Sunday 22 February, and again between the same hours the following weekend (28 and 29 February).
A spokesman for Network Rail said: “These beams will provide protection to a bridge which has a history of being struck by vehicles whose drivers do not observe the height restriction warning signs that are clearly visible on the structure and on the approach to it.
“We have tried to balance disruption to traffic and disturbance to our neighbours by carrying out the majority of the work during the day in the safest and quickest possible way. There are two weekends where overnight work is essential and we will be writing to neighbours to alert them to this.
“We apologise for any inconvenience caused as a result of this essential work which is necessary to protect the structure as part of our commitment to provide a safe and reliable railway.”
Pedestrian access will be maintained at all times apart from the overnight work on 21 and 28 February. A diversion has been agreed with the local authority and will be clearly signposted.
For further information contact Network Rail’s national helpline on 08457 114141.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am sure when I used to visit Burton on Trent depot in the 1970s there was a collision beam on a road nearby. They are definitely a good idea IMHO

 

[furnessvale]

Looks more like a pipeline crossing the road.

Collision beams are a legal nightmare.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Looks more like a pipeline crossing the road.

Collision beams are a legal nightmare.

Just accept it is a collision beam. Google Streetview will confirm, Vernon Road, Stoke-on-Trent, appeared in July 2015 image capture, not there August 2014 capture

 

[snowball]

Also the quoted press release says it's a collision beam.

 

[Spartacus]

Looks more like a pipeline crossing the road.

Collision beams are a legal nightmare.

It's 100% a bridge protection beam.

In that direction there's actually two redundant bridge spans before you get to a bridge carrying the railway, but in the other it's much more useful.

One big advantage of the railways generally contracting over the years is that, especially in city centres like there, there's often spans that have been removed over the years leaving abutments that can be used to put a protection beam on without most of the legal complications that would otherwise come into play, or without them being a little too close to the bridge itself for comfort.

 

[james60059]

The A5 bridge near Hinckley has them as well. A tractor towing an excavator decided to have a crack at it last week and failed.

 

[modernrail]

What are the legal complications of having them?

 

[Spartacus]

The problem is that they can be deemed an obstruction of the highway, in particular due to their inevitably low height, especially if they're a totally new structure separate from the bridge (which are very much discouraged to the point of being banned for new installations), which naturally precludes them being any distance from bridges themselves. This is why they're usually mounted on the existing bridge abutments in some way, usually either by being mounted on top of existing or modified supports, or by being mounted on the bridge wall themselves.

There's a nice government document on the matter, with a few examples.

 

[snowball]

The problem is that they can be deemed an obstruction of the highway, in particular due to their inevitably low height, especially if they're a totally new structure separate from the bridge (which are very much discouraged to the point of being banned for new installations), which naturally precludes them being any distance from bridges themselves. This is why they're usually mounted on the existing bridge abutments in some way, usually either by being mounted on top of existing or modified supports, or by being mounted on the bridge wall themselves.

There's a nice government document on the matter, with a few examples.

If there was a real will to address the problem, the law could be amended to suit.

 

[Spartacus]

If there was a real will to address the problem, the law could be amended to suit.

As the ones attached to the bridges actually work (see top), I don't see the point in changing the law. If one was placed a good distance in advance it'd only be so ling before a new development required it to be removed, or it was struck by someone not going to go under the bridge. Someone else can work how how strong one would have to be built to prevent it being knocked down by any sort of road traffic, having seen the damage to bridges by things like excavators they'd have to be VERY strongly built, and that's before considering impacts to the pillars. Being attached to the bridge itself does provide a significant amount of protection against that.

Although bridge strikes cause me grief at work, overall I agree with the 'ban' on freestanding protection beams.

 

[D6130]

Many European countries used free-standing protection beams erected a few yards either side of a bridge. Those in Belgium look like catenary gantries, but usually have double horizontal cross-girders.

 

[edwin_m]

Looking at the photos of the recent severe bridge bash on the Leicester-Peterborough line, it appears that the beam initially struck was sacrificial, but it was struck so hard that it bent and the beam supporting the nearest rail was displaced.

 

[yorksrob]

They should be installed around the network and paid for from the roads/highways budget.

 

[themiller]

They should be installed around the network and paid for from the roads/highways budget.

If they had to be paid from the roads budget, that would just be factored in as a cost of operating the road network. If, however, the law was changed and the cost put on the insurance company of the first vehicle after that to strike the bridge. This would hit the bottom line of the vehicle operator and, as we all know, s**t runs down, so the driver would face further consequences.

 

[Vespa]

I always check my height and the bridge height before driving under it's a habit I developed since I started driving wagons, it seems some drivers don't even bother and when this happens, there would be legal consequences.

The Traffic Commissioner would be interested to know why the driver completely ignored height restrictions.

 

[snowball]

Collision beams might become a big problem if they killed or maimed someone on the top deck of a bus. There would be arguments that the driver might have just managed to stop in time if the beam hadn't been there.

 

[edwin_m]

Collision beams might become a big problem if they killed or maimed someone on the top deck of a bus. There would be arguments that the driver might have just managed to stop in time if the beam hadn't been there.

But offset by the reduction in risk to train passengers and crew.

 

[zwk500]

If they had to be paid from the roads budget, that would just be factored in as a cost of operating the road network. If, however, the law was changed and the cost put on the insurance company of the first vehicle after that to strike the bridge. This would hit the bottom line of the vehicle operator and, as we all know, s**t runs down, so the driver would face further consequences.

It'd be very difficult to charge initial installation costs to insurance companies, but I imagine repair costs are recovered. The cost of the protection beams should be shared between the railway and highway authority, IMHO. As should any reconstruction that improves road clearances (the preferable solution).

Collision beams might become a big problem if they killed or maimed someone on the top deck of a bus. There would be arguments that the driver might have just managed to stop in time if the beam hadn't been there.

How often is insufficient braking distance a cause of a bridge bash? There are warning signs at the last turn off, not to mention bright paint and further warning signs at the bridge itself. If the driver hits the beam, then it's because he or she either hasn't seen it, or believes they will fit under it. I don't see why it being a bridge not a bash beam would be any different.

 

[snowball]

How often is insufficient braking distance a cause of a bridge bash? There are warning signs at the last turn off, not to mention bright paint and further warning signs at the bridge itself. If the driver hits the beam, then it's because he or she either hasn't seen it, or believes they will fit under it. I don't see why it being a bridge not a bash beam would be any different.

I wasn't suggesting that braking distances are objectively a factor. I was imagining the media storm if someone was killed.

 

[High Dyke]

Collision beams might become a big problem if they killed or maimed someone on the top deck of a bus. There would be arguments that the driver might have just managed to stop in time if the beam hadn't been there.

It didn't stop this driver in 1998. Collision beams weren't added to the bridge until 2013.

BBC NEWS | England | Lincolnshire | County tops 'bridge-bashing' list

Two of the most bashed railway bridges in the UK are located less than a mile apart, according to Network Rail.

The Barrowby Road bridge in Grantham, Lincolnshire has been hit 32 times in the past year and nearby Springfield Road bridge has had 16 collisions

 

[yorksrob]

If they had to be paid from the roads budget, that would just be factored in as a cost of operating the road network. If, however, the law was changed and the cost put on the insurance company of the first vehicle after that to strike the bridge. This would hit the bottom line of the vehicle operator and, as we all know, s**t runs down, so the driver would face further consequences.

Yes, that would be acceptable as well !

Same goes for level crossing replacement.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes, that would be acceptable as well !

Same goes for level crossing replacement.

Absolutely. You would have my vote for SoS Transport

 

[philthetube]

As the ones attached to the bridges actually work (see top), I don't see the point in changing the law. If one was placed a good distance in advance it'd only be so ling before a new development required it to be removed, or it was struck by someone not going to go under the bridge. Someone else can work how how strong one would have to be built to prevent it being knocked down by any sort of road traffic, having seen the damage to bridges by things like excavators they'd have to be VERY strongly built, and that's before considering impacts to the pillars. Being attached to the bridge itself does provide a significant amount of protection against that.

Although bridge strikes cause me grief at work, overall I agree with the 'ban' on freestanding protection beams.

It would only need to be a few feet away, not enough distance for a development to take place.

 

[D6130]

It would only need to be a few feet away, not enough distance for a development to take place.

Indeed....just like the ones on the continent.

 

[Spartacus]

Indeed....just like the ones on the continent.

I very much doubt they're a feet away, maybe meters...

Anyway let's hope they don't have any bridges that have been struck by their own protection structure lol

 

[D6130]

I very much doubt they're a feet away, maybe meters...

Yes....you're right TBH.

 

[railfan99]

Collision beams might become a big problem if they killed or maimed someone on the top deck of a bus. There would be arguments that the driver might have just managed to stop in time if the beam hadn't been there.

in Melbourne, Australia, we had a single deck road coach strike a low Yarra Trams route 109 light rail bridge (this was originally Australia's first railway Flinders St to Sandridge, now Port Melbourne, opened in 1854 but converted in 1987 to a tramway).

The coach driver eventually won an appeal and was freed from jail:

Bus driver who crashed into notorious Melbourne bridge jailed for five years

A judge says it is "astonishing" a bus driver who injured six of his passengers when he crashed into the Montague Street bridge in South Melbourne failed to notice the structure.

www.abc.net.au

but in February 2022 there was this:

Passenger will sue former Ballarat bus driver Jack Aston for Montague Street bridge crash​

so that's an example of possible legal ramifications given Australia's legal system is based on Westminster pirnciples and precedents, an example of a good system (way superior to the USA's) inherited from the UK.

Perhaps some of you who live close to UK rail bridges with collission beams could copy this idea:

How Many Days Since The Montague Street Bridge Has Been Hit?

howmanydayssincemontaguestreetbridgehasbeenhit.com