Bridge strike at Plymouth (30/08)

[Spartacus]

Trouble is that all too often in the road industry the attitude to a bridge strike is to scarper before they're reported, or even if they are, if they can. I've even known it with a double decker bus where the roof's been left in the road!

Meanwhile it's job stopped at Machynlleth on road and rail, and believe me, the road users aren't exactly sympathetic with the driver with a 10 mile 31 mile diversion in place due to another road closure! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58406885

 

[Dieseldriver]

Trouble is that all too often in the road industry the attitude to a bridge strike is to scarper before they're reported, or even if they are, if they can. I've even known it with a double decker bus where the roof's been left in the road!

Meanwhile it's job stopped at Machynlleth on road and rail, and believe me, the road users aren't exactly sympathetic with the driver with a 10 mile diversion in place https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58406885

And that to me shows an issue in the Road Haulage Industry that needs addressing. Why are Lorry Drivers so willing to flee the scene? The important thing in the aftermath of such an incident is to inform the relevant authorities as the safety of trains could be affected. How much training and awareness is given to this scenario during Lorry Driver training/ongoing development?
To me it almost seems as though bridge bashes are viewed (potentially even by Lorry Drivers themselves) as ‘you’d have to be an idiot to hit a low bridge in a lorry, as long as you’re a good Lorry Driver you won’t do it’. I’ve known brilliant Train Drivers to have SPADs, doesn’t mean they’re bad at their job, it means they made an error. If the Railway Industry still had the attitude of ‘Train Drivers should just stop at the red lights’ how many Ladbroke Groves would we have potentially had since 1999? Instead, as an industry we’ve looked at effective Driver Training, route risks, signal sighting, non technical skills, fatigue aswell as implementing technology to seek to prevent collisions caused by SPADs. As a result of this, the last major incident caused by a SPAD was nearly 22 years ago.
Sooner or later a bridge bash will probably result in a derailment and potential fatalities, it would be nice if the issue was dealt with in a more grown up and enlightened fashion before it reaches that point.

 

[Darandio]

Trouble is that all too often in the road industry the attitude to a bridge strike is to scarper before they're reported, or even if they are, if they can. I've even known it with a double decker bus where the roof's been left in the road!

Meanwhile it's job stopped at Machynlleth on road and rail, and believe me, the road users aren't exactly sympathetic with the driver with a 10 mile diversion in place https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58406885

I witnessed it with my own eyes three weeks ago at Albert Road, Middlesbrough. 07:15am in the morning and a big front loading skip wagon smacked into the bridge which obviously caused quite a racket. Driver got out took a quick look at this wagon before reversing and driving off. I rang the number off the information plate and also ran up to the signal box to let them know because it was only 200 yards up the road, gave them the registration plate as well.

As it happens I was waiting for a minibus to take a group of lads to the Weardale Railway for one of the practical days of their rail NVQ and having covered bridge strikes a few days previous they witnessed first hand a situation that they might end up having to attend in the future!

Despite all the preaching in recent posts i've got no sympathy whatsoever.

 

[Horizon22]

I’m getting increasingly frustrated with the attitudes shown after bridge strikes.

If a Train Driver makes an error, we tend to investigate, look into the reasons behind that error and as an industry, look into ways that such an incident can be prevented in the future, rather than just looking to punish the Train Driver. The only exception is if a Train Driver has done something deliberately reckless or has a string of incidents that suggest they may not be suitable for the job role.

Why when a lorry hits an underbridge, are people involved in the railway industry constantly just looking to punish the Lorry Driver? I’ve already seen a couple of posts in this thread making flippant and almost gleeful comments at the prospect of this Lorry Driver potentially being out of a job (something which I always find abhorrent). If the Lorry Driver was doing something that deliberately endangered safety which led to this incident then they should be punished, but, with the majority of these incidents it seems to be that the Lorry Drivers involved have made an ‘honest’ mistake (much like a Train Driver stopping their ten coach train on the five car mark at a platform).
Punishing Lorry Drivers doesn’t solve anything, bridge bash incidents continue to occur time and time again regardless. I thoroughly believe that the Road Haulage Industry aswell as the Rail Industry need to work together on this issue more constructively and really look at the human factors involved in these occurrences. This should involve listening to Lorry Drivers (including ones who have had a bridge bash) and see in what ways they may be prevented in the future aswell as the factors that may have led to them happening in the first place.
No Train Driver sets out to have a SPAD and by the same token, I’m willing to bet that no Lorry Driver sets out to deliberately wedge their lorry under a bridge.

How do we know the driver of this lorry hasn’t done anything “deliberately reckless”?

There’s a sign on the bridge and there’s a cab height. The vehicle was over half a metre higher, so it’s not like it was a slight scrape. Don’t think there’s any harm in looking at human factors too but quite a lot of the time in the aftermath when the police or MOM turn up it’s a) didn’t realise my height or b) It looked like it was advisory / thought I could fit through. To me they sound like recklessness as opposed to approaching a bridge and each time checking your height. Don’t sat navs even have low bridge warnings these days or can be configured to do so?

I think of course mistakes can happen as they do on the railway but I don’t have stats on whether bridge strikes are getting better or worse. I think someone did a FoI on that a year or two ago or it’s on the NR website

 

[QueensCurve]

I think it’s fair to say Tesco will be looking for a new driver in the Plymouth area shortly. (On phone so can’t share the full photos)

https://twitter.com/networkrailwest/status/1432420907205681154?s=21

Tesco are making bridges grate again.

 

[Dieseldriver]

How do we know the driver of this lorry hasn’t done anything “deliberately reckless”?

There’s a sign on the bridge and there’s a cab height. The vehicle was over half a metre higher, so it’s not like it was a slight scrape. Don’t think there’s any harm in looking at human factors too but quite a lot of the time in the aftermath when the police or MOM turn up it’s a) didn’t realise my height or b) It looked like it was advisory / thought I could fit through. To me they sound like recklessness as opposed to approaching a bridge and each time checking your height. Don’t sat navs even have low bridge warnings these days or can be configured to do so?

I think of course mistakes can happen as they do on the railway but I don’t have stats on whether bridge strikes are getting better or worse. I think someone did a FoI on that a year or two ago or it’s on the NR website

As silly as it sounds though, if they are saying ‘it looked as though I would fit through’ does that not show a wider issue of how the road haulage industry views these things? Ideally, all Lorry Drivers would have to attend a mandatory brief by representatives from the railway industry on how serious the problem is (in delays, damage and risk to the safe running of trains).
I don’t doubt that there are some reckless Lorry Drivers out there that go on to have a bridge bash incident but the fact is, these incidents do keep on happening time and time again and I don’t believe that all Drivers having these incidents were simply reckless.

 

[Highlandspring]

Sooner or later a bridge bash will probably result in a derailment and potential fatalities

It already has… at Oyne, Aberdeenshire, in May 1978 resulting in 7 injuries to people on the train - https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=1101

 

[zwk500]

As silly as it sounds though, if they are saying ‘it looked as though I would fit through’ does that not show a wider issue of how the road haulage industry views these things? Ideally, all Lorry Drivers would have to attend a mandatory brief by representatives from the railway industry on how serious the problem is (in delays, damage and risk to the safe running of trains).
I don’t doubt that there are some reckless Lorry Drivers out there that go on to have a bridge bash incident but the fact is, these incidents do keep on happening time and time again and I don’t believe that all Drivers having these incidents were simply reckless.

I completely accept your point in general terms. But at this location, that photo clearly shows that there was never any hope of getting the lorry through. The warning signs are clearly visible, as is the gradient of the road. In the aftermath, whoever is responsible for the road should install a width restriction and chicane to prevent a recurrence (the location has an easy diversionary route and any vehicle less than 6'6" wide is very unlikely to be more than 10' high) but the driver must accept the overwhelming majority of the blame in this instance.

 

[D6130]

It already has… at Oyne, Aberdeenshire, in May 1978 resulting in 7 injuries to people on the train - https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=1101

....and at Clogh Bridge near Gorey, Co. Wexford, Irish Republic on 31st December 1975 - five dead and nearly 100 injured.

 

[paul1609]

Looking at it from the other side (https://goo.gl/maps/QJGm4j1t2fNfViw5A) you can see that the road is on an incline and the headroom at the far end is less. I wonder if the driver ignored the signs and just saw the size of the tunnel entrance?

Presumably the driver has come from the Tesco Metro just down the road. The advance road signage is pretty minimal.
There appear to be no advance signs prior to the traffic signals that you are turning in to a restricted headroom road only a standard sign on the left hand sign as you leave the junction.
The warning sign immediately before the bridge only warns of single file traffic with no width restriction.
Whats the betting that the drivers view of the signs on the bridge was restricted by the overgrown vegetation particularly the large tree on the left (on network rails property?)

 

[Rich McLean]

Does the A38 still have the signs inviting drivers to use Ivybridge Station as a Park and Ride for Plymouth even though it has a very infrequent service and Plymouth Station is a hike from where most people want to go?

Still there. Service levels seem to be hourly in the peaks and roughly 2 hourly in the day. A lot better than it used to be.

 

[GB]

Presumably the driver has come from the Tesco Metro just down the road. The advance road signage is pretty minimal.

There appear to be no advance signs prior to the traffic signals that you are turning in to a restricted headroom road only a standard sign on the left hand sign as you leave the junction.

An even more advance sign would just be another sign that gets ignored. The driver ignored/missed the signs on approach and the signs on the bridge.

The warning sign immediately before the bridge only warns of single file traffic with no width restriction.

Not sure what your point is.

Whats the betting that the drivers view of the signs on the bridge was restricted by the overgrown vegetation particularly the large tree on the left (on network rails property?)

That betting would be wrong.

 

[24Grange]

Presumably the driver has come from the Tesco Metro just down the road. The advance road signage is pretty minimal.
There appear to be no advance signs prior to the traffic signals that you are turning in to a restricted headroom road only a standard sign on the left hand sign as you leave the junction.
The warning sign immediately before the bridge only warns of single file traffic with no width restriction.
Whats the betting that the drivers view of the signs on the bridge was restricted by the overgrown vegetation particularly the large tree on the left (on network rails property?)

Poor lorry driver, lured by incorrect signage.
The only way to stop these is to install a massive steel girder/bumper prior to the bridges ( as mentioned before) which f##ks and stops the lorries prior to hitting the bridge proper. Baldock bridge used to suffer a bridge strike every couple of months, until the prior girders were installed. now lorries still hit the girders ( inspite of 2 meter high " low bridge" sign in yellow on the bridge side) but don't hit the bridge. It did take 10+ years of bridge strikes however before they were installed.

 

[Darandio]

Whats the betting that the drivers view of the signs on the bridge was restricted by the overgrown vegetation particularly the large tree on the left (on network rails property?)

How much are you betting? From the drivers perspective it was not obscured. Although it wouldn't surprise me if anyone trying to find fault with the railway here suggests the foliage was cut back before the picture was taken.....

 

[ExRes]

How much are you betting? From the drivers perspective it was not obscured. Although it wouldn't surprise me if anyone trying to find fault with the railway here suggests the foliage was cut back before the picture was taken.....

Yes, I see you've deliberately cropped the picture so that the two pairs of secateurs with 'Property of NR' on them are hidden .........

I've also heard the driver is an RMT member brought in specifically for his ability to strike anything anywhere

 

[Darandio]

Yes, I see you've deliberately cropped the picture so that the two pairs of secateurs with 'Property of NR' on them are hidden .........

I've also heard the driver is an RMT member brought in specifically for his ability to strike anything anywhere

I've airbrushed the tree branches and leaves out as well, couldn't you tell?

 

[paul1609]

How much are you betting? From the drivers perspective it was not obscured. Although it wouldn't surprise me if anyone trying to find fault with the railway here suggests the foliage was cut back before the picture was taken.....

Thats from in the single file section where the drivers concentration would naturally be on vehicles coming in the other direction but this file does well illustrate the ample headroom at the entrance.
If you look at this photo which was quoted earlier in the thread the view of the signs is partially obstructed by the vegetation 64fc1fbb-1bb7-4425-ae10-227df51f49b4-jpeg.101969

 

[John Luxton]

No Train Driver sets out to have a SPAD and by the same token, I’m willing to bet that no Lorry Driver sets out to deliberately wedge their lorry under a bridge.

I can understand what you say and are probably correct in most occasions when it comes to railways, but I can't agree when it comes to roads. Why?

Because I saw an over height truck activate electronic warning signs continue regardless. It happened at a notorious bridge bash location on the old A30 where the road passed under the Newquay line on Goss Moor.

The bridge had had so many strikes an electric warning system was installed in the 1980s/90s which illuminated signs and directed over height lorries to an alternative route.

One day a year or two before the new by-pass was opened an removed the problem I was driving west bound behind a large truck which activated the warnings.

I expected it to turn off but continued straight towards the bridge.

Fearing the top of the truck would be sliced off and end up in the road in front of me or become firmly wedged and stop suddenly, I instinctively braked and expected the inevitable, slowing the traffic behind less there be a major pile up.

The truck cleared - must have only been by an inch.

Now if that wasn't a deliberate act of ignoring road signs and signals I don't know what is.

It wasn't accidental it was deliberate act just as deliberate as those drivers who misbehave on level crossings

I saw the signs activate and the driver of the truck should / must have done so. I am sure if a police patrol had seen that happen they would have taken action.

John

 

[Spartacus]

Thats from in the single file section where the drivers concentration would naturally be on vehicles coming in the other direction but this file does well illustrate the ample headroom at the entrance.
If you look at this photo which was quoted earlier in the thread the view of the signs is partially obstructed by the vegetation 64fc1fbb-1bb7-4425-ae10-227df51f49b4-jpeg.101969

Fooled by the perspective, I've seen a view from what would have been the driver's eye view and there's no obstruction. There's still the previous sign near the end of Ashford Hill that he'll have passed, and ignored, witha very visible low bridge and hill in front of him.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Don’t sat navs even have low bridge warnings these days or can be configured to do so?

It depends what sort of satnav you have. A specialist LGV satnav will include both details of bridge heights and are programmable with the height of the vehicle on that particular trip (remember the trailer is normally the highest point and can vary trip by trip) so that the route generated is suitable. However:

1 - they're more expensive than "normal" satnavs. My perception having looked at images of bridge strikes over the years is that the vehicles aren't normally those of "big" logistics companies / retailers so perhaps supports the penny-pinching smaller company / owner driver theory

2 - generating a valid route doesn't guarantee the driver will take it

 

[Robertj21a]

I can understand what you say and are probably correct in most occasions when it comes to railways, but I can't agree when it comes to roads. Why?

Because I saw an over height truck activate electronic warning signs continue regardless. It happened at a notorious bridge bash location on the old A30 where the road passed under the Newquay line on Goss Moor.

The bridge had had so many strikes an electric warning system was installed in the 1980s/90s which illuminated signs and directed over height lorries to an alternative route.

One day a year or two before the new by-pass was opened an removed the problem I was driving west bound behind a large truck which activated the warnings.

I expected it to turn off but continued straight towards the bridge.

Fearing the top of the truck would be sliced off and end up in the road in front of me or become firmly wedged and stop suddenly, I instinctively braked and expected the inevitable, slowing the traffic behind less there be a major pile up.

The truck cleared - must have only been by an inch.

Now if that wasn't a deliberate act of ignoring road signs and signals I don't know what is.

It wasn't accidental it was deliberate act just as deliberate as those drivers who misbehave on level crossings

I saw the signs activate and the driver of the truck should / must have done so. I am sure if a police patrol had seen that happen they would have taken action.

John

The driver probably did the same run every day, so knew that it would go through.

 

[Spartacus]

remember the trailer is normally the highest point and can vary trip by trip) so that the route generated is suitable.

Something the driver of the lorry that hit Marston East Bridge last night failed to appreciate. Lorry cab height 14'4", bridge height marked 14'6", and he swore he should have fit, failing to comprehend that the container on the back of his trailer, now at 45 degrees and resting against the protection beam, was a good deal taller than his cab! I've so far restrained myself, but, in cases like this, you can't fix stupid, they need their licences taking away.

Another recent example is a driver who struck a bridge while passing under, did actually stop and await attention, then promptly turned around, went under it again, struck it again, and did more damage than the first time!!

The driver probably did the same run every day, so knew that it would go through.

At some point it was his first time though. You often find these coming to grief when at some point the company gets new lorries that are slightly taller or the council resurfaces the road and ....

 

[John Luxton]

The driver probably did the same run every day, so knew that it would go through.

Quite possibly but it was a blatant disregard of signals and signs just as blatant as disregarding level crossing signals. Besides it was appeared close to the bridge I am sure possibly just a slight variation in tyre pressure could have had an effect. Okay by the time I had come to a virtual stop in anticipation of the impact I was several vehicle lengths away but it just seemed too close.

 

[GB]

Thats from in the single file section where the drivers concentration would naturally be on vehicles coming in the other direction but this file does well illustrate the ample headroom at the entrance.
If you look at this photo which was quoted earlier in the thread the view of the signs is partially obstructed by the vegetation 64fc1fbb-1bb7-4425-ae10-227df51f49b4-jpeg.101969

That is not from the drivers perspective. In any case, the job of a driver (any driver) is to look ahead and spot any hazards, not look at just what is immediately in front of them.

 

[Grumpy Git]

I still think the driver had zero spatial awareness of the rising road/diminishing height. Saw a big hole at the entrance and went for it? That road is very steep.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Sooner or later a bridge bash will probably result in a derailment and potential fatalities, it would be nice if the issue was dealt with in a more grown up and enlightened fashion before it reaches that point.

31st December 1975. Gorey, County Wexford. 1 railwayman and 4 passengers killed when an excavator on a trailer removed the bridge girders just before a train crossed (or attempted to cross).
Pat

 

[matchmaker]

Local 'improvisation' wasn't always a good idea. Back in BR's day, when I was with ScotRail, there was an un-planned line blockage between Perth and Dundee with a need for rail replacement buses. Local staff managed to make contact with a local school bus contractor whose afternoon work had just finished. Great!

Bus soon arrived at Perth station and loaded up with stranded passengers. Driver (who had only ever done local Perth work on pre-arranged routes) asked station staff for directions to Dundee - all long before sat-navs, of course. Helpful staff provided a route and happily waved the bus off.

"Ooops! Shouldn't we have told him about the low bridge just next to the station?"

CRUNCH! Fortunately it only took the roof off and nobody injured.

Perth has several low bridges in the centre of the city!

 

[P Binnersley]

Given the relative frequency of "Bridge Bashes" and the potential consequences, are RAIB considering a class investigation?

 

[43096]

Sooner or later a bridge bash will probably result in a derailment and potential fatalities, it would be nice if the issue was dealt with in a more grown up and enlightened fashion before it reaches that point.

As you didn’t specify a road bridge bash, there was the boat bridge bash in the US: the Big Bayou Canot disaster in 1993 that killed 47.

Big Bayou Canot rail accident - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[EveningStar]

I disagree and I'm old enough to remember being taught imperial measurements at primary school, but maybe as an engineer I'm biassed?

The only length measurement where I would default to imperial is in a conversation regarding my height.

Surveyor, so likewise. And people even get my height in metric, a resigned sigh and then the imperial equivalent.

Truth is, younger people are comfortable using metric, so it is about time we let go of the anachronistic.