Bridge Strikes

[Peter Mugridge]

While Tulse Hill is in LB Lambeth it isn't actually anywhere near Lambeth...

This bridge is going to be the clear winner in the latest NR annual Bridge strike stats as it was in joint 1st on 20 last year.

The repaint last August / September just made in more popular to get hit!

Network Rail told me today that the damage was confined to the protective beam and the line was re-opened in ten minutes after a quick inspection - it must have happened during the hours when they have someone on standby at the location for exactly this sort of thing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Network Rail told me today that the damage was confined to the protective beam and the line was re-opened in ten minutes after a quick inspection - it must have happened during the hours when they have someone on standby at the location for exactly this sort of thing.

There's cameras on it that can be viewed remotely over the web, so appropriately trained people in the route control can get the line reopened. However today it was indeed the case that one of the MOMs was there.

 

[carriageline]

I believe the MOM also has to be in that area during the peaks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I believe the MOM also has to be in that area during the peaks?

Yes, they do now have someone required to be there on standby duty between certain hours in and around the peaks in case of a bridge strike but I'm not sure of the actual hours involved. I'm guessing he or she will be at Tulse Hill station itself.

 

[hwl]

Yes, they do now have someone required to be there on standby duty between certain hours in and around the peaks in case of a bridge strike but I'm not sure of the actual hours involved. I'm guessing he or she will be at Tulse Hill station itself.

The NR Tulse Hill Maintenance Yard is even closer!
(Next to the platforms to the south side and accessed from the side road next to the bridge)

 

[Antman]

I think we have to accept the haulage industry for what it is.

The railway needs to put substantial barriers in place so the bridges aren't touched but the HGV is reduced to matchwood.

I thought Tulse Hill bridge was protected by a beam?

It was a container lorry that hit it and obviously that isn't going to be reduced to matchwood
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If someone said that every time a train driver made a mistake. I have every reason to suspect that this forum would implode with "Lets wait for the outcome of the investigation" or "We weren't there so we can't judge" type posts.

Exactly and is there anybody on here who never makes mistakes? If so perhaps they could let the rest of us into the secret?

 

[furnessvale]

I thought Tulse Hill bridge was protected by a beam?

It was a container lorry that hit it and obviously that isn't going to be reduced to matchwood

Compared to the beam "I" would install even the container would be "matchwood" (obviously a figure of speech).

 

[Antman]

Compared to the beam "I" would install even the container would be "matchwood" (obviously a figure of speech).

The container lorry would probably overturn if it were doing any sort of speed and possibly cause more injuries.

 

[najaB]

The container lorry would probably overturn if it were doing any sort of speed and possibly cause more injuries.

I guess a high-power laser (optionally shark mounted) is out of the question then?

 

[jopsuk]

I think we have to accept the haulage industry for what it is.

We really, really don't have to

 

[Antman]

We really, really don't have to

So what is your suggestion?

 

[jopsuk]

Stricter training requirements, tougher penalties for "minor" breaches. Things the haulage industry campaigns vociferously against

 

[Antman]

Stricter training requirements, tougher penalties for "minor" breaches. Things the haulage industry campaigns vociferously against

Well there is more training than ever now with the CPC course although quite frankly that's a waste of time and I'm not sure how tougher penalties are going to help as I don't suppose anybody hits a low bridge intentionally.

 

[dcsprior]

Well there is more training than ever now with the CPC course although quite frankly that's a waste of time and I'm not sure how tougher penalties are going to help as I don't suppose anybody hits a low bridge intentionally.

I don't expect anyone hits a low bridge intentionally, but I expect some do knowingly drive height restriction signs that their vehicles are too big for, believing they'll get away with it, and some of those will be responsible for bridge strikes. Perhaps cameras triggered by broken light beams or similar, leading to points/fines/summons?

Or maybe a ban on operating vehicles over a certain height without an in-cab alarm (using GPS or picking up a signal from the roadside) when it was about to break a height restriction?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[najaB]

I don't expect anyone hits a low bridge intentionally, but I expect some do knowingly drive height restriction signs that their vehicles are too big for, believing they'll get away with it, and some of those will be responsible for bridge strikes.

No need to 'expect' it, just look at the earlier posts in this thread (by GearJammer in particular) e.g.:

Umm... so you deliberately drove a vehicle that you knew exceeded the height restriction shown on the sign under the structure that displayed the height restriction?

Word it how you like, I drove past a sign that I knew to be wrong, I drove my truck under a bridge that it fitted under.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I'm curious about what kind of penalty a driver can expect from their employer for such an incident. Say you drive your truck into a low bridge, you damage your trailer/container and at least delay the delivery of your load (if it's not also damaged).

Perhaps you also incur a bill from Network Rail for the company for damage and delay.

Surely any employer with any grain of sense will be looking seriously at whether they want to employ that driver anymore?

 

[furnessvale]

The container lorry would probably overturn if it were doing any sort of speed and possibly cause more injuries.

The alternative to a beam which will stop ANY road vehicle from striking the structure of the rail bridge can only be no beam, or a beam which will permit some strikes.

The consequences of a displaced bridge beam under a heavily loaded passenger train could be far worse.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Stricter training requirements, tougher penalties for "minor" breaches. Things the haulage industry campaigns vociferously against

Good luck with that one. The government are quite content to give the haulage industry as free a rein as it can get away with, in exchange for which it gets freight movement within the UK on the cheap.

 

[Antman]

I'm curious about what kind of penalty a driver can expect from their employer for such an incident. Say you drive your truck into a low bridge, you damage your trailer/container and at least delay the delivery of your load (if it's not also damaged).

Perhaps you also incur a bill from Network Rail for the company for damage and delay.

Surely any employer with any grain of sense will be looking seriously at whether they want to employ that driver anymore?

They might well terminate the drivers employment but then they've then got to find another driver and with the cost of a CPC and everything else not many people seem to want to be lorry drivers nowadays.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z5CtGAiFfQ

I wonder what was going through his mind?

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm curious about what kind of penalty a driver can expect from their employer for such an incident. Say you drive your truck into a low bridge, you damage your trailer/container and at least delay the delivery of your load (if it's not also damaged).

Perhaps you also incur a bill from Network Rail for the company for damage and delay.

Surely any employer with any grain of sense will be looking seriously at whether they want to employ that driver anymore?

Probable P45 (edit) from the employer due to gross negligence.
Possible Driving without Due Care prosecution by the Police (I know of several cases that has happened)
Claim by Network Rail against employer for repairs to the bridge and the delay minutes incurred (I know that has happened in several cases)
Revocation of the Operators Licence due to the number of offences committed by a company (That certainly happened in West Wales )

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Probable P60 from the employer due to gross negligence.
Possible Driving without Due Care prosecution by the Police (I know of several cases that has happened)
Claim by Network Rail against employer for repairs to the bridge and the delay minutes incurred (I know that has happened in several cases)
Revocation of the Operators Licence due to the number of offences committed by a company (That certainly happened in West Wales )

Pretty serious consequences, then. So why do so many take the risk? Including our friend Gearjammer?

 

[Llanigraham]

Because they do, and/or they think they know better, and/or they don't actually know the height of their vehicle.

 

[HowardGWR]

I presume that the haulier's insurance company has to pay NR for the oft-quoted huge amounts* that NR have to pay up to the TOCs as a result of what would be held to be a NR fault, under the contract arrangements.

*When a vandal or thief causes signal cable failure, NR is quoted in the eventual court case as having paid out (usually) anything up to about half a million pounds.

 

[Antman]

Pretty serious consequences, then. So why do so many take the risk? Including our friend Gearjammer?

I'm not sure that anybody takes the risk, more a case of human error, we all make mistakes.

 

[Zoidberg]

Probable P60 from the employer ...

I suspect that you are thinking of the P45.

A P60 (certificate of pay and tax deducted to 5th April in the tax year) is given by the employer to those in employment on 5th April that year.

 

[Antman]

Probable P60 from the employer due to gross negligence.
Possible Driving without Due Care prosecution by the Police (I know of several cases that has happened)
Claim by Network Rail against employer for repairs to the bridge and the delay minutes incurred (I know that has happened in several cases)
Revocation of the Operators Licence due to the number of offences committed by a company (That certainly happened in West Wales )

Revoking an OL is more likely because of offences relating to driving hours and/or vehicle defects. I mean it's hardly the companies fault if one of their drivers hits a low bridge.

 

[mac]

I'm not sure that anybody takes the risk, more a case of human error, we all make mistakes.

That's true just like the 8 car train driver yesterday who stopped at the 4 car stop and opened the doors. With all his training mistakes happen just lucky nobody didn't step out.

 

[Llanigraham]

I suspect that you are thinking of the P45.

A P60 (certificate of pay and tax deducted to 5th April in the tax year) is given by the employer to those in employment on 5th April that year.

Sorry, yes. Now corrected.

 

[silverfoxcc]

Understand that the SER bridge at Wokingham got a hit today about lunchtime

 

[Flying Snail]

I'm not sure that anybody takes the risk, more a case of human error, we all make mistakes.

Most are probably mistakes but some will be drivers thinking that they can get through anyway even though they know the given height is too low for their vehicle.

I doubt any of the double decker buses de-roofed are a result of a driver taking a chance they will fit, just carelessness.

 

[asylumxl]

I wonder what was going through his mind?

I'm personally going to go with "nothing" :P.