Report of Partial Bridge Collapse WCML 11/6

[Bald Rick]

Are those freights route proving?

Not route proving as such, but they will be first over the bridge to check deflections etc inder load. It will have been checked by a structural engineer before that is permitted. That engineer must be on site now - imagine being him (or her), knowing that an assessment you have just perfromed is about to be tested by a thousand tonnes+ of freight train. It’s an even bet they will have their fingers crossed in their pockets.

 

[800001]

I am going to London on a Sunday in a months time from Manchester, I haven't booked my train yet. I am a better travelling up on a Saturday instead assuming this route probably won't be open by then? It looks like a huge job, even if you can complete the job in say a month it will surely take a long time to get the crew and materials together? Manchester to London trains seem to be running but with major delays but I know on a Sunday it is usually diversions at the best of times.

Two freights are heading towards the incident area, look to be maybe testing the lines etc

It will most certainly be open in a months time

 

[ox_chap]

If an accident like this doesn't have the road driver calling the emergency number (usually a panel on the bridge, with a number and location code), how do the trains normally stop? Passing train driver sees a missing abutment? Or a train driver reports a particularly rough ride over displaced rails. Presumably, this could have caused a very serious derailment?

 

[Omnishambles]

It will be chaos today. Starting the day’s service (tomorrow) already in a contingency for plan is considerably easier. Of course stock displacement may be an issue.

Stock displacement an issue yes, already marking up sets at Euston to stable at 2030. Crews tomorrow being time available as well after today. Couple that with additional delay with the old line now shut (Back tomorrow ?)

Start of day in contingency mode is all well and good and should be expected to be easier, i.e. more trains to choose from for a lesser service in theory, but once they have all started their first journeys the delays start to mount as they divert away from the point of obstruction into the melee of Bescot, Soho Road or the Stours all the time running to their original timetable so add in 45 mins minimum to each diversion
.
Glass half empty as I am I will be amazed if there isn’t considerable disruption again tomorrow (more than happy to come back and hold my hands up if not)

 

[Starmill]

Depends how urgent the work is, I'd be veey surprised they even postpone that especially if its been advertised to the general public for weeks and the necessary things put in place to facilitate it.

Work that's been planned a year in advance, and paid for, has gone in the bin before now. If that's cheaper than the cost of the disruption, you'd expect that to happen, arguably Network Rail would be bound to make that decision if so. If the line being worked on wouldn't be fit for trains or at risk of a debilitating speed restriction otherwise that may tip the balance back.

Minor works overnight get cancelled all the time at the last minute, literally every week somewhere it's happening. 99% of the time the passenger trains do not get put back on if it's at a day's notice.

 

[edwin_m]

Concrete is a ceramic. No way in hell is it going to be reused.

Looking closely at #2 I think it may have a crack roughly in line with the gouge.

If an accident like this doesn't have the road driver calling the emergency number (usually a panel on the bridge, with a number and location code), how do the trains normally stop? Passing train driver sees a missing abutment? Or a train driver reports a particularly rough ride over displaced rails. Presumably, this could have caused a very serious derailment?

One of the pictures was reported as from a dashcam so another road driver might have called it in, perhaps via 999 as they might think twice about getting close enough to read the number on the emergency sign.

If the cables and rails are intact then there's no way of detecting this until a train passes, and it doesn't bear thinking about what might have happened had one arrived at speed on an unsupported track.

 

[Bald Rick]

If an accident like this doesn't have the road driver calling the emergency number (usually a panel on the bridge, with a number and location code), how do the trains normally stop? Passing train driver sees a missing abutment? Or a train driver reports a particularly rough ride over displaced rails. Presumably, this could have caused a very serious derailment?

It would be pretty hard for a bridge bash, even a big one, to cause an abutment to be missing. If it was, there would then be nothing holding up one end of the bridge and a big hole. In this case the parapet has gone. As @Nicholas Lewis said, this is about the biggest damage I can recall in 30 years of being on the railway, and it probably looks a lot worse than it really is.

In the absence of any advice to the control office, or if a train is on approach as the incident happens, then yes the first line of defence is driver observation.

Thankfully, although bridge bashes are common (several a week), the percentage that cause any structural damage to the bridge is very small, and the percentage of those that cause structural damage to the bridge that then cause a loss of integrity to the track system is also very small.

There are far greater risks to railway safety from external factors, particularly at level crossings and from malicious trespassers (including cable theft).

 

[800001]

From what I've just been told from an Avanti source, 20mph allowed on up slow and up fast, nothing mentioned about Down lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

From what I've just been told from an Avanti source, 20mph allowed on up slow and up fast, nothing mentioned about Down lines.

It is the Up Slow side that has lost the parapet. The two lines that would be reopened (assuming they pass the assessments and tests) will be the Down TV and Up TV Fast. There are only three lines there.

Anyway 4M58 and 4L17 each have signals cleared to approach the bridge on the Down TV line, and Up Tv Fast line respectively.

 

[800001]

It is the Up Slow side that has lost the parapet. The two lines that would be reopened (assuming they pass the assessments and tests) will be the Down TV and Up TV Fast.

Only passing on what they had been told, I've asked them for clarification.
4L17 now routed south through Nuneaton.

 

[whoosh]

All the talk of sacrificial beams... yet we have checkout conveyor belts that stop when they detect a shopping item or 'next customer please' divider.
Big red stop sign lights that illuminate when a high vehicle approaches? 'Overheight!!!'

Fixed signage that is there all the time has it's place, but is pretty passive, and could be passed by a driver even on a daily basis whilst driving another vehicle - like to and from work - forming a crying wolf situation.

An active solution, screaming a warning literally or visually is what is needed.

 

[Omnishambles]

It is the Up Slow side that has lost the parapet. The two lines that would be reopened (assuming they pass the assessments and tests) will be the Down TV and Up TV Fast. There are only three lines there.

Anyway 4M58 and 4L17 both have signals cleared to approach the bridge on the Down TV line.

Looks like it, certainly 4L17 Up TV Fast

 

[Bald Rick]

Big red stop sign lights that illuminate when a high vehicle approaches? 'Overheight!!!'

As has been said upthread, they are not very effective. I used to live near one; it was ahead of the last junction so overheight vehicles could divert. It was also on a double decker bus route, so the sign was going off about 8 times an hour. It was also unreliable - who should own the sign, fault it, repair it, etc?

 

[D6130]

False economy, a simple metal girder will cost far less than just the repair to this bridge alone, before you start to take into consideration the cost of disruption.

Agreed.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

Interesting result when searching for "Budget Skips Exhall" on google :

 

[jfowkes]

Every time there's a serious bridge bash the forum has a big discussion about prevention and mitigation. It never comes to any firm conclusion because you're not going to find a simple, single, cost-effective solution to the problem. There's no physical protection solution that you can fit to every bridge. There's no technological solution that human beings can't work around or ignore. There's no technological solution that is 100% reliable.

So all you can do is try to prevent the holes in this Swiss cheese from lining up and reduce the impact when they do. And then decide what your budget is for that and where/how to spend it.

 

[Bald Rick]

“Hello driver of 4M58, anything to report?”
”Hello, Bob; well it didn’t spill my tea”

4L17 over.

1H75 next. Then 4L77 and 1A83. Then it should be open with a speed restriction each way. Great effort.

Now a big effort overnight to get sets in the right place, crews rested, and some timetable changes to accommodate having reduced capacity with a line out and speed restrictions. But let’s hope most passengers don’t even notice tomorrow.

 

[swt_passenger]

Swaythling Arch on the A27 in Southampton had a high vehicle detection system for about 25-30 years, even then drivers regularly ignored the flashing orange lights and warning display, and when the equipment eventually became life expired I think the council were extremely reluctant to pay for replacement. Not sure if they ever did.

 

[Unobrow]

Only for the company to reappear under a different name and the O Licence held by someone else...

I actually meant the “drivers” licence entitlement, but you are probably correct in that respect!

 

[Strathclyder]

Good lord, that is about the worst damage from a bridge strike I think I've seen in a long time, if ever. Extremely good fortune that nothing was approaching the bridge on the affected lines when this happened.

Granted, it more than likely looks far worse than it actually is and the two lines on the still-standing section of the structure may still be able to be used, if at a greatly reduced speed as pointed out above. I concur with @edwin_m that the initial damage was likely made worse by the fact the driver realizing what he had hit and then reversing out again, knocking out that side of the deck as he did. Whatever the case, the lorry company and the lorry driver will have some pretty serious questions to answer.

Every time there's a serious bridge bash the forum has a big discussion about prevention and mitigation. It never comes to any firm conclusion because you're not going to find a simple, single, cost effective solution to the problem. There's no physical protection solution that you can fit to every bridge. There's no technological solution that human beings can't work around or ignore. There's no technological solution that is 100% reliable.
So all you can do is try to prevent the holes in this swiss cheese from lining up and reduce the impact when they do. And then decide what your budget is for that and where/how to spend it.

Agreed, though I'd personally liken it more to a never-ending game of whack-a-mole of trying to mitigate the consequences of events like this which can never be fully mitigated against as we humans are always able to find new and exciting ways to bypass any and all preventative/protective measures, no matter how expensive and/or practical it is.

 

[blimmo]

Every time there's a serious bridge bash the forum has a big discussion about prevention and mitigation. It never comes to any firm conclusion because you're not going to find a simple, single, cost-effective solution to the problem. There's no physical protection solution that you can fit to every bridge. There's no technological solution that human beings can't work around or ignore. There's no technological solution that is 100% reliable.

So all you can do is try to prevent the holes in this Swiss cheese from lining up and reduce the impact when they do. And then decide what your budget is for that and where/how to spend it.

I mostly agree but I think that a metal bar across the road at bridge height in advance of the bridge is a massively underused solution that would be very effective and cheap especially in places such as this. I think the main reason it isn't used more widely is the bureaucratic issues caused by section 178 of the Highways Act 1980 requiring highways authority permission which frankly is a stupid reason to end up with this disruption.

 

[45Fox]

First passenger service in hours has gone through, 1H75 Euston to Manchester. Appears to have lost only 10 minutes between Rugby and Nuneaton.

On seeing various pictures a few hours ago I thought it might be closed for days, at least.
As has been previously said, a really good job done by all concerned.

 

[trainhero]

Today's damage was considerable and not the rail industry's fault.

However, its handling of the fallout has been the usual, avoidable shambles. Euston tonight, no announcements. Just a recording on a loop. Each train on the departure board saying "Preparing" for almost an hour, only to then disappear without trace. No management present at the station. Only junior, front line staff left to take the flak. The station's only information point and ticket office both shut by 9pm, whilst hundreds of passengers continue to linger on the concourse wondering what to do. Is this the standard Network / British Rail aspires to in 2026?

 

[Benjwri]

I mostly agree but I think that a metal bar across the road at bridge height in advance of the bridge is a massively underused solution that would be very effective and cheap especially in places such as this. I think the main reason it isn't used more widely is the bureaucratic issues caused by section 178 of the Highways Act 1980 requiring highways authority permission which frankly is a stupid reason to end up with this disruption.

They’re underused because they’re expensive. They need to be built so that they won’t just fail if hit by something, in which case drivers who causes issues like this one often don’t notice and keep on driving.

 

[stuving]

Looking at the pictures in posts #2 and #52, I can only explain what they show by:
1. Lorry comes in from the east and gets its lifting arm jammed under the first beam.
2. Driver activates the hydraulics so as to lift the beam (or at least lighten its weight on the abutments) and push it backwards until it (and the parapet) tips off and lands on the road behind the vehicle with a very loud thump-clatter noise.

Exactly why (2) was done, rather than just trying to lower the arm (if possible), is an interesting question, though it's probably not worthwhile speculating about that now.

 

[Spartacus]

Looking at the pictures in posts #2 and #52, I can only explain what they show by:
1. Lorry comes in from the east and gets its lifting arm jammed under the first beam.
2. Driver activates the hydraulics so as to lift the beam (or at least lighten its weight on the abutments) and push it backwards until it (and the parapet) tips off and lands on the road behind the vehicle with a very loud thump-clatter noise.

Exactly why (2) was done, rather than just trying to lower the arm (if possible), is an interesting question, though it's probably not worthwhile speculating about that now.

At a guess I'd say the driver wedged it, and tried to reverse out, but by then the arm's taken some weight and is lifted slightly or already cracked, reversing's just moved the concrete off it's footings and it's come crashing down as a result. Driver's then cacked themself and driven off with the concrete in the road behind them. This is the very reason drivers are told not to try moving if they're vehicle's wedged. Might have been ok if he'd just let the tyres down before trying to move.

 

[Recessio]

Incredible work by the railway to get that reopened so quickly, well done to everyone involved.

 

[Spartacus]

They’re underused because they’re expensive. They need to be built so that they won’t just fail if hit by something, in which case drivers who causes issues like this one often don’t notice and keep on driving.

That's it really, they're an expensive 'solution' even when viable, and create, unless you spend a humongous sum, a real hazard of it falling when struck, much greater than that of the bridge itself. Not really a win if your bridge is safe but your sacrificial beam's fallen on a minibus full of schoolkids and a mother with a pushchair.

 

[Harpo]

As @Nicholas Lewis said, this is about the biggest damage I can recall in 30 years of being on the railway, and it probably looks a lot worse than it really is.

Ditto. Apart from a lightweight bridge on the Central Wales line that used to get shifted off its bearings, the only significant bridge strike damage that I can recall in my career was Vigo at Bromsgrove, a brick arch bridge with a rising road and diminishing headroom, where a tipper ripped out the spandrel on exit. The structural damage wasn’t huge but the loss of the infill behind it undermined the track.

Overbridges above water bring far greater risks as seen at Glanrhyd (1987) or the Severn Valley’s recent structure damage landslip.

 

[Vexed]

Swaythling Arch on the A27 in Southampton had a high vehicle detection system for about 25-30 years, even then drivers regularly ignored the flashing orange lights and warning display, and when the equipment eventually became life expired I think the council were extremely reluctant to pay for replacement. Not sure if they ever did.

It must have been replaced as it went off last time I went past on a double decker bus (down Wide Lane/Wessex Lane, not through the arch!).