Sign under bridge: tasteless or amusing?

[mattdickinson]

What do people think?

IN CASE OF TIREDNESS

If you find yourself tired by this railway bridge please look right and visit The Fields Beneath: bu the station and state your order: "coffee please" then say: "and cake please"

Immediately after, say thanks & hope nothing hits this bridge

 

[Emyr]

Amusing but not ok, as this sign needs to be referred to in an emergency scenario by persons who may not be in a fit state for sign-based humour.

 

[spongsdad]

Amusing but not ok, as this sign needs to be referred to in an emergency scenario by persons who may not be in a fit state for sign-based humour.

We managed for decades without signs on bridges. Most people will be perfectly capable of dialling 999 in any true emergency. If one sign is acceptable, so are two and even better that the second has a bit of levity. Better still would be to consign these signs, along with much of the other unnecessary road furniture which despoils our countryside to their rightful place on the scrapheap.

 

[carriageline]

Personally, ringing 999 isn't enough in the case of bridge strikes, and personally doesn't get the information to the signaller quickly enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tomnick]

Exactly - it's important that the information gets to the controlling box as quickly as possible. The telephone number given on the bridge strike plates, as I understand it, goes to a dedicated phone line in Control who can then quickly take the necessary action. Dialling 999 would lead to a significantly slower response.

 

[spongsdad]

Personally, ringing 999 isn't enough in the case of bridge strikes, and personally doesn't get the information to the signaller quickly enough.

My first concern on witnessing a bridge strike would be for the welfare of any occupants of the vehicle. Therefore, I would dial 999. If the vehicle didn't stop, I would still dial 999 and and ask for the police. I certainly wouldn't be faffing around looking for a sign telling me whom to 'phone.

 

[Minilad]

My first concern on witnessing a bridge strike would be for the welfare of any occupants of the vehicle. Therefore, I would dial 999. If the vehicle didn't stop, I would still dial 999 and and ask for the police. I certainly wouldn't be faffing around looking for a sign telling me whom to 'phone.

What about the hundreds of people on the train approaching the bridge that may have been damaged by the strike ? Is 999 going to get that train stopped

 

[Tomnick]

My first concern on witnessing a bridge strike would be for the welfare of any occupants of the vehicle. Therefore, I would dial 999. If the vehicle didn't stop, I would still dial 999 and and ask for the police. I certainly wouldn't be faffing around looking for a sign telling me whom to 'phone.

...hence the need for the sign telling you what needs to be done to be prominent and carrying clear instructions, not lost in a sea of unnecessary signs. The priority is to get approaching trains stopped if necessary - even if there are injured people, their day isn't going to get much better if the worst case scenario comes to pass.

 

[Emyr]

The sign also helps if you need to tell the 999 operator where you are.

 

[spongsdad]

What about the hundreds of people on the train approaching the bridge that may have been damaged by the strike ? Is 999 going to get that train stopped

So, I have to find somewhere safe to stop my car, hope there's a mobile phone signal (assuming I have a mobile phone). look for the sign, find the number to call, call it, report all the details and only then call 999. What are our emergency services for?
Incidentally, when was the last time a person using the railway was seriously or fatally injured as a result of a bridge strike?
My point is simply that a situation deemed to be an emergency should be notified to the Emergency services a.s.a.p. The clue is in the name.

 

[Drsatan]

Is it me or is it unlikely someone from Network Rail put up the sign? Something tells me it's a practical joke.

 

[ilkestonian]

My view is that I'd be waiting a long long time if I waited for Railtrack to answer the phone.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Quite a clever, amusing, advertisement.

For the record, 999 control rooms have emergency telephone numbers for all Network Rail, London Underground and other railway controls.

 

[Tomnick]

So, I have to find somewhere safe to stop my car, hope there's a mobile phone signal (assuming I have a mobile phone). look for the sign, find the number to call, call it, report all the details and only then call 999.

Yes. Given that there's likely to be a vehicle wedged under the bridge or stopped nearby, it's not that difficult, is it? If you haven't got a mobile phone, how are you going to dial 999?

What are our emergency services for?

Not arranging for the passage of trains to be stopped - dialling the number shown will achieve that far more quickly.

Incidentally, when was the last time a person using the railway was seriously or fatally injured as a result of a bridge strike?

I don't know, but the risk still remains.

My point is simply that a situation deemed to be an emergency should be notified to the Emergency services a.s.a.p. The clue is in the name.

As those of us who have to deal with these things have repeatedly pointed out, the priority is to get trains stopped, and the emergency services aren't in the best position to do that.

 

[carriageline]

So, I have to find somewhere safe to stop my car, hope there's a mobile phone signal (assuming I have a mobile phone). look for the sign, find the number to call, call it, report all the details and only then call 999. What are our emergency services for?

Incidentally, when was the last time a person using the railway was seriously or fatally injured as a result of a bridge strike?

My point is simply that a situation deemed to be an emergency should be notified to the Emergency services a.s.a.p. The clue is in the name.

There have been plenty of bridge strikes that have well and truly stopped the job for a number of hours. If they was late being reported, who knows what of happened?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mattdickinson]

Quite a clever, amusing, advertisement.

For the record, 999 control rooms have emergency telephone numbers for all Network Rail, London Underground and other railway controls.

It's a advert for the coffee shop in the railway arch next to Kentish Town West station

 

[spongsdad]

Quite a clever, amusing, advertisement.

For the record, 999 control rooms have emergency telephone numbers for all Network Rail, London Underground and other railway controls.

Precisely! Game, set and match, I think. Now, about those unnecessary and useless signs.

 

[Tomnick]

What makes you think that you know better than those who, with the benefit of experience, have decided that these bridge strike plates are justified and that the response shown on them is the best one?

The one and only (thankfully) bridge strike that I have been directly involved with was only reported to the emergency services initially, who then passed it onto our Control, who in turn passed it onto me. At some point during the process, the engineers' line reference was missed out, and the whole thing became very confusing (there are two bridges, on different lines, with the same number under the control of the box in question). I'd estimate that it cost an extra two or three minutes, which would have made the difference between getting the approaching train stopped or having it run onto the potentially damaged bridge, had it not been running a few minutes late. Our Control know, without really thinking about it, the informationt that they need to obtain from the caller, and can quickly act upon it. The emergency services, through no fault of their own, are less well placed to deal with that information, and in particular prompting the caller for information that hasn't been provided. In London, how would they know whether to pass the information onto Network Rail or London Underground?

 

[Trog]

Looks harmless to me, the mild distraction value is balanced by the good it will do by drawing peoples attention to and getting them to read the emergency sign above it. So that if they later see a bridge strike accident they may remember that there is a sign telling them who to ring direct rather than playing Chinese whispers via the 999 control room.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's standard practice for whoever (999 or NR) gets the first call to inform the other immediately. I'm not going to get into the argument of who to call first and why that may or may not be best, but frankly the important point is that it gets reported rather than ignored.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The emergency services, through no fault of their own, are less well placed to deal with that information, and in particular prompting the caller for information that hasn't been provided. In London, how would they know whether to pass the information onto Network Rail or London Underground?

999 control rooms are very well versed with calls to Network Rail and other rail infrastructure and maintain thousands of different railway locations in the mapping systems.

 

[Tomnick]

999 control rooms are very well versed with calls to Network Rail and other rail infrastructure and maintain thousands of different railway locations in the mapping systems.

I don't doubt that they know their stuff, but their response is never going to be as quick as it would be if the call was directly straight to the relevant Control. It's bound to take a minute or two just to identify the bridge in question and work out whether it's NR's or LU's, for example, surely?

 

[richw]

AS it refers to Railtrack with a Railtrack telephone number- has this number been taken over by Network Rail or will it be a dud number?

 

[bb21]

I don't think you can ever change people's reactions when an accident is witnessed. In many people's minds, the instinct is to dial 999. They are not going to look around for a strike plate first, and most probably wouldn't even be aware of the need to call Network Rail.

What is most important in these case I think is to educate people so that they ensure both the emergency services and Network Rail are informed. I see very little point in arguing which number should be dialled first as I doubt you will persuade many that 999 should not be contacted first.

We managed for decades without signs on bridges. Most people will be perfectly capable of dialling 999 in any true emergency. If one sign is acceptable, so are two and even better that the second has a bit of levity. Better still would be to consign these signs, along with much of the other unnecessary road furniture which despoils our countryside to their rightful place on the scrapheap.

That is ridiculous logic. The strike plate gives vital information on how to contact the relevant parties in the event of an emergency and it helps ensure the safety of everyone. Additional signs that are of no relevance should not be permitted to divert attention away from them.

I would rather the strike plate remains in place thank you very much.

 

[spongsdad]

What makes you think that you know better than those who, with the benefit of experience, have decided that these bridge strike plates are justified and that the response shown on them is the best one?

Just so that I get this right; your personal experience is of one bridge strike which was reported via a 999 call and which did not result in injury to any railway user. So why do you insist that NR's signs are better for Mr & Mrs Ordinary Public than the much simpler and less confusing instruction to dial 999 "in case of emergency"? As an ordinary member of the public I have more than enough to keep me occupied in my daily life, but I know what to do in an emergency.; plain and simple.
Incidentally, if I am unfortunate/careless enough to hit a bridge, should I check whether it is a railway or perhaps a canal bridge. If the latter, do I contact British Waterways?

 

[Tomnick]

No railway user in my case was injured, because I was able (only by sending six bells to the adjacent box) to have the approaching train stopped. As it happened, the bridge wasn't damaged anyway, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case even if it usually is. If the train hadn't been late, it would have run onto the bridge before it could have been stopped - those two or three minutes could have made all the difference. Even if the instruction was to dial 999, it'd still need to show the bridge number and engineers' line reference, as that's by far the quickest way for the bridge to be accurately identified - but, again, it will take more time for the job to be stopped.

 

[spongsdad]

That is ridiculous logic. The strike plate gives vital information on how to contact the relevant parties in the event of an emergency and it helps ensure the safety of everyone. Additional signs that are of no relevance should not be permitted to divert attention away from them.

I would rather the strike plate remains in place thank you very much.

You seem to want it both ways. A majority believes that the thing to do IN AN EMERGENCY is to dial 999. You don't need a sign for that. Mr Average will recognise an emergency when he sees one

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I don't doubt that they know their stuff, but their response is never going to be as quick as it would be if the call was directly straight to the relevant Control. It's bound to take a minute or two just to identify the bridge in question and work out whether it's NR's or LU's, for example, surely?

Lots of incidents are reported to the emergency services first (or sometimes reported to both at the same time) - trespassing, vandalism, suicides, etc and it somehow works fine. Intelligence sharing between the emergency services and Network Rail is commonplace and emergency planning officers on both sides meet regularly to iron out these sorts of issues. Not all bridges are provided with ID plates, and in that case Network Rail's advice is to ring 999.

In any case, as I posted above in the grand scheme of things it probably doesn't matter who you ring first, just ring someone.

I think what bb21 posted is most accurate. We can protest on here as long as we like about what is right or wrong, but it is not going to change the standard response of Joe Public to what they perceive to be an emergency - which is to dial 999.

 

[Tomnick]

You seem to want it both ways. A majority believes that the thing to do IN AN EMERGENCY is to dial 999. You don't need a sign for that. Mr Average will recognise an emergency when he sees one

You DO need a sign to enable the bridge to be quickly and correctly identified. Whilst dialling 999 might not make a huge difference to the response time (I agree with Ralph's post on that matter), if you're going to have a sign, you might as well show a number to dial to ensure the quickest possible response. If a member of the public sees the sign and follows the instructions - no problem. If they don't, for whatever reason, see the sign, then at least the 999 operator has something to point them towards to get the bridge details.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So I've been digging through our intranet to try and find out exactly what rail information is available to control room staff.

In the mapping system there is an overlay (enabled by the control room operator) that shows what areas are covered by what NR control room, and the contact number for them. Whether or not this can separate between LUL locations (I know the mapping system can take LUL location codes - similar to STANOX) I'm not sure.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks, interesting stuff. It's good to know that the mechanism is there to ensure that reports are passed rapidly from one side to the other! It's no use if the member of the public making the report can't identify their location though, hence the continued importance of the bridge plate .

A quick question for spongsdad. If you witnessed a serious bridge strike - an HGV striking an under(line) bridge at speed and becoming wedged under it, with no serious injuries to the driver or anyone else nearby, and you could clearly see the bridge plate carrying instructions to phone the railway authority - what would you do?