Sign under bridge: tasteless or amusing?

[ralphchadkirk]

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 .

I agree. If people don't know where they are the whole process becomes rather pointless.

 

[3141]

To go back to the OP: it's amusing, it isn't tasteless, but it's a bit childish and it probably shouldn't be there because, in the event of a bridge strike, it may be extremely important that Network Rail should be notified as quickly as possible with full and accurate details of the location, and even a few moments' delay, while some reads the second notice and realises it's irrelevant, may matter.

Should you dial NR's number or 999? If you're aware that bridges have these plates and you can see the one on the ridge that's just been struck, probably best dial NR. If it's a major road accident, many people would dial 999 and quite reasonably. Dial one or other and don't dither trying to check what conclusion was reached on this thread.

 

[spongsdad]

On a serious note, I am grateful to those who have responded or, if you like, reacted to my several posts. I give everyone credit for having the best of intentions when trying to make their point.
I would only wish to make the following general observations.
1) In a real emergency, we all know how to summon help; dial 999 and ask for the service you require. This is drummed into us from childhood and we can do it instinctively. In my experience 999 calls are picked up immediately saving precious seconds and the operators are pretty good at asking for the information they require.
2) Cell phone locations can be pinpointed very accurately these days. Try the "find my iPhone app" to see how good location services are. This renders much of the strike plate information superfluous.
3) Most road users-and I think we are talking about road rather than rail users here-will be familiar with the plethora of signs, road markings and instructions which bedevil our roads these days. I invite anyone to drive for 1 mile down any urban or even down a country road these days and count these. Many of you may be surprised by the number. Some of these signs will be essential, some will be helpful, many will be totally useless. Many of these signs will be missed by an average driver and the risk is that he will miss the "essential" ones.
Put simply, signs should be judged by their utility. If they are NOT essential, then in general terms they shouldn't be there. This gives the best chance for noticing the "Vital" signs.
4) An impact with a bridge is, I would have thought, a traffic accident. In notifying a traffic accident, surely the best people to contact are the emergency services and the best way to do that is 999.
This brings me to where I came in. The strike plates may contain "helpful" information, but according to several informed posters on here, it would be stretching credulity to assert that they are "Vital" I therefore return to my original submission that we could do without these signs (I recollect that bridges used to have simple numbers) which on the whole tend to deface bridges, many of which have great architectural merit.
Oh, and if I may make a final point to BB21, logic is not a word that needs any qualification. There is no such thing as ridiculous logic. My argument may be logical or illogical but the logic itself is not ridiculous. If it's illogical, please tell me how.

 

[Tomnick]

On a serious note, I am grateful to those who have responded or, if you like, reacted to my several posts. I give everyone credit for having the best of intentions when trying to make their point.
I would only wish to make the following general observations.
1) In a real emergency, we all know how to summon help; dial 999 and ask for the service you require. This is drummed into us from childhood and we can do it instinctively. In my experience 999 calls are picked up immediately saving precious seconds and the operators are pretty good at asking for the information they require.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Our Control will be even better at finding out what they need to know though!

2) Cell phone locations can be pinpointed very accurately these days. Try the "find my iPhone app" to see how good location services are. This renders much of the strike plate information superfluous.

That still needs to be converted to a bridge number and ELR to get trains stopped at the right location though - the railway doesn't operate on co-ordinates!

3) Most road users-and I think we are talking about road rather than rail users here-will be familiar with the plethora of signs, road markings and instructions which bedevil our roads these days. I invite anyone to drive for 1 mile down any urban or even down a country road these days and count these. Many of you may be surprised by the number. Some of these signs will be essential, some will be helpful, many will be totally useless. Many of these signs will be missed by an average driver and the risk is that he will miss the "essential" ones.
Put simply, signs should be judged by their utility. If they are NOT essential, then in general terms they shouldn't be there. This gives the best chance for noticing the "Vital" signs.

I can't disagree with the principle of what you say, but...

4) An impact with a bridge is, I would have thought, a traffic accident. In notifying a traffic accident, surely the best people to contact are the emergency services and the best way to do that is 999.
This brings me to where I came in. The strike plates may contain "helpful" information, but according to several informed posters on here, it would be stretching credulity to assert that they are "Vital" I therefore return to my original submission that we could do without these signs (I recollect that bridges used to have simple numbers) which on the whole tend to deface bridges, many of which have great architectural merit.

...bridge plates still provide the quickest means of identifying the affected bridge, so are important. They're also not generally positioned for the benefit of the motorist who's driving along, but rather for the member of the public who's surveying the scene after an accident - so don't really form part of the 'clutter' caused by too many signs. No-one has said that the bridge number and ELR aren't important (they still are identified by number, but the ELR is necessary to indicate the route that they're on, the bridge numbers not being unique otherwise). I'm yet to see a good reason why the bridge plates shouldn't be provided.

 

[OuterDistant]

Well, this is an odd coincidence, given that I witnessed a bridge strike this very lunchtime! However, I didn't report it, because:

• I was in a nearby office block, and there were already several people present at the scene.
• It happened right next to Stoke power box, and the signallers must have heard it happen, because they were soon out having a look.

However, if I had been at the actual scene and there were no major injuries, I would have called the number on the bridge ASAP, given that this would probably be the quickest way to get the trains stopped*. Whether this would occur to the rest of the public is, of course, another matter!

* Although in this case, mere seconds after it happened, a 153 went over the bridge.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Worth noting that *if* on the 28th February 2001, the land rover driver who ended up on the ECML after coming off the M62 had managed to ring a number to directly speak to the railway authorities instead of 999, 10 lives could have been saved. I have reported a bridge bash whilst off duty, the lorry driver involved had no intention of informing the railway authorities despite the potential consequences. At work, I have been cautioned for a few bridge bashes and have also had a signal thrown to red in my face whilst doing 90mph due to one, luckily I stopped just short of the bridge (over 1/2 a mile after chucking the brake in) and even more luckily, there was no deformation to the track or serious damage to the bridge. Potentially, the results of a bridge bash or a road vehicle obstructing a railway can cause a major incident with multiple fatalities. As someone who spends my working life sat in the crumple zone of several hundred tonne of train (and who unfortunately knows only too well the devastating consequences of a train hitting a car) I'd like to think people take this issue seriously.
Clearly not...

 

[tony_mac]

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

47 killed in 1993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Big_Bayou_Canot_train_wreck

closer to home, 5 killed in 1975
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=1358

In 2008 the passengers and train driver ended up injured, but apparently not too seriously.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=189841&postcount=35
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2008/report182008.cfm

The plates also let people know that a bridge strike is serious, and should be reported immediately.
Many people may only be concerning with reporting injuries that they can see. They may, perhaps, report that a vehicle has struck a wall, but without understanding the significance of it being the railway bridge.

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 .

This was a problem in the 1993 accident - it took nearly 20 minutes just to identify the location of the crash.
(although plates wouldn't have helped, it was a river bridge as well as being dark and foggy)

 

[Be3G]

Something I've always wondered is, what actually counts as a strike for the purposes of notifying Network Rail? What if it's more of a bridge ‘bump’ by someone driving slowly (e.g. trying to park?) who momentarily lapses concentration and ends up reversing in to it at 5mph? Does speed not really matter with Network Rail wanting to know about any occasions that a vehicle comes in to contact with a bridge, no matter how trivial-seeming?

 

[Emyr]

E = M * V * V so 5mph should be safe depending on the construction of the bridge, the angle of impact and the type of vehicle.

 

[andyb2706]

The second sign is totally unacceptable.

Not sure if this has been said, but the official sign is a phone within the Network Rail control so that trains can be stopped as soon as possible until the bridge has been examined.

Dialling 999 is not a good option in this instance, the number of times Network Rail receive calls this way and the information that is fed through to NR is vague or incorrect.

These Network Rail bridge signs protect the railway travelling public and also allow them to get the Network Rail response teams to the correct location as quickly as possibly, and hopefully if the bridge is not damaged too much it helps to get the services up and running at line speed quicker, with out the silly type of sign that is in this picture.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Something I've always wondered is, what actually counts as a strike for the purposes of notifying Network Rail? What if it's more of a bridge ‘bump’ by someone driving slowly (e.g. trying to park?) who momentarily lapses concentration and ends up reversing in to it at 5mph? Does speed not really matter with Network Rail wanting to know about any occasions that a vehicle comes in to contact with a bridge, no matter how trivial-seeming?

Speed doesn't matter. Any form of contact with the bridge by a motorised vehicle should be reported to Network Rail with full details given whether it is a gentle bump or an almighty thump.

Network Rail will then get their teams out to assess the situation. By the way I am one of the responders to bridge strikes for Network Rail and have attended scenes where the vehicle has been a right off and no damage to the bridge but on other occasions I have not been happy with the damage and escalated the situation and others have not been happy either, we had one the other month that resulted in the line being shut for 72 hours while major repairs where carried out on the bridge, so yes it is important to report any bridge strike.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

Tom, I totally agree with what you have said here. The number of times information has been fed through to Network Rail from emergency control rooms with information either missing or totally wrong....in the past we have had road names given to us that are over 1/2 mile from the railway!!

In bridge strikes ring Network Rail first, 99% of bridge strikes are not live threatening incidents to the vehicle occupants. Network Rail can stop the trains quickly with new technology that is coming on line. If it was clear that peoples lives are threatened (ie vehicle fire with trapped persons) by all means dial 999 first, but then ring Network Rail, all I am saying is assess the situation and go from there.

Worse case scenario..... vehicle hits a bridge, occaupants wandering around vehicle clearly unhurt but may be a little shook up, you call 999, time lag of 3-4 minutes before Network Rails phone rings, in the meantime a 100+ tonne train goes across the bridge and it collapses. Now you have multiple casualties/fatalities.

Right, I need to get off my soap box now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

E = M * V * V so 5mph should be safe depending on the construction of the bridge, the angle of impact and the type of vehicle.

Also depends on the past history of bridge strikes at that location, could be whatever damage had previously occurred at that bridge the damage that has been caused by this 5mph bump could send it to the next level and the bridge may required repairs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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

The general layout of the spoof sign even to the type of border used shows that the Network Rail sign has indeed been the inspiration for this one.

 

[Pumbaa]

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?

I agree with ralphchadkirk and bb21. It may not be as quick or accurate, but Joe Public will not look for a plate. They'll react and call 999. If they see the plate, its done its job.

A quick look and memory jog - I can only think of one call of a bridge strike that came from a member of the public on our route this year. The rest (probably close to one a weeK) have been filtered via the emergency services, and on the odd occasion, from station staff who've been contacted.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You're not going to change human behaviour to call Network Rail rather than 999 in these situations. It may not be what you want to hear, but it isn't going to happen.

Therefore, if there is a serious problem with emergency control rooms receiving and acting on these calls (I don't believe there is, but AndyB is the one dealing with these professionally and he says there is) then each and every instance of missed information/inaccurate locations needs feeding back so a QAM or equivalent can pull the tapes and event log and review the process. They can submit for changes to be made to the mapping/protocols to ensure that events like have been alleged do not happen again.

 

[Tomnick]

I agree with ralphchadkirk and bb21. It may not be as quick or accurate, but Joe Public will not look for a plate. They'll react and call 999. If they see the plate, its done its job.

That's the point I've been trying to make really. I think we all agree that the best course of action, as a member of the public, is to follow the instructions on the bridge plate, but that it's better for them to dial 999 than to do nothing at all! Either way, it shows that the bridge plates should be as prominent as possible, so that there's more chance of them being seen and acted upon, or - if they're not seen - so that they can be easily located to provide the necessary information to the 999 operator.

As a bit of an aside, in response to the question of whether minor bumps should be reported (yes, they should, but in practice an element of common sense is inevitably going to be applied) - quite a few bridges have dispensation, to one of three levels, to allow trains to run (at 5mph, at 20mph or at linespeed) following a report provided that certain conditions are satisfied. Many bridges also have a 'light vehicle' dispensation, exactly for those less 'substantial' impacts - so a report in those circumstances won't necessarily result in a disproportionate amount of disruption. If in doubt, make the phone call. Incidentally, that's another good reason for the call to be made directly to Control - they know exactly what questions need to be asked to determine whether any dispensations apply.

 

[Be3G]

Thanks andyb2706 and Tomnick. I suppose what I was really asking was whether the Network Rail/railway control people would be annoyed with me for phoning up over a low-speed bump in the way that 999 would tell you off for phoning up about, say, a cat stuck up a tree. If it's best to report absolutely any collision with a motorised vehicle however then that's good to know; after all, control can decide whether to take any further action or not.

 

[spongsdad]

Network Rail put out the following tweet today. Seems as though they are happy with 999 after all; though of course you are free to call them on a number which is charged at premium rates on most mobiles
https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/502867910050979842

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That's the point I've been trying to make really. I think we all agree that the best course of action, as a member of the public, is to follow the instructions on the bridge plate, but that it's better for them to dial 999 than to do nothing at all! Either way, it shows that the bridge plates should be as prominent as possible, so that there's more chance of them being seen and acted upon, or - if they're not seen - so that they can be easily located to provide the necessary information to the 999 operator.

Absolutely.

 

[Tomnick]

Network Rail put out the following tweet today. Seems as though they are happy with 999 after all; though of course you are free to call them on a number which is charged at premium rates on most mobiles
https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/502867910050979842

That's general advice, not specific to bridge strikes. Do you acknowledge that it'll take longer to get trains stopped by dialling 999, BTP's general call centre* or Network Rail's public helpline (in descending order of usefulness) than it would by dialling the number shown on the bridge plate? If not, then you really ought to tell me where I'm going wrong in my job, because I clearly don't understand what I'm doing. Either way, can you explain how you expect a member of the public, unfamiliar with the area, to identify the affected bridge without the aid of the bridge plates?

* - the BTP non-emergency line is the one that I've had the most experience of dealing with. I don't know whether the 999 response would be any different, but it's usually taken them a good two or three minutes to find the railway location relevant to the call - in one case, by describing its position on a map relative to a nearby village and roads. Not really what you want to be doing in an emergency.

 

[spongsdad]

That's general advice, not specific to bridge strikes. Do you acknowledge that it'll take longer to get trains stopped by dialling 999, BTP's general call centre* or Network Rail's public helpline (in descending order of usefulness) than it would by dialling the number shown on the bridge plate? If not, then you really ought to tell me where I'm going wrong in my job, because I clearly don't understand what I'm doing. Either way, can you explain how you expect a member of the public, unfamiliar with the area, to identify the affected bridge without the aid of the bridge plates?

Whilst I am very reluctant to argue with a professional other than in my own discipline which is chemistry, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that it is general advice. The wording specifically refers to ANY emergency and I presume that the word was chosen carefully. For any notice or instruction, the wording must be scrupulously chosen and the words must mean what they are commonly understood to mean, not what we choose them to mean. Otherwise we are in the realm of Alice in Wonderland.
I do not for a moment, question your competence but I remind you of where I joined this debate. I repeat that where notices are essential then of course we should have them. If they are NOT essential then we have to decide what value they have to avoid them being confused with totally useless notices and possibly ignored. An example of the latter is the warning that the contents of a coffee cup supplied by (I think) McDonalds were hot and could cause injury. The only practical purpose of that notice was to eliminate the possibility of McDonalds being sued.

 

[Tomnick]

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that it is general advice. The wording specifically refers to ANY emergency and I presume that the word was chosen carefully.

If it refers to any emergency, then it must be general advice! I certainly applaud efforts to provide the public with an easy (and memorable) means of summoning help in an emergency - and acknowledge that dialling 999 would be a suitable response in this case - but maintain that it's not always going to be the most effective course of action (as I think we've established, dialling the number shown would get the job stopped more quickly).

Anyway, with the above in mind, can we agree that the bridge strike plates provide useful guidance and information and that their presence is, therefore, justified?

 

[spongsdad]

If you want to keep your strike plate notices, then so be it. However, my assent is conditional upon you joining my campaign for the abolition of useless and confusing signs on our roads, (I'm not competent to judge on signs on the railway system).
Thanks for the debate; perhaps I'll meet you on another thread

 

[PermitToTravel]

2) Cell phone locations can be pinpointed very accurately these days. Try the "find my iPhone app" to see how good location services are. This renders much of the strike plate information superfluous.

Find My iPhone knows where you are in significantly more detail than 999 do
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do the NR/LU bridge bash telephone numbers cost the same to call as other 020/0800 numbers, or are there special arrangements for them? Can they be called from PAYG mobile phones with no credit?

 

[Tomnick]

If you want to keep your strike plate notices, then so be it. However, my assent is conditional upon you joining my campaign for the abolition of useless and confusing signs on our roads, (I'm not competent to judge on signs on the railway system).
Thanks for the debate; perhaps I'll meet you on another thread

One for another day perhaps, but yes, I'll happily agree that there's a lot that could be achieved in terms of excess road signs - no doubt some of it rail related. I often find myself dazzled and distracted by a set of (bright white LED) illuminating chevrons at each of a series of bends on a road around here, making it very difficult to negotiate said bends safely. Meanwhile, the advance warning of the bends (not that they aren't obvious to anyone who's paying attention and reading the road ahead) is rather less prominent than it ought to be, thanks to the large and bright 'think bike' (or similar) sign attached to the same post.

It'd be boring here without a good debate!

 

[Be3G]

2) Cell phone locations can be pinpointed very accurately these days. Try the "find my iPhone app" to see how good location services are. This renders much of the strike plate information superfluous.

Fahad's post two above this one reminded me I meant to respond to the above point. Find My iPhone works (mostly) using different technology to that which enables a mobile phone location to be pinpointed by the emergency services. With Find My iPhone, an app or webpage that the user has authorised sends a ping to the iPhone that needs to be found (which has similarly been authorised); the iPhone responds by sending back its location using a combination of a proper GPS location and WiFi triangulation. The emergency services, on the other hand, don't have the ability to actually force your phone to send its GPS location to them à la Find My iPhone; all they can do is ask the mobile network provider to tell them which mobile phone masts the phone is within earshot of, and try to determine a location from that.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Thanks andyb2706 and Tomnick. I suppose what I was really asking was whether the Network Rail/railway control people would be annoyed with me for phoning up over a low-speed bump in the way that 999 would tell you off for phoning up about, say, a cat stuck up a tree. If it's best to report absolutely any collision with a motorised vehicle however then that's good to know; after all, control can decide whether to take any further action or not.

Come to think of it, the sign doesn't say "motorised vehicle" but just "vehicle". If somebody cycles into a railway overbridge will they still stop trains?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The emergency services, on the other hand, don't have the ability to actually force your phone to send its GPS location to them à la Find My iPhone; all they can do is ask the mobile network provider to tell them which mobile phone masts the phone is within earshot of, and try to determine a location from that.

999 automatically receives a general location of the connecting mast from the mobile phone call. With senior authority, if necessary (and it barely ever is due to the quality of mapping available) the police can trace them to within a few metres.

 

[GB]

Come to think of it, the sign doesn't say "motorised vehicle" but just "vehicle". If somebody cycles into a railway overbridge will they still stop trains?

I'm assuming that's not a serious question?

 

[PermitToTravel]

If somebody pedantically followed the instruction and reported a cycle bridge bash, would the call taker be obligated to stop trains?

 

[Pumbaa]

Worth pointing out they have now mysteriously been told to take the sign down: https://twitter.com/FieldsBeneath/status/504254176109809664

Fancy that.

 

[swt_passenger]

If somebody pedantically followed the instruction and reported a cycle bridge bash, would the call taker be obligated to stop trains?

They've covered all eventualities - I noticed a while ago that where the WCML crosses the Oxford canal a bit north of Rugby they advise boaters of who to call if their boat happens to leap out of the water and hit the bridge...