Sign under bridge: tasteless or amusing?

[DarloRich]

The sign was there for months! There were pictures floating around work ages ago

@spongsdad Ringing 999 is fine. The info will get to NR quickly, just perhaps not quickly enough to stop the 125 mph express train destroying the damaged bridge. THAT is why the plate is there.

 

[bb21]

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.

I seem to have completely forgotten about this thread.

I think we mostly agree on the broad issues, however I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that these signs are useless, which is what I consider ridiculous. Not so much the logic itself perhaps, but the claim.

Technology can fail, no matter how advanced it is. An important function of the strike plate these days is to provide a fail-safe measure in these circumstances. It allows the caller to identify exactly where the location is without any difficulty whatsoever when calling 999 or Network Rail, and is a mechanism that cannot fail. When time is of essence, anything that can help ensure a speedy response is useful. I don't see it as clutter because frankly it is a small piece of plastic board which is not intrusive or cluttering.

I agree that some of the street signs are, and so is the advertising junk next to the strike plate, but not the strike plate itself. Strike plates are not distractive when you are driving, and their location means that they hardly spoil lovely views of the countryside.

 

[Parham Wood]

Dialling 999 is better than it not being reported at all. Jo public may not know about the NR sign particularly if you just drive under / over it as the sign will be harder to notice. As one person said you stop your car past the bridge and instinctively dial 999. One would hope that 999 staff are trained to ask the caller to go and look for the sign. Sadly this appears not to be the case. Perhaps NR needs to talk to all police forces and get this put into the 999 responder script. I assume they do have scripts they can follow.

I totally agree dialling NR first and then 999 would be more appropriate if one was aware of this.

I just asked my 24 yr old daughter who is visiting tonight what she would do. Amazingly she said call the number on the sign. She only recently was aware of this as she now catches a train at times from Nailsea and there is a big sign you have to pass on the bridge about this on the way to the trains. So I think this supports the usefulness of signs,if large enough to be noticed and also that people would not know to call NT and would dial 999 if they had not at some time read a sign.

Incidentally is it not fortunate that most people have mobile phones now? Before this invention finding a telephone may have taken quite a time.

 

[Old Bill]

As mentioned a few posts ago, they've been told to take it down - it's apparently "one of funniest adverts in London."

But whether it's dangerous or distracting or whatever, I doubt they ever asked permission from NR to put it up in the first place.

 

[Tom B]

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.

Quite - which is why, if you have cause to dial 999, doing so from a landline is preferred - as the operator is instantly able to ascertain your location.

As others have said, I suspect most people would dial 999 if they witnessed a vehicle hit a bridge, rather than the number on the plate, through force of habit. The ones I have seen all have local phone numbers although many ones in London are badly written ("0207 xxx xxxx"). Those of us on here would naturally be better placed than Joe Public to seek out the plate with the phone number and location. If there are other passers by you could easily have one of them dial 999 whilst you dial the NR number.

Perhaps the railways could invest in one of the short "service" numbers starting with 1, which are gradually being used by various public bodies. If this were one number advertised for all railway enquiries, it would become widely known in a few years, although it would require employment of competent persons (not outsourced to the middle of nowhere) able to put a call about a bridge strike through to the relevant control room immediately, or deal with it themselves and pass the information on.

 

[Busaholic]

Working for London Underground in 1970s it could be grounds for a disciplinary to ring 999: you were expected to get in touch with British Transport Police first even if a fire was raging! This was the procedure even when the I.R.A. were active and was only really brought to a halt after the disastrous fire at Kings Cross and the scathing criticisms of L.T. management in the ensuing official report. My personal view of the gross inadequacies of the B.T.P. stem from those days. So my contribution to this debate is - don't faff round, dial 999 and leave it to them. If there is then anything else you can do, like ringing signalmen, THEN do it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've had cause to ring for both police and ambulance services on my mobile - always been put through straightaway to the relevant control rooms and been able to explain where I was.The only time I remember problems was a few weeks ago when encountered a holidaymaker who'd fallen down some steps near my home and I rushed home to dial 999 because I didn't have mobile with me (someone else stayed to look after her) and, even though I gave a precise location 3 times the operator 'couldn't find it on the map', until I asked to speak to her supervisor.

 

[GearJammer]

Maybe the whole problem here is the fact that people think something hitting a railway bridge is an emergency. I don't think it is.
Ive never heard of a bridge/railway being put out of use or seriously damaged due to it being hit by a vehicle.... the examples posted above are in my opinion poor, very poor.

Its another reason why the UKs railway are poor, to many health and safety obsessed individuals who want the job stopped over something and nothing.

By all means put contact details on bridges so in the event of a strike somebody can go and check the bridge but all this nonsence about contacting signallers to stop trains asap is a load of c**p, theres no need for it.

 

[tony_mac]

Maybe the whole problem here is the fact that people think something hitting a railway bridge is an emergency. I don't think it is.

Is this post just for the purpose of being argumentative?
You base your opinion on what, exactly? How much rail damage do you think is needed to derail a train?

the examples posted above are in my opinion poor, very poor.

I doubt that the relatives of the victims would be interested in that opinion.

 

[edwin_m]

Ive never heard of a bridge/railway being put out of use or seriously damaged due to it being hit by a vehicle.... the examples posted above are in my opinion poor, very poor.

Including post #37?

There's another one here that could have been a lot worse (look at the photo): http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=1101

Road vehicles are the number 1 risk to railway safety, the most serious UK incident being Great Heck as mentioned upthread, and the cement mixer falling onto a train at Oxshott a couple of years ago could easily have been a mult-fatality accident. So ensuring that measures are in place to stop approaching trains is an entirely reasonable response.

 

[Abpj17]

I'm a little surprised no one considered the benefits of the second sign...while it was a cheeky advert (and risked drawing attention from the first sign)...it also served as a prompt to tired lorry/car drivers. It did some good if it prompted these to stop for a break, reducing the risk of a crash (whether it was a bridge strike or another road accident)

 

[Deerfold]

I'm a little surprised no one considered the benefits of the second sign...while it was a cheeky advert (and risked drawing attention from the first sign)...it also served as a prompt to tired lorry/car drivers. It did some good if it prompted these to stop for a break, reducing the risk of a crash (whether it was a bridge strike or another road accident)

They'd have been doing well to read all that whilst driving along!

 

[455driver]

Maybe the whole problem here is the fact that people think something hitting a railway bridge is an emergency. I don't think it is.

So the articulated stone carrying lorry that smashed into the bridge on the Alton line last year displacing some of the masonry wasnt an emergency! :roll:

I agree that all things are relative but to state categorically that no matter what hits a bridge it isnt an emergency does you no credit.

 

[GearJammer]

So the articulated stone carrying lorry that smashed into the bridge on the Alton line last year displacing some of the masonry wasnt an emergency! :roll:

I agree that all things are relative but to state categorically that no matter what hits a bridge it isnt an emergency does you no credit.

It depends on how much masonry it displaced really doesn't it.

 

[455driver]

It depends on how much masonry it displaced really doesn't it.

Such a wonderful attitude from a lorry driver! :roll:

 

[GearJammer]

Such a wonderful attitude from a lorry driver! :roll:

Great response 10 out of 10 for that one......

So are you saying that if this truck hit the bridge at Alton and knocked out 1 brick.... maybe even 2.... thats an emergency is it?

 

[GB]

Maybe the whole problem here is the fact that people think something hitting a railway bridge is an emergency. I don't think it is.
Ive never heard of a bridge/railway being put out of use or seriously damaged due to it being hit by a vehicle.... the examples posted above are in my opinion poor, very poor.

Its another reason why the UKs railway are poor, to many health and safety obsessed individuals who want the job stopped over something and nothing.

By all means put contact details on bridges so in the event of a strike somebody can go and check the bridge but all this nonsence about contacting signallers to stop trains asap is a load of c**p, theres no need for it.

Wow just wow:roll: I would have expected a lot more common sense and understanding from a supposed professional.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Great response 10 out of 10 for that one......

So are you saying that if this truck hit the bridge at Alton and knocked out 1 brick.... maybe even 2.... thats an emergency is it?

Quite frankly yes. Not least you don't know how much damage has been done untill its been properly inspected but you also don't know what affect it has had on the track geometry.

 

[Deerfold]

Great response 10 out of 10 for that one......

So are you saying that if this truck hit the bridge at Alton and knocked out 1 brick.... maybe even 2.... thats an emergency is it?

If there's bricks coming out of a structure, there's possibly serious structural problems.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Perhaps someone needs to go back to the Highway Code and CPD!

 

[Tomnick]

Its another reason why the UKs railway are poor, to many health and safety obsessed individuals who want the job stopped over something and nothing.

By all means put contact details on bridges so in the event of a strike somebody can go and check the bridge but all this nonsence about contacting signallers to stop trains asap is a load of c**p, theres no need for it.

This is probably approaching the worst case scenario, though you could probably add a coach load of schoolchildren passing under the bridge for added effect. It wasn't caused by a bridge strike, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine that a heavy vehicle striking a structure of similar construction could weaken it in a similar manner. Other examples? A recent bridge strike in Grantham left a 13' long crack in the masonry, apparently over 1" wide and with masonry (not just the odd brick or two either) falling onto the road below. Do you seriously think that trains should keep running at linespeed without that at least being looked at? At an overbridge - what if the whole parapet descends onto the line below, possibly followed by the vehicle that struck it? Try telling us, and especially those affected by the Great Heck accident, that you wouldn't consider a vehicle on the line to be an emergency.

 

[carriageline]

If there's bricks coming out of a structure, there's possibly serious structural problems.

Any fallen masonry from an over(rail) bridge would stop the job (generally)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[455driver]

Any fallen masonry from an over(rail) bridge would stop the job (generally)

Unless its gearjammers lorry which has hit the bridge and its only a couple of bricks knocked out as he wouldnt bother to report it because apparently that is okay.

 

[bolli]

Great response 10 out of 10 for that one......

So are you saying that if this truck hit the bridge at Alton and knocked out 1 brick.... maybe even 2.... thats an emergency is it?

Potentially you could have caused substantial internal damage to bridge structure.

Also, causing any damage and not reporting it falls foul of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

It is an offence for a person being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle and owing to the presence of that vehicle on the road or other such public place an accident having occurred whereby damage or injury was caused did fail to stop and give his name and address and identification marks of the vehicle.

 

[Bevan Price]

Quite - which is why, if you have cause to dial 999, doing so from a landline is preferred - as the operator is instantly able to ascertain your location.

As others have said, I suspect most people would dial 999 if they witnessed a vehicle hit a bridge, rather than the number on the plate, through force of habit. The ones I have seen all have local phone numbers although many ones in London are badly written ("0207 xxx xxxx"). Those of us on here would naturally be better placed than Joe Public to seek out the plate with the phone number and location. If there are other passers by you could easily have one of them dial 999 whilst you dial the NR number.

Perhaps the railways could invest in one of the short "service" numbers starting with 1, which are gradually being used by various public bodies. If this were one number advertised for all railway enquiries, it would become widely known in a few years, although it would require employment of competent persons (not outsourced to the middle of nowhere) able to put a call about a bridge strike through to the relevant control room immediately, or deal with it themselves and pass the information on.

Yes - an easy to remember "freephone emergency number" for NR emergencies would be more likely to encourage the public to call them. (Especially for those who choose not to have a mobile phone - they would have to remember an 11 digit phone number whilst looking for a working phone box, and also may not have the coins necessary to make a phone call.)

 

[Deerfold]

Yes - an easy to remember "freephone emergency number" for NR emergencies would be more likely to encourage the public to call them. (Especially for those who choose not to have a mobile phone - they would have to remember an 11 digit phone number whilst looking for a working phone box, and also may not have the coins necessary to make a phone call.)

I suspected a deliberate choice was made not to have a freephone number as most mobiles charge quite a high fee for these but most contracts allow a significant number of landline minutes.

 

[jon0844]

Next year will see 0800 becoming free from all phones, including mobiles. Like it used to be on some networks before they got greedy.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[Deerfold]

Next year will see 0800 becoming free from all phones, including mobiles. Like it used to be on some networks before they got greedy.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

But presumably the number was chosen based on what happens now.

 

[Busaholic]

Back to the original thread:- if the sign in question is indeed situated at Kentish Town West Station in North London, as suggested in a later thread, the main problem may well have been double-decker bus strikes as I believe this, and Finsbury Park Station, represent the two worst points on the London bus system for this happening. As such, the drivers (if not in shock) should be able to radio the details through. Perhaps I should add that almost all such incidents in London are buses to or from garages out of service, so thankfully no passenger injuries would result. However, the impact on the bridges is likely to be potentially more serious than a car striking the brickwork, obviously.

 

[Maxfly]

Great response 10 out of 10 for that one......

So are you saying that if this truck hit the bridge at Alton and knocked out 1 brick.... maybe even 2.... thats an emergency is it?

Are you saying it isn't? Try shore street bridge in Inverness, skelped many times by HGV's, one managed to knock it badly out of alignment, job stopped and span required replaced.
Look forward to the day your one or two bricks add to the numerous other non reported one or two bricks (not scaremongering btw happens regular as drivers just head off thinking it's just a wee bit damage) and the next train masked an unexpected stop on the road below.
The problem today is people not taking responsibility for their actions on the road.

 

[jon0844]

But presumably the number was chosen based on what happens now.

Yes, but perhaps I should have added that it could mean using a freephone number in the future.

 

[GearJammer]

Jesus christ don't you lot exagerate... go off on one, and twist things all out of proportion.

Where did i say that 'i' hit bridges..... i don't!
Where did i say that hitting bridges should'nt be reported..... i did'nt say that.

I said that bridge strikes should not be treated as emergencies, i asked for an example as to when a simple bridge strike caused the closure of a bridge/railway as im not aware of any, the examples you've given (Heck does'nt even come into it, the car never hit the bridge, and it was a road over a railway) you give an example of a barge hitting a bridge in the USA (a barge is a lorry is it) and a bridge that calapsed due to lack of maintenance.

Im sorry but bridge strikes in my opinion are not and should not be treated as an emergency, there is absolutely no need to dial 999, yes they should be reported but there is no need to get the job stopped, anybody with an ounce of common sence can tell wether they have seriously damaged a bridge. You lot are sugesting that even a gently tap should be treated as an 'emergency'....... right up to the point where you sugest a cyclist hitting a bridge! Listen to yourselves, its pathetic.

Yes bridge strikes should be reported but don't stop the job, a TSR could be put in place while an engineer goes to inspect said bridge but hitting the panic button and stopping the bridge is just overkill!