Bridge strike at Plymouth (30/08)

[option]

I believe there are restrictions in putting things like that in place which is unfortunate as it is such a simple solution.

Restrictions by whom?

If it's a local council, then start charging them for the costs!
They'll put bollards in front of their own premises, & i'm sure they shut & lock their doors. So why shouldn't other property owners be able to protect their own property?




Interesting;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/772037/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-4.pdf

7.4 Imperial height
7.4.1.  The imperial figure shown on signs to indicate the available headroom should be at least 3 inches less than the measured height to allow a safety margin. If the resulting figure is not a multiple of 3 inches, it should be rounded down to the nearest lower multiple of 3 inches.
Example 1: measured height 15’-2”:
Step 1 subtract 3” to create a safety margin 14’-11”
Step 2 round down to nearest multiple of 3”
Step 3 sign as 14’-9”.
Example 2: measured height 14’-6”:
Step 1 subtract 3” to create a safety margin 14’-3”
Step 2 sign as 14’-3” (rounding down not required as already a multiple of 3”)
Thus, the maximum headroom that will normally appear on a sign is 16’-0”.

7.5 Metric height
7.5.1.  To obtain the metric figure shown on signs, the bridge height should be measured to two decimal places, rounding down to the nearest 0.01 m. The following method is then used to calculate the appropriate signed height:
a) if the second decimal digit is 8 or 9, delete it and sign the bridge with the remaining whole number and the first decimal digit;
b) Example 1: measured height 4.19 m:
c) Step 1 remove the final 9 (subtract 0.09 m)
d) Step 2 sign as 4.1 m
e) if the second decimal digit is 7 or less, delete it and reduce the first decimal digit by 1. Sign the bridge with the remaining whole number and first decimal digit, as reduced;
f) Example 2: measured height 4.17 m
g) Step 1 remove the final 7 (subtract 0.07 m)
h) Step 2 reduce first decimal digit by 1 (subtract 0.1 m)
i) Step 3 sign as 4.0 m
7.5.2.  The height shown on the sign must be to only one decimal place.
The maximum headroom that will normally appear on a sign is 4.9 m.

As the signage says 10'9", the actual measured height is 11'2", so there was 5" additional clearance.

Therefore that truck is at least 11'2" in height. That the leading digit is bigger should have been a really obvious 'oh!'

Presumably the driver has come from the Tesco Metro just down the road. The advance road signage is pretty minimal.
There appear to be no advance signs prior to the traffic signals that you are turning in to a restricted headroom road only a standard sign on the left hand sign as you leave the junction.
The warning sign immediately before the bridge only warns of single file traffic with no width restriction.
Whats the betting that the drivers view of the signs on the bridge was restricted by the overgrown vegetation particularly the large tree on the left (on network rails property?)

There is advance signage ~50metres before the bridge,

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Any vegetation is on private property next to the road.



Looking at the map, you also have to question WHY the driver was even taking that route?
That road only leads to a residential area, & it would be a very convoluted route to get to the other Tesco store on Mutley Plain.

 

[Master29]

There is everything wrong with that. The largest lorries we have now are too big when you see the "tram-lines" they create, (not to mention the carnage when they are involved in pile-ups).

But I suppose we'll get the cheapest (on paper) rather than the best solution, much like "Smart Motorways", which have been proven to be not at all "smart" (and are still being built on the M6 in Staffs/Cheshire as I write).

Possibly on motorways but not in the South West.

Just wonder if driver could read English!!!

Not relevant at all given the signage could be visually understood.

I find the whole metric/imperial debate a bit pointless here, the lorry had both written in the cab, but the imperial had been amended so it didn't match the metric for some reason. I don't know which is right for that vehicle but neither will go under the bridge by a good few hands

I don't think the 'did he speak English?' question is relevant either, practically everyone uses Arabic numerals, even in China.

Indeed. I don't know why this has even been mentioned. Surely putting both would make sense.

 

[75A]

According to Network Rail the bridge down the road from here, on the A5 @ Hinckley was the most 'hit' bridge in England last year, averaging one a fortnight.

Got to remember these are called 'professional drivers' ha ha.

 

[nlogax]

Other than a knowledge of local roads, a keen awareness of vehicle height and even keener observance of advanced height warning signs, is there anything else to stop lorry drivers from causing these problems? Do commercial GPS systems feature bridge or overpass height warnings?

 

[Master29]

Other than a knowledge of local roads, a keen awareness of vehicle height and even keener observance of advanced height warning signs, is there anything else to stop lorry drivers from causing these problems? Do commercial GPS systems feature bridge or overpass height warnings?

The old A30 on Goss Moor in Cornwall has a low bridge on the Par to Newquay line that was well known for being hit and despite there being extensive warning signs and bright colouring on the bridge itself truckers still continued to hit it so in some cases it wouldn't make any difference as you can't educate pork. It still happens occasionally but the road is not a primary any more.

 

[Dai Corner]

Other than a knowledge of local roads, a keen awareness of vehicle height and even keener observance of advanced height warning signs, is there anything else to stop lorry drivers from causing these problems? Do commercial GPS systems feature bridge or overpass height warnings?

Yes they do. But they have to be told the vehicle's height, which is prone to human error.

 

[75A]

You're telling me these drivers are human!

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

As silly as it sounds though, if they are saying ‘it looked as though I would fit through’ does that not show a wider issue of how the road haulage industry views these things? Ideally, all Lorry Drivers would have to attend a mandatory brief by representatives from the railway industry on how serious the problem is (in delays, damage and risk to the safe running of trains).
I don’t doubt that there are some reckless Lorry Drivers out there that go on to have a bridge bash incident but the fact is, these incidents do keep on happening time and time again and I don’t believe that all Drivers having these incidents were simply reckless.

The mandatory briefing could (possibly already is) part of the driver’s CPC which involves 5 days of training every 5 years. Problem is that there is not a set syllabus for it, technically the driver can sit through the same day of training 5 times and pass!

Given the number of strikes it is surprising how few media reports there are of the driver being convicted. Is this because they are not charged or because as most, thankfully, cause no injuries or fatalities they are not newsworthy? The last one I remember seeing in court was the driver of the school bus who reroofed it in Winchester leaving some students with life changing injuries.

 

[MotCO]

Thats from in the single file section where the drivers concentration would naturally be on vehicles coming in the other direction

Was this part of the problem? It is a narrow bit of road, and the driver may have been looking out for traffic coming towards him, momentarily forgetting the height of his vehicle.

As the signage says 10'9", the actual measured height is 11'2", so there was 5" additional clearance.

Therefore that truck is at least 11'2" in height. That the leading digit is bigger should have been a really obvious 'oh!'

But maybe the driver knew there could be 5 inches' tolerance and gambled on being able to get through - and lost!

 

[Gloster]

There is a timeline on chimewhistle.co.uk, possibly under tweets. (Sorry, mods. I can’t do a link at the best of times and I got to this via Paul Clifton’s twitter page.)

 

[Dai Corner]

There is a timeline on chimewhistle.co.uk, possibly under tweets. (Sorry, mods. I can’t do a link at the best of times and I got to this via Paul Clifton’s twitter page.)

Blog

Thoughts on mainly railways and publishing.

chimewhistle.co.uk

Timeline of events regarding Plymouth bridge bash on 30 August – 15.00 on 30 August (time of bash) until 16.20 on 31 August.


At 15.00 a member of the public reports that a lorry is wedged beneath bridge and caused some damage to the structure. All lines are blocked by Network Rail, preventing trains running between Totnes and Plymouth.

Devon & Cornwall police arrive onsite at 15.40 and block the road to pedestrians, with the lorry blocking the road to other road users.

On call engineer views pictures of incident and says that lines are to remain blocked until an engineer arrives on site and examines the bridge. Also, no attempt must be made to remove the lorry until said engineer arrives.

Engineer arrives at 17.10 and discovers that seven concrete sleepers on the Down Main are cracked and ten voussoirs on the upside have been displaced – both vertically and laterally – by six inches. It's also noted that power cables run across the parapet, along with fibre optic and signalling cables.

At 03.40 on 31 August a train was authorised over the Down Main at 5 mph and observed by engineers. This was successful so single line working was introduced on the Down Main at 08.25 – with a path for one train an hour in each direction.

At 11.00 the line speed was increased to 20 mph.

The Tesco lorry was removed from beneath the bridge at 16.20 and the line speed for passenger services was increased to 40 mph, with freight services still limited to 20 mph.

Thirty coaches have been hired in to provide road transport between Plymouth, Exeter St. Davids and Tiverton Parkway.

 

[jmbill]

I live about 400 yards from the Ashford Hill bridge in Plymouth. I've gone under it and over it thousands of times.

It is notorious for taking the boxes off Luton vans! Although this is only the second time in about 15 years I recall a full-size HGV smashing into it.

I'd consider the bridge well signposted from both sides. The signs are illuminated at night. The council do a good job of keeping the undergrowth cut back and periodically cleaning the height signs.

The bridge is quite an imposing granite structure. So even if you managed to miss all the signs and road markings, you would clearly see the road narrowing and the low height of the archways ahead. I hope the police took adequate samples from this trucker, who was evidently in no fit state to be driving a vehicle of this size at the time (either drink, drugs, fatigue or just plain stupidity). This was very nearly an extremely severe incident.

It would be impossible to lower the road any more, as the gradient on the other side of the bridge would become much too steep for most vehicles to get up. It's called Ashford Hill, because it's already a very steep hill (I estimate it's about a 20% gradient to the first corner). Hence the provision of hand rails for pedestrians to use.

As for the idea of permanently closing the road under the bridge, I think that would create enormous opposition with locals. Call it a rat-run if you want, but ordinarily it's a very convenient and safe route for small vehicles. Also of note, the police and first responder paramedics use this route daily when called to emergencies in different parts of the city.

Fitting height beams on each side of the bridge would be the best upgrade, to stop this type of thing happening again. An RSJ beam through your cab window is the most visual warning you 'aint about to fit through!

I question if there was a mix up, when Network Rail were initially told of the bridge strike? I first became aware of something wrong when I could see a GWR train stopped at signal P16 for an extended length of time. I could see men in orange jackets on the B3214 Laira Road bridge taking interest in something on the tracks. Then the train pulled away in the direction of Plymouth Station, before going into an emergency stop right at the Ashford Hill bridge. You can see the nose of the train in some photographs - proving how close it came to going over the bridge. There the train sat there for a very long time, before running "wrong way" back towards Laira.

Is it possible that Network Rail went to the wrong road bridge, confirmed nothing was wrong, waved the train on forwards, and then someone else from Network Rail or the train crew spotted the stuck truck a quarter of a mile further up at the Ashford Hill bridge? It seems it would have been better to have just continued holding the train at P16. That's where westbound services normally get held for Plymouth, if there's any issue on the station approach or they're waiting for a platform to become available.

Anyway, I don't often post on this forum. But given the local nature of this matter, I thought I'd share a little bit more info about the location and what I could see happening on Monday afternoon.

 

[richw]

technically the driver can sit through the same day of training 5 times and pass!

No they can’t anymore. Has to be 5 different courses now. That was changed 1-2 years ago. But what they can do is something completely irrelevant to their job. A PSV owner driver I know did 5 days of various hazardous goods courses. He said they were the most interesting courses he’s done but questioned why he could quite acceptably do something irrelevant. Likewise truck drivers can do absolutely any combination of courses, so could quite perfectly do bus courses.

 

[philthetube]

Does anyone know what is shown on Satnav? (N.B. I have never used a Satnav, or even seen one used, so I don’t know what information they give.)

They are available with height restrictions but are more expensive, (posted upthread), maybe the government should either provide them or make it mandatory to have one, maybe they should have to be installed in all cabs and checked on test, this would stop people using google maps inappropriately.

I disagree and I'm old enough to remember being taught imperial measurements at primary school, but maybe as an engineer I'm biassed?

The only length measurement where I would default to imperial is in a conversation regarding my height.

Bet there is one other thing measured in inches.

And that to me shows an issue in the Road Haulage Industry that needs addressing. Why are Lorry Drivers so willing to flee the scene? The important thing in the aftermath of such an incident is to inform the relevant authorities as the safety of trains could be affected. How much training and awareness is given to this scenario during Lorry Driver training/ongoing development?
To me it almost seems as though bridge bashes are viewed (potentially even by Lorry Drivers themselves) as ‘you’d have to be an idiot to hit a low bridge in a lorry, as long as you’re a good Lorry Driver you won’t do it’. I’ve known brilliant Train Drivers to have SPADs, doesn’t mean they’re bad at their job, it means they made an error. If the Railway Industry still had the attitude of ‘Train Drivers should just stop at the red lights’ how many Ladbroke Groves would we have potentially had since 1999? Instead, as an industry we’ve looked at effective Driver Training, route risks, signal sighting, non technical skills, fatigue aswell as implementing technology to seek to prevent collisions caused by SPADs. As a result of this, the last major incident caused by a SPAD was nearly 22 years ago.
Sooner or later a bridge bash will probably result in a derailment and potential fatalities, it would be nice if the issue was dealt with in a more grown up and enlightened fashion before it reaches that point.

The police are at least as much responsible for lorry drivers attitude in these cases, flee and get away with it and you don't get prosecuted.

 

[richw]

R.E sat navs with height warning. The current products on the market the GPS wanders and can be unreliable. I’ve seen a lot of false alerts down to GPS going for a wander.

 

[BayPaul]

I'm also in the camp of being shocked by the amount of vitriol being made on this thread against the lorry driver, that would never be tolerated against a train driver under similar circumstances.

He's a human being who made a mistake, as we all do. It was an expensive one, but a simple one to make. To my mind, signs should always be the back up, not the primary means of enforcement in safety critical situations, as it is very easy to misread, or be distracted. If the driver saw 5.3m rather than 3.3m, it would probably seem reasonable, given the near arch is so much higher than the far one.

I find the suggestions of extra points on licenses, fines, training courses, or changing the shape of signs really odd - does anyone seriously think that a driver says, "oh the sign is triangular, and its only a small fine, I'll risk it"

 

[JN114]

Given the relative frequency of "Bridge Bashes" and the potential consequences, are RAIB considering a class investigation?

Unlikely

Remember RAIB are there to investigate safety incidents and report on safety learning for the industry. Not sure there is any safety learning the railway can take away from this - it’s a highways matter.

The class investigations have been more when there’s an engrained poor safety behaviour - for example systemic issues with how user worked crossings are handled.

I question if there was a mix up, when Network Rail were initially told of the bridge strike? I first became aware of something wrong when I could see a GWR train stopped at signal P16 for an extended length of time. I could see men in orange jackets on the B3214 Laira Road bridge taking interest in something on the tracks. Then the train pulled away in the direction of Plymouth Station, before going into an emergency stop right at the Ashford Hill bridge. You can see the nose of the train in some photographs - proving how close it came to going over the bridge. There the train sat there for a very long time, before running "wrong way" back towards Laira.

No, the train was asked to examine the line in accordance with the rule book. Train found the line to be disturbed hence stopping and eventually being withdrawn to Exeter. At no point was the location of the bridge in doubt.

 

[-Colly405-]

I live about 400 yards from the Ashford Hill bridge in Plymouth. I've gone under it and over it thousands of times.

It is notorious for taking the boxes off Luton vans! Although this is only the second time in about 15 years I recall a full-size HGV smashing into it.

I'd consider the bridge well signposted from both sides. The signs are illuminated at night. The council do a good job of keeping the undergrowth cut back and periodically cleaning the height signs.

The bridge is quite an imposing granite structure. So even if you managed to miss all the signs and road markings, you would clearly see the road narrowing and the low height of the archways ahead. I hope the police took adequate samples from this trucker, who was evidently in no fit state to be driving a vehicle of this size at the time (either drink, drugs, fatigue or just plain stupidity). This was very nearly an extremely severe incident.

It would be impossible to lower the road any more, as the gradient on the other side of the bridge would become much too steep for most vehicles to get up. It's called Ashford Hill, because it's already a very steep hill (I estimate it's about a 20% gradient to the first corner). Hence the provision of hand rails for pedestrians to use.

As for the idea of permanently closing the road under the bridge, I think that would create enormous opposition with locals. Call it a rat-run if you want, but ordinarily it's a very convenient and safe route for small vehicles. Also of note, the police and first responder paramedics use this route daily when called to emergencies in different parts of the city.

Fitting height beams on each side of the bridge would be the best upgrade, to stop this type of thing happening again. An RSJ beam through your cab window is the most visual warning you 'aint about to fit through!

I question if there was a mix up, when Network Rail were initially told of the bridge strike? I first became aware of something wrong when I could see a GWR train stopped at signal P16 for an extended length of time. I could see men in orange jackets on the B3214 Laira Road bridge taking interest in something on the tracks. Then the train pulled away in the direction of Plymouth Station, before going into an emergency stop right at the Ashford Hill bridge. You can see the nose of the train in some photographs - proving how close it came to going over the bridge. There the train sat there for a very long time, before running "wrong way" back towards Laira.

Is it possible that Network Rail went to the wrong road bridge, confirmed nothing was wrong, waved the train on forwards, and then someone else from Network Rail or the train crew spotted the stuck truck a quarter of a mile further up at the Ashford Hill bridge? It seems it would have been better to have just continued holding the train at P16. That's where westbound services normally get held for Plymouth, if there's any issue on the station approach or they're waiting for a platform to become available.

Anyway, I don't often post on this forum. But given the local nature of this matter, I thought I'd share a little bit more info about the location and what I could see happening on Monday afternoon.

Agree re not closing it. I lived nearby until I was 22, and have visited the area many times since. It is the obvious road for cars between Lr Compton/Mannamead and Lipson/Lipson Vale. Indeed it was my regular route between Lr Compton and Prince Rock & Lipson for years.
Lowering it is indeed a no no - the gradient north of the bridge is already ridiculous on the 90 degree bend; coming down the hill many a car has grounded its front bumper on the bend...

Of course, if Compton Vale linked through to with Trefusis Gardens then there would be a different scenario (not that this should happen, or was ever planned - the Vale was originally called Seymour Rd, and it was to connect through to what is now dead-end bit of Seymour... on the next nasty bend up the hill).

 

[Nova1]

No, the train was asked to examine the line in accordance with the rule book. Train found the line to be disturbed hence stopping and eventually being withdrawn to Exeter. At no point was the location of the bridge in doubt.

Why is a train used to examine the line? Would it not be simpler for engineers to walk it?

 

[JN114]

Why is a train used to examine the line? Would it not be simpler for engineers to walk it?

It was c.1500, the ETA for response staff was 2 hours. It’d be silly to keep the train held back for 2 hours only for an engineer to come and reopen line immediately.

Trains examining the line at sites of bridge strikes is as routine as tying shoelaces.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

No they can’t anymore. Has to be 5 different courses now. That was changed 1-2 years ago. But what they can do is something completely irrelevant to their job. A PSV owner driver I know did 5 days of various hazardous goods courses. He said they were the most interesting courses he’s done but questioned why he could quite acceptably do something irrelevant. Likewise truck drivers can do absolutely any combination of courses, so could quite perfectly do bus courses.

Thanks for the clarification on that.

 

[plugwash]

I wonder if there is a gazetteer for these single points of failure? There is a similar looking bridge here in Linlithgow that would lead to significant disruption if it was damaged.

Significant disruption sure, but a break in linlithgow wouldn't cut anywhere off from the rail network. You could get around it by going via Glasgow or Perth.

When I look at http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Resources/TOCs AS v48 May 2021.pdf the longest "singly connected" lines seem to be.

Devon/Cornwall west of exeter.

Mid Wales west of shrewsbury

North wales west of shotton

North west scotland beyond Dalmuir

North scotland beyond inverness.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Significant disruption sure, but a break in linlithgow wouldn't cut anywhere off from the rail network. You could get around it by going via Glasgow or Perth.

When I look at http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Resources/TOCs AS v48 May 2021.pdf the longest "singly connected" lines seem to be.

Devon/Cornwall west of exeter.

Mid Wales west of shrewsbury

etc

Both of which have happened in the past couple of days

 

[Charlie Smythe]

How long is this expected to take to repair? I assume it can be repaired of course, someone was spreading the rumour that the bridge will need replacing which seems dramatic.

Meanwhile, I assume the driver is looking for a new job.

 

[JN114]

How long is this expected to take to repair? I assume it can be repaired of course, someone was spreading the rumour that the bridge will need replacing which seems dramatic.

Meanwhile, I assume the driver is looking for a new job.

Expecting the railway to be fully back to normal Friday/Saturday

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Expecting the railway to be fully back to normal Friday/Saturday

Right okay, thank you for that. Thank God the rumour spreader on Devon Live wasn’t correct.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Whilst, of course, it is most likely the drivers fault, there are situations where the driver is blameless but still hits a bridge. I think we sound let justice take its path before deciding the drivers fate. Some on here have found the driver guilty and punished them and all that needs to happen still is a fair trial!

 

[Falcon1200]

No, the train was asked to examine the line in accordance with the rule book. Train found the line to be disturbed hence stopping and eventually being withdrawn to Exeter. At no point was the location of the bridge in doubt.

Exactly. And most, if not all, NR bridges now have a plate giving the bridge name, number and location, and a phone number to report it being struck, so there should not be any confusion no matter who reports a bridge strike.

Significant disruption sure, but a break in linlithgow wouldn't cut anywhere off from the rail network. You could get around it by going via Glasgow or Perth.

Some years ago there was a bridge struck and damaged, closing the line, at Lugton, between Barrhead and Kilmarnock on the Glasgow/Carlisle via Dumfries route. Not normally the end of the world, but in a couple of days time the WCML was to be closed for a long-planned major engineering job, with trains diverted via Dumfries, Kilmarnock and Barrhead..... So the engineers worked night and day to re-open the line for the diversions, only for a nearby householder to come out with an axe and threaten to cut the hydraulic hoses of the plant being used, due to the disturbance to his sleep !

 

[nanstallon]

Not just to you, but all making this point: how often does this situation occur, and is spending >£1bn on a new railway really a more effective method of mitigating it than putting a bollard in the road to enforce a 6'6" width restriction? The bridge in question is located between 2 bridges with easy clearance, one of which is over the railway that the lorry could easily have accessed by following the same road for about a mile.

I don't know the area, but it would seem to be a fairly exceptional set of circumstances that there is no or very little road transport available, and for every other time trains are disrupted a short hop in a coach is going to be far preferable than a slow trundle round the wrong side of Dartmoor and 2 reversals. Not to mention the impact on passengers of stuffing Plymouth and Exeter St. David's up with reversing trains, or further delaying trains by diverting those not stopping at Taunton via Yeovil. A brand new line just screams 'Trains are the best', rather than the measured statement 'how do we provide effective public transport at good value to those funding it'.

A width restriction, and preliminary height warnings like laser detection and a chain shield prior to the first arch would cost far, far less to install and maintain than the new line. That and increase the fine + penalty points for striking any bridge.

This figure of £1bn is typical of how the cost of any railway project gets inflated. Even building a bare platform for a new/ reopened station gets quoted in seven figures these days, and I get that feeling that someone is taking the mickey.

And this issue of trains having to reverse is overplayed. What London or Bristol to Penzance trains don't stop at Exeter and Plymouth anyway? All passenger trains these days have a cab at each end. Nobody is suggesting that the line through Newton Abbot should be closed, and it would remain available for Plymouth and Penzance trains. Surely, Plymouth is the biggest city in the country to have only one railway route from the rest of the country?

I agree that idiots who ignore bridge height warnings should be jumped on much harder.

 

[The exile]

It depends what sort of satnav you have. A specialist LGV satnav will include both details of bridge heights and are programmable with the height of the vehicle on that particular trip (remember the trailer is normally the highest point and can vary trip by trip) so that the route generated is suitable. However:

1 - they're more expensive than "normal" satnavs. My perception having looked at images of bridge strikes over the years is that the vehicles aren't normally those of "big" logistics companies / retailers so perhaps supports the penny-pinching smaller company / owner driver theory

2 - generating a valid route doesn't guarantee the driver will take it

First reaction to the first of those is: if a vehicle involved in such an incident is found to be using an suitable sat nav - then immediate grounding for inspection of all other vehicles in fleet. Any others found then company immediately has its licence to operate suspended - all involved in chain of command face criminal conviction and ban for life from operating in a similar function.