Bromley North Line Suspended After Severe Bridge Strike

[YorkshireBear]

I presume that means they don't think the bridge is likely to outright collapse (if it did I can't see scafolding helping) but that they do think some more bits may fall off.

That would be how I would view it too. If they thought it was a basket case they would just start demolition. They may yet decide to do that, but obviously don't see it at imminent risk.

 

[Recessio]

Fair play to Network Rail getting it reopened that quickly.

Even the bridges are on strike. Country is going down the pan.

 

[PG]

Even the bridges are on strike. Country is going down the pan.

I'm sure the bridges will feel more secure if they get a raise

 

[Deafdoggie]

I see, as usual, that when anything happens on the railway, everyone is "we must not speculate, wait for a full investigation " as soon as a lorry is involved it's suddenly "driver should be sacked. Clearly road driver at fault"
For fear of taking the forum to a place its never been before, but should we not await an investigation before blaming the lorry driver.

 

[Class800]

Lorry driver hit a bridge - it's fairly straightforward, it's not speculation.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Fairly undeniable that if the lorry driver hadn't have taken the vehicle under the particular bridge, then the bridge wouldn't have been hit. However, it's still speculation at this stage as to unequivocally determine whether there has indeed been any driver error, or maybe some vehicle defect which suddenly manifested itself at the wrong place / wrong moment. Or indeed, something else again, such as incorrect bridge signage.

 

[Class800]

Possibly overcomplicating things? Driver of a vehicle is responsible for ensuring it is in working order and for ensuring he/she is aware of the roads and infrastructure and that they are suitable. Maybe there will be a report on what happened in due course - but it seems straightforward.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Possibly overcomplicating things?

Quite possibly. The simplest explanation is almost invariably what will have happened, but not necessarily.

 

[Lucan]

should we not await an investigation before blaming the lorry driver.

What investigation? Road accidents are not dealt with like railway accidents. I expect an argument behind the scenes between insurers, and a slap on the wrist for the driver, will be the end of the matter.

still speculation at this stage as to unequivocally determine whether there has indeed been any driver error, or maybe some vehicle defect which suddenly manifested itself

From the photo, the crane is actuated by hydraulic rams. Such hydraulic rams have a habit of creeping with the shaking they are subjected to when carried on a vehicle, as the fluid is pushed past a non-return valve. The proper practice is to lash down hydraulic jibs etc during transport, and it is a driver's responsibility to ensure this. Whether this happened in this case or the driver did not heed the height signs we don't know, but it would be his fault either way.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Possibly overcomplicating things? Driver of a vehicle is responsible for ensuring it is in working order and for ensuring he/she is aware of the roads and infrastructure and that they are suitable. Maybe there will be a report on what happened in due course - but it seems straightforward.

Exactly. Driver is responsible, all train crashes must therefore be driver error. But people on here won't hear of that, only road vehicle drivers take blame automatically train drivers don't. Its a total nonsense argument.
There are far more reasons for it not being the drivers fault. And even if it is, there are lots of reasons it could be the drivers fault.

 

[Lucan]

Exactly. Driver is responsible, all train crashes must therefore be driver error.

A train crash could be the driver's error, the signalman's error, signalling equipment failure, derailment due to faulty track, train equipment failure, obstruction on the line, and possibly more. In the case of a bridge strike by the load on a lorry however there are few possible mitigating circumstances. If the load was too high due to hydraulic creep (see my previous comment) then the driver had neglected to lash it down. If the driver simply did not see or heed the low bridge sign, then the driver is also culpable. Maybe he did see the sign but by his brakes failed at that moment (although they were likely working 100 yards earlier where he turned into this road); even so there is an advanced warning of the low bridge far enough away for an emergency handbrake stop at the maximum speed he could have been doing, by the look of it.

We will probably never know, like most non-injury road crashes.

There are far more reasons for it not being the drivers fault.

Examples?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Bridge could be signed incorrectly. Lorry could be signed incorrectly.
Load load could have become unsecured.
Lorry load could have been unsecured by vandals at traffic lights.
Bridge signage could be unclear.
Bridge signage might not be visible on approach, either through bend of foliage encroachment.
Bridge sign may be damaged/vandalised.
Fault on load causing it to rise.
Load incorrectly loaded.
Banksman directing lorry made bad judgement.
Driver given incorrect instructions.
SatNav programed Bridge height incorrectly.
SatNav programmed lorry height incorrectly.
Incorrect road signage other than Bridge height signs.
Diversion route incorrectly set.

This isn't an exhaustive list, of course. And not all may apply in this case, but clearly it is as simply wrong to blame a lorry driver straight away, as it is a train driver.
As the barrier incident at Wedgwood shows, it's not always clear cut. But some people would rather blame the lorry driver straight away rather than wait for the facts.

 

[Tomnick]

Even if it is straightforward driver error to blame, I'd like to think that it'd be properly investigated to find out *why* the lorry driver made an error and, crucially, whether there's anything that can be done to help prevent another lorry driver from making a similar mistake (just as we would on the railway when one of us makes a mistake).

Blaming the driver, binning his licence and moving on is the easy answer, but doesn't really achieve much.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Even if it is straightforward driver error to blame, I'd like to think that it'd be properly investigated to find out *why* the lorry driver made an error and, crucially, whether there's anything that can be done to help prevent another lorry driver from making a similar mistake (just as we would on the railway when one of us makes a mistake).

Blaming the driver, binning his licence and moving on is the easy answer, but doesn't really achieve much.

Exactly. But some on here would rather the driver was simply blamed!

 

[Mothball]

Having attended a number of bridge strikes when I was working in the haulage industry, I know of four examples from those where the drivers were found not to be at fault, two were due to no signage, one due to incorrect signage (sign height was significently different from actual bridge height) and as mentioned, hydraulics can raise while in transit, some vehicles have locking pins that can be inserted to physically prevent raising, in that case the driver had inserted the pin, the casting fractured rendering the locking pin useless.

While a lot of bridge strikes are completely driver error, it's not always the case and its very easy to call someone guilty on a keyboard with minimal facts.

 

[furnessvale]

Every vulnerable bridge needs protecting with substantial beams then the HGVs can do their worst with no effect on the railway.

There is plenty of money in the roads budget to pay for this road problem.

 

[MotCO]

Every vulnerable bridge needs protecting with substantial beams then the HGVs can do their worst with no effect on the railway.

There is plenty of money in the roads budget to pay for this road problem.

Being cynical, there is currently no cost to the railways or roads budget - the insurers have to cough up. (The only cost s an economic cost, not a financial one.) So why spend public money on this when there are other cost pressures?

 

[Dai Corner]

If, as noted above, this road is the only access to the area the driver may have made the assumption that as it was ok going in it would be ok going out.

 

[swt_passenger]

If, as noted above, this road is the only access to the area the driver may have made the assumption that as it was ok going in it would be ok going out.

I’ve now seen more news photos which show the lorry parked up facing the damaged area, so have removed my earlier supposition…

 

[tomwills98]

There seemingly aren’t interlocks, there have been a few similar incidents including a tipper truck somewhere last year with its whole load bed raised.

Machynlleth, what a fun couple of days that was to deal with.

Lorry hits bridge in Machynlleth, closing A487 and railway

Traffic Wales says motorists should plan ahead as the road is expected to be closed for some time.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Edsmith]

If, as noted above, this road is the only access to the area the driver may have made the assumption that as it was ok going in it would be ok going out.

At a guess I'd say the driver didn't correctly lower the lifting equipment, human error, mistakes happen.

Another possibility is that if the vehicle was loaded on the way in and empty on the way out the suspension may have risen.

 

[Lucan]

Bridge could be signed incorrectly. Lorry could be signed incorrectly.
Load load could have become unsecured.
Lorry load could have been unsecured by vandals at traffic lights.
Bridge signage could be unclear.
Bridge signage might not be visible on approach, either through bend of foliage encroachment.
Bridge sign may be damaged/vandalised.
Fault on load causing it to rise.
Load incorrectly loaded.
Banksman directing lorry made bad judgement.
Driver given incorrect instructions.
SatNav programed Bridge height incorrectly.
SatNav programmed lorry height incorrectly.
Incorrect road signage other than Bridge height signs.
Diversion route incorrectly set.

My bolding.

The signage looks very clear ro me unless things changed a lot since this view, and I doubt foliage was an issue at this time of year.
The driver remains responsible for the security of his load. Satnav directions are not an excuse for accidents.

 

[swt_passenger]

This article in a local online newspaper includes photos of the parked up lorry, facing the east side of the bridge. As I suggested earlier the main girder supporting the parapet appears to be in two separate parts, as though it has shattered or otherwise failed in the middle. Please note the debris in the third of four photos here:

Bromley train commuters and Links Estate drivers affected after lorry crashed into rail bridge

The bridge in New Street Hill was left severely damaged and impassable after the impact at 4pm yesterday.

londonnewsonline.co.uk

(I haven’t quoted any text from the article as it tells us nothing that hasn’t already been mentioned.)

 

[Deafdoggie]

My bolding.

The signage looks very clear ro me unless things changed a lot since this view, and I doubt foliage was an issue at this time of year.
The driver remains responsible for the security of his load. Satnav directions are not an excuse for accidents.

View attachment 110333

Indeed he does. In the same way a train driver is responsible for stopping at a red light or buffers. But when these things happen, we're told not to speculate and no one says the driver must be sacked straight away.
If a SatNav has the bridge height incorrectly inputted by the manufacturer it's hardly the drivers fault.
I am not at the scene, I don't know if the sign has been damaged or vandalised. Nor do I know the bridge height is correctly marked.

 

[RJ]

Driver given incorrect instructions.
SatNav programed Bridge height incorrectly.
SatNav programmed lorry height incorrectly.
...
Diversion route incorrectly set.

If a driver chooses to drive past a warning or an order which clearly displays a vehicle of their height is prohibited without stopping in a safe place, that's their decision.

Not everyone sees the world the same way, but some people's way leads to a very high risk of crashing into a bridge. This includes companies that don't test their drivers' mental arithmetic skills - companies take on people who genuinely can't work out if 12'9 is lower or higher than 14'6" and wouldn't stop to calculate it if necessary and don't understand why that might be a dangerous thing to do. Also people who don't read road signs - their mentality is if they are given a map or sat nav or are on a diversion/wrong route, they don't need to observe signs or hazards. Things like this can be tested in assessments and if addressed can reduce the risk of these strikes - but some companies just want bums on seats and make the decision not to mitigate risk.

Driving a large vehicle, it's an occupational hazard that you sometimes unexpectedly end up down roads you shouldn't be on. The general idea is to stop before coming to grief.

 

[swt_passenger]

Under the current rules I believe a flat bridge should now have the round “mandatory signs”, rather than the warning triangles, but I doubt that makes much of a difference to typical drivers…

 

[hwl]

If a SatNav has the bridge height incorrectly inputted by the manufacturer it's hardly the drivers fault.

Only one route in and out and the driver was returning having already passed under the bridge without issue before using the lifting equipment.
Sat Nav is an aid not an excuse for not reading signs.

I am not at the scene, I don't know if the sign has been damaged or vandalised. Nor do I know the bridge height is correctly marked.

The bridge height was correctly marked. The signage was recovered and is now in place on the scaffolding.

 

[Deafdoggie]

If a driver chooses to drive past a warning or an order which clearly displays a vehicle of their height is prohibited without stopping in a safe place, that's their decision.

Not everyone sees the world the same way, but some people's way leads to a very high risk of crashing into a bridge. This includes companies that don't test their drivers' arithmetic skills - companies take on people who genuinely can't work out if 12'9 is lower or higher than 14'6" and wouldn't stop to calculate it if necessary and don't understand why that might be a dangerous thing to do. Also people who don't read road signs - their mentality is if they are given a map or sat nav or are on a diversion/wrong route, they don't need to observe signs or hazards.

Driving a large vehicle, it's an occupational hazard that you sometimes unexpectedly end up down roads you shouldn't be on. The general idea is to stop before coming to grief.

Train drivers pass red lights, yet when it happens we're told we must not speculate about it. Yet when a lorry driver does something similar everyone just assumes it is their fault.
If the driver had passed that way before, a map, sign or satnav said the lorry would fit then they may well mentally block out the warning sign thinking it doesn't apply to them.
Of course, it may well be the lorry drivers fault. But it may well not be too.

 

[RJ]

Train drivers pass red lights, yet when it happens we're told we must not speculate about it. Yet when a lorry driver does something similar everyone just assumes it is their fault.
If the driver had passed that way before, a map, sign or satnav said the lorry would fit then they may well mentally block out the warning sign thinking it doesn't apply to them.
Of course, it may well be the lorry drivers fault. But it may well not be too.

The specific circumstances I quoted would all involve a driver seeing a prohibition sign and ignoring it - ultimately the buck stops with them for making that decision. The others may well mean it's not their fault.

With SPADs it's not always that simple so it makes sense to not speculate.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The specific circumstances I quoted would all involve a driver seeing a prohibition sign and ignoring it - ultimately the buck stops with them for making that decision. The others may well mean it's not their fault.

With SPADs it's not always that simple so it makes sense to not speculate.

I keep saying, but it keeps getting overlooked, it's really not that simple for a lorry driver either. Anyone who says it is, really has no understanding at all about driving. And if they have a driving licence they should surrend it as a matter of urgent safety.
However, I believe that actually on this forum there are a lot of "railway can do no wrong" people & "lorry drivers are evil" people and events like this combine to bring them both out.
Everyone kept saying at the Wedgwood barrier incident the railways were blameless and the lorry driver should be sacked and thrown into jail and that there could be no excuse at all for it, the driver was totally and solely at fault and anyone who said otherwise was wrong. But the lorry driver was found blameless has faced no charges and it was Network Rails fault. Network Rail are paying for damage to the lorry, not the lorry paying for damage to the barriers. Network Rail managing to keep it quiet too!
Whilst everyone is always quick to defend the railway and even quicker to blame lorries, that attitude is not helpful and certainly doesn't help for lessons to be learned. The police will investigate and will bring charges if appropriate. And maybe the lorry driver is totally to blame, but till we KNOW I say we should not be blaming anyone based solely on our own agendas.