Bridge strikes - are they becoming more frequent?

Midnight Sun · 13 Nov 2019

Stonea Bridge (7ft) on The Peterbrough Ely line has been hit 13 times so far this year. The B1098 has long had a speeding problem with some cars doing well over a 100mph over the level crossing becaming airborne. The crossing has full gates that you don't want to hit at speed. So far the bridge has been hit by two towed caravans, ten vans and a towed carrot topper which hit the Bridge protection beam breaking it in half. Most of the van drivers did not speak english as a first language and were couriers making deliveries.

RailUK Forums

Meerkat · 14 Nov 2019

All the talk about circular or triangular signs.....if you hit something you have been warned about then you are cut and dried ‘driving without due care and attention’.

furnessvale · 14 Nov 2019

Meerkat said:
All the talk about circular or triangular signs.....if you hit something you have been warned about then you are cut and dried ‘driving without due care and attention’.

Correct, but people were talking about simply passing a triangular sign being an offence, which it isn't.

bluenoxid · 15 Nov 2019

How effective are flashing warning signs activated when a laser at the maximum height is broken? I recall an installation being placed in Manchester.

pdeaves · 15 Nov 2019

One of the issues with putting protective beams before a bridge is plonking something on someone else's (usually council's) land, then the related 'who pays' and 'who is liable'. Nothing insurmountable, but it does need consideration.

Richard Ingram · 15 Nov 2019

bluenoxid said:
How effective are flashing warning signs activated when a laser at the maximum height is broken? I recall an installation being placed in Manchester.

They don't seem to be particularly effective, Ely has that system, and we have had many strikes since they were installed. And that's with the route no longer being on a main road since the bypass was opened. Not sure what the answer is. I think anyone with a HGV/MPV license should lose that immediately, and need a retest, but that doesn't solve the majority of the incidents, which seem to be high vans.

BRX · 15 Nov 2019

pdeaves said:
One of the issues with putting protective beams before a bridge is plonking something on someone else's (usually council's) land, then the related 'who pays' and 'who is liable'. Nothing insurmountable, but it does need consideration.

It's also another piece of ugly street clutter that everyone has to look at. I'd rather the focus was on getting lorry drivers to plan their routes properly, than adding yet more stuff to the streetscape that is there in defence against bad driving.

Lucan · 15 Nov 2019

BRX said:
I'd rather the focus was on getting lorry drivers to plan their routes properly,

Anything that relies on "educating" people, wrt to bridge strikes or any other issue under the moon, is a non-starter as long even a tiny minority are able to foul things up for the rest of us. Some people are just uneducatable.

TrafficEng · 15 Nov 2019

Richard Ingram said:
They don't seem to be particularly effective, Ely has that system, and we have had many strikes since they were installed. And that's with the route no longer being on a main road since the bypass was opened. Not sure what the answer is.

How does the new system work? The council's plans suggest they have made the route under the bridge single lane alternate working controlled by traffic lights. If so, then presumably the overheight vehicle detection system would set the signals to red.

If overheight vehicles are still hitting the bridge then it suggests the detectors are not sufficiently far from the signals to allow the change to red to happen in good time. Unless the drivers are also blatantly ignoring red traffic signals.

The ultimate solution would probably be a form of in-vehicle alarm/control system which automatically and progressively applies the vehicle brakes to a standstill if it is being driven towards a low bridge. (a Truck Protection and Warning System if you like)

There are already proposals for on-vehicle speed limiting. Either through monitoring roadside signs or GPS location the vehicle would know what the speed limit for that road is, and would refuse to go any faster. Exactly the same principle could apply to vehicle heights.

The exception to this is where the overall vehicle height is variable (such as a low-loader with plant on the back). The driver would then be responsible for correctly setting the vehicle height according to the load, thus reintroducing the risk of a human factors fail. However, it would at least deal with the problem of vans and the majority of lorries.

It just needs the legislation and funding.

RLBH · 15 Nov 2019

If we're solutioneering, let's run through the hazard control hierarchy from the railway's point of view. The principle is that the

Elimination - in the case of bridge strikes, this means getting rid of the bridge entirely. In most cases, this will be totally unacceptable.

Substitution - replace the bridge with something that's less susceptible to being struck. Usually, this will be a bridge with more clearance, which is clearly going to be expensive. Ironically, substituting level crossings for bridges has improved safety overall, but increases this hazard.

Engineering controls - The goal here isn't to eliminate the bridge as something which can be struck, but rather to keep the high vehicles away from it. Protective bars ahead of the bridge will come into this category, as will some kind of computerised bridge detection and vehicle stop system.

Administrative controls - At this point, you're trying to prevent human error rather than make it impossible for the bridge strike to happen. Educating road users, erecting signs, and so forth. This is the level that we mostly work at, since elimination and substitution are generally impossible and engineering controls often expensive. Given that double decker buses often have issues when driven out-of-service by drivers used to single-deckers, there's probably a potential administrative control here.

Protective equipment - Fitting equipment to the bridge to protect it in the event of a strike. Practically speaking, I'm not sure what that could be. Given the railway's approach to safety, the bridge would still be closed to check that the protective equipment had worked.

Richard Ingram · 15 Nov 2019

TrafficEng said:
How does the new system work? The council's plans suggest they have made the route under the bridge single lane alternate working controlled by traffic lights. If so, then presumably the overheight vehicle detection system would set the signals to red.

If overheight vehicles are still hitting the bridge then it suggests the detectors are not sufficiently far from the signals to allow the change to red to happen in good time. Unless the drivers are also blatantly ignoring red traffic signals.

I'm not sure whether they are linked to the lights, or whether the flashing warnings are all they give. Given the images of some of the strikes, the drivers have definitely accelerated, probably when the amber phase started, then they hit the bridge hard. And even if the light goes red, it has to go green again at some point, and if the driver hasn't taken notice in that time...

It's an awkward problem, which hopefully will reduce as more satnavs have the new road on it.

TrafficEng · 15 Nov 2019

Lucan said:
Anything that relies on "educating" people, wrt to bridge strikes or any other issue under the moon, is a non-starter as long even a tiny minority are able to foul things up for the rest of us. Some people are just uneducatable.

The issue isn't really about people being "uneducatable".

The problem is about human fallibility and that even the most experienced and well educated people can make mistakes. Anyone who claims they personally have never made a mistake when driving is a liar.

It would be useful to compare the problem of bridge strikes with SPADs. There are a whole range of causes, it would be simplistic and wrong to suggest that SPADs are ever the result of some train drivers being "uneducatable".

What needs to be understood are the human factors associated with bridge strikes and designing a system which manages and where possible eliminates those risks. Part of that system are the warning signs, prohibitions and education. But it is clear the current system is not fully effective.

In terms of response to incidents, the idea drivers should be automatically prosecuted and/or have their licence taken away is the equivalent of a policy of summary dismissal - no exceptions - for all (Category 'A') SPADs. It is contrary to fostering an 'open' safety culture where people feel able to report an incident without fear of the repercussions, and that others may learn from the mistake.

It is better if a vehicle driver who has hit a railway bridge immediately reports the matter, rather than think to themselves they will be banned (and lose their job) so simply drive off (where possible). The minor incidents that go unreported may uncover a systemic problem (such as poorly located/maintained signs) that could be dealt with and thus prevent a more serious incident.

When it comes to safety the best approach is usually an enlightened one, not a draconian one.

pdeaves · 15 Nov 2019

TrafficEng said:
Unless the drivers are also blatantly ignoring red traffic signals

That's probably the crux. Red to many seems to mean 'as long as I floor it I can get through before the traffic coming the other way', rather than 'stop, some danger ahead'.

TrafficEng · 15 Nov 2019

Richard Ingram said:
I'm not sure whether they are linked to the lights, or whether the flashing warnings are all they give. Given the images of some of the strikes, the drivers have definitely accelerated, probably when the amber phase started, then they hit the bridge hard. And even if the light goes red, it has to go green again at some point, and if the driver hasn't taken notice in that time...

I've not seen what the signs look like when flashing, but pictures of them in their normal static state leaves me disappointed.

The static part of the sign is worded - so meaningless to many drivers who don't have English as a first language. They are non-standard, don't have a high conspicuity backing board
s and have a relatively small 'x'-height. There is also a problem with sign clutter as they have chosen to put the prohibitory height limit roundels on separate posts nearby. By co-locating them on the same posts as the 'flashing' signs it would unify the message. The prohibitory signs also don't have backing boards, and on the Eastern side the position of a new lamp column adds to the confusion.

It is also likely the effectiveness of the flashing signs is diminished because at that point most drivers will be focussing their attention on the traffic signals ahead. It may be a case where louvres need to fitted to the signals (especially the green aspects) so they are less visible from so far away.

Personally, I'd also have given some thought to whether a width restriction should also be introduced (the road is only supposed to be used by 'local' traffic) and by physically restricting the width it would also physically prevent access by many overheight vehicles at the same time.

I'm also surprised that the project to reduce the road to single-file doesn't seem to have taken advantage of the space created either side of the reduced road width to use a small retaining wall solution to allow lowering the carriageway and increase the headroom slightly. The combination of a width restriction and slightly increased headroom might possibly have eliminated the problem.

bspahh · 15 Nov 2019

TrafficEng said:
How does the new system work? The council's plans suggest they have made the route under the bridge single lane alternate working controlled by traffic lights. If so, then presumably the overheight vehicle detection system would set the signals to red.

If overheight vehicles are still hitting the bridge then it suggests the detectors are not sufficiently far from the signals to allow the change to red to happen in good time. Unless the drivers are also blatantly ignoring red traffic signals.

These are images from https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/201...re-opens-after-fourth-months-of-construction/ showing the warning signs for the Ely underpass.

I have seen the warning signs still flashing after a high vehicle has turned around and gone off. I think they are independent of the traffic lights, but I'm not sure.

option · 15 Nov 2019

TrafficEng said:
I've not seen what the signs look like when flashing, but pictures of them in their normal static state leaves me disappointed.

The static part of the sign is worded - so meaningless to many drivers who don't have English as a first language. They are non-standard, don't have a high conspicuity backing board
s and have a relatively small 'x'-height. There is also a problem with sign clutter as they have chosen to put the prohibitory height limit roundels on separate posts nearby. By co-locating them on the same posts as the 'flashing' signs it would unify the message. The prohibitory signs also don't have backing boards, and on the Eastern side the position of a new lamp column adds to the confusion.

It is also likely the effectiveness of the flashing signs is diminished because at that point most drivers will be focussing their attention on the traffic signals ahead. It may be a case where louvres need to fitted to the signals (especially the green aspects) so they are less visible from so far away.

Personally, I'd also have given some thought to whether a width restriction should also be introduced (the road is only supposed to be used by 'local' traffic) and by physically restricting the width it would also physically prevent access by many overheight vehicles at the same time.

I'm also surprised that the project to reduce the road to single-file doesn't seem to have taken advantage of the space created either side of the reduced road width to use a small retaining wall solution to allow lowering the carriageway and increase the headroom slightly. The combination of a width restriction and slightly increased headroom might possibly have eliminated the problem.

This is the Ely bridge?
Looking at the road, there's nowhere for said vehicle to turn around if coming from the south.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/ely-cambridgeshireuk-may-23-2019-notorious-1408766873

Considering that there is now a southern bypass, the over-height sensors & warning signs could/should be before the bypass, so they give plenty of warning.
It also looks like there are two lanes leading onto the roundabout, so larger vehicles should be signed into the left lane, forcing them onto the bypass.

Richard Ingram · 15 Nov 2019

option said:
This is the Ely bridge?
Looking at the road, there's nowhere for said vehicle to turn around if coming from the south.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/ely-cambridgeshireuk-may-23-2019-notorious-1408766873

Considering that there is now a southern bypass, the over-height sensors & warning signs could/should be before the bypass, so they give plenty of warning.
It also looks like there are two lanes leading onto the roundabout, so larger vehicles should be signed into the left lane, forcing them onto the bypass.

Problem is there is a turning between the bypass and the bridge which leads to a Road/Rail depot, and just next to the bridge is the access point for a boatyard. There are large warning signs at the roundabout, but putting the triggered warning system there could cause problems for vehicles that do need to go over the roundabout.

option · 15 Nov 2019

Richard Ingram said:
Problem is there is a turning between the bypass and the bridge which leads to a Road/Rail depot, and just next to the bridge is the access point for a boatyard. There are large warning signs at the roundabout, but putting the triggered warning system there could cause problems for vehicles that do need to go over the roundabout.

but it's only a warning system. For those that do require access beyond that point, then they should have clear instructions as to what route to take.
It doesn't have to be exactly the same as what they've put on the bridge, just something that highlights the signage most relevant to large vehicles.

TrafficEng · 15 Nov 2019

bspahh said:
These are images from https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/201...re-opens-after-fourth-months-of-construction/ showing the warning signs for the Ely underpass.

Thanks, they were the ones I'd seen and was commenting on in #44.

Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on the highway authority as the work might have been incomplete at that stage. But based on those pictures I think they have done a terrible job.

It is also concerning that although the level crossing was already closed the level crossing signage was still all in place, including operational wig-wags. It all just adds the the confusing picture and potential for drivers to be distracted from the height restriction under the bridge.

bspahh · 15 Nov 2019

TrafficEng said:
It is also concerning that although the level crossing was already closed the level crossing signage was still all in place, including operational wig-wags. It all just adds the confusing picture and potential for drivers to be distracted from the height restriction under the bridge.

From the Railway's point of view, there are concrete bollards to the East and steel gates to the West in place to protect the railway from the road. The red flashing lights are still on 24-7. I guess it takes time and effort to rewire the signalling to allow these to be turned off.

I walk to and from the station once a day and I see lorries or high vans trying to use the level crossing every couple of months.

TrafficEng · 15 Nov 2019

bspahh said:
...The red flashing lights are still on 24-7. I guess it takes time and effort to rewire the signalling to allow these to be turned off.

I'm sure it does, but as it was planned work it would be nice to think someone might have managed to arrange it within 12(?) months that have passed since closure.

Also black polythene is quite cheap, and very effective at covering over unused/out of service signs. The lights could flash away underneath to keep the signalling happy, without drivers wondering what on earth is going on. If someone is concerned about the risk flapping black polythene poses to trains then a liberal application of black or grey paint does the job just as well.

RLBH · 18 Nov 2019

TrafficEng said:
It is contrary to fostering an 'open' safety culture where people feel able to report an incident without fear of the repercussions, and that others may learn from the mistake.

I don't believe that the road transport industry has an open safety culture in the way that rail, air or maritime transport does.

I don't believe there's any sharing of dangerous occurrences, near misses, and accidents between operators. Many dangerous occurrences and near misses go totally unreported or are swept under the carpet even within an operator, or drivers have become so used to them that they're accepted as normal.

The only accident investigations carried out are by the police, with a view to potential prosecution, and by insurers, with a view to establishing liability. There's no equivalent to the HSE, RAIB, AAIB or MAIB to establish the causal factors behind an incident and make recommendations to prevent reoccurrence.

In operational safety terms, road transport is several decades behind the rest of the transport industry, and only gets away with it because it's so dominant that tackling its' problems is unpalatable.

In the absence of such a body, I'd argue that the RAIB has jurisdiction to carry out an investigation into bridge strikes and make appropriate recommendations.

furnessvale · 18 Nov 2019

RLBH said:
I don't believe that the road transport industry has an open safety culture in the way that rail, air or maritime transport does.

I don't believe there's any sharing of dangerous occurrences, near misses, and accidents between operators. Many dangerous occurrences and near misses go totally unreported or are swept under the carpet even within an operator, or drivers have become so used to them that they're accepted as normal.

The only accident investigations carried out are by the police, with a view to potential prosecution, and by insurers, with a view to establishing liability. There's no equivalent to the HSE, RAIB, AAIB or MAIB to establish the causal factors behind an incident and make recommendations to prevent reoccurrence.

In operational safety terms, road transport is several decades behind the rest of the transport industry, and only gets away with it because it's so dominant that tackling its' problems is unpalatable.

In the absence of such a body, I'd argue that the RAIB has jurisdiction to carry out an investigation into bridge strikes and make appropriate recommendations.

Generally, the road haulage industry has a "sh*t happens" attitude to safety.

You only need to look at the great wheel loss "mystery" where wheels become detached from HGVs at speed with fatal consequences for other road users. The industry has tinkered with the problem for years and the best they can come up with are yellow tags on the wheel nuts which a driver can check, if he wants, and see if a nut has moved.

IMO there is no mystery. Modern vehicles are heavier and faster and the parts are overstressed. Because the wheels, nuts etc., are standard throughout the industry no-one is prepared to say they need uprating so things just carry on. A parallel with the rail industry a few years ago was a new fleet of aluminium hopper wagons built for Foster Yeoman. In use they developed cracks. Unlike the road industry which would find a "shade tree" mechanic and weld the crack up, the entire fleet was taken out of service because of the potential danger to passengers.

RLBH · 18 Nov 2019

furnessvale said:
Generally, the road haulage industry has a "sh*t happens" attitude to safety.

Passenger transport isn't any better - my father-in-law has recently become a driver for one of the major bus companies. Since finding out about their maintenance practices, and the checks that are expected (none, but sign this form...) before taking a bus off depot, he's actively told friends and family not to travel by bus.

duffield · 18 Nov 2019

RLBH said:
Passenger transport isn't any better - my father-in-law has recently become a driver for one of the major bus companies. Since finding out about their maintenance practices, and the checks that are expected (none, but sign this form...) before taking a bus off depot, he's actively told friends and family not to travel by bus.

You'd think a badly-maintained bus would be more of a danger to other road users and pedestrians than to its own passengers, so you might be safer on that bus than in a car behind it...

OverSpeed · 18 Dec 2019

There has been yet another bridge strike tonight, on Little Glen road, Glen parva (on the Nuneaton-Leicester line) featuring a eddie stobart driver thinking he could squeeze his lorry underneath the bridge in the evening rush hour -luckily the approach to it is at a very low speed (Compaired to the bridge on the A5 at hinkley where it's 50mph) and after a few hours the road seems to be back to normal, but surely these drivers are aware of the roads they are driving on?

And saying it was at a slow speed, and no other parties involved, do the hauliers (like eddie stobart) have to pay compensation to any toc's because of a bridge stike, as i guess trains can not run over something, unless it's deemed safe by the appropiate authorities?

http://prntscr.com/qcrfph

furnessvale · 19 Dec 2019

OverSpeed said:
And saying it was at a slow speed, and no other parties involved, do the hauliers (like eddie stobart) have to pay compensation to any toc's because of a bridge stike, as i guess trains can not run over something, unless it's deemed safe by the appropiate authorities?

http://prntscr.com/qcrfph

NR will have to examine the bridge and track after a strike so, yes, costs are incurred. I have posted before that NR will pursue the driver/company for compensation, IF THE VEHICLE REMAINS AT THE SCENE. In many cases if the vehicle is still mobile the driver will flee the scene. Without CCTV or witnesses prosecution is difficult.

talltim · 19 Dec 2019

Presumably because of delay attribution, it’s actually quite easy for NR to give a fully broken down figure for their costs.

Meerkat · 21 Dec 2019

furnessvale said:
NR will have to examine the bridge and track after a strike so, yes, costs are incurred. I have posted before that NR will pursue the driver/company for compensation, IF THE VEHICLE REMAINS AT THE SCENE. In many cases if the vehicle is still mobile the driver will flee the scene. Without CCTV or witnesses prosecution is difficult.

are there any frequently hit sites where it would be worth hanging a few cameras around?
Both as evidence of who did it, and if connected they could give an early indication of the severity of the strike.

furnessvale · 21 Dec 2019

Meerkat said:
are there any frequently hit sites where it would be worth hanging a few cameras around?
Both as evidence of who did it, and if connected they could give an early indication of the severity of the strike.

Yes. I am sure such cameras are fitted. Also the worst struck bridges are often fitted with safety beams to take the blows.

Interestingly enough, one of the most struck bridges in the country was on a minor lane near Disley Cheshire. All the HGVs striking the bridge were visting one factory. Shartly after safety beams were fitted, the factory closed for good and the site is now housing.

Bridge strikes - are they becoming more frequent?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member