double decker loses roof in York

Edders23 · 6 Feb 2020

Another bridge collision this time in york fortunately no injuries

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-51406005

The roof of a double-decker bus "peeled open like a can of beans" after it crashed into a low bridge in York.

It happened on Leeman Road on Thursday afternoon when it hit a railway bridge, North Yorkshire Police said.

Nobody was injured in the crash even though the Reliance bus was carrying passengers, but the road remains closed.

Train services are running but there have been some delays, Network Rail said.

RailUK Forums

Scott M · 6 Feb 2020

Think in future all railway bridges should be built to a minimum clearance specification that provide sufficient clearance for all commonly occurring vehicles. As it is obvious how it is an accident waiting to happen if a bridge doesn’t have enough clearance for a double decker bus, which are extremely common on our roads.

Imagine you’re a bus driver, you do a certain route day in day out and it is normally a single decker route. One day, due to a shortage of single deckers, control schedule a double decker onto the route. Think most people would just clock onto their shift and drive the bus without stopping to think about clearance levels of bridges etc.

Meole · 6 Feb 2020

Similar accident in Swansea recently however a passenger died there, perhaps in some cases the railway could be rerouted to allow some of such bridges to be removed to allow free bus passage ?

aleggatta · 6 Feb 2020

Scott M said:
Think in future all railway bridges should be built to a minimum clearance specification that provide sufficient clearance for all commonly occurring vehicles. As it is obvious how it is an accident waiting to happen if a bridge doesn’t have enough clearance for a double decker bus, which are extremely common on our roads.

Imagine you’re a bus driver, you do a certain route day in day out and it is normally a single decker route. One day, due to a shortage of single deckers, control schedule a double decker onto the route. Think most people would just clock onto their shift and drive the bus without stopping to think about clearance levels of bridges etc.

Appreciate your opinion, however the routes buses serve are mapped out, and as such any routes with vehicle restrictions should be known by the bus control, and flagged when an oversize vehicle is booked onto the route. It could even be written into the bus display system that double deckers cannot display the relevant route if it has such a restriction (that feature could be programmed in to the system itself).

It is also worth noting however, that not all bridges are railway bridges. Generally the bridge hasn't changed size, the vehicle has, and the driver of the vehicle is responsible. Maybe double deckers (or all buses) could be fitted with 'over-height' alarms that are GPS/radar linked, bringing to the drivers attention the issue upon approach to the obstruction.

edwin_m · 6 Feb 2020

Scott M said:
Think in future all railway bridges should be built to a minimum clearance specification that provide sufficient clearance for all commonly occurring vehicles. As it is obvious how it is an accident waiting to happen if a bridge doesn’t have enough clearance for a double decker bus, which are extremely common on our roads.

Imagine you’re a bus driver, you do a certain route day in day out and it is normally a single decker route. One day, due to a shortage of single deckers, control schedule a double decker onto the route. Think most people would just clock onto their shift and drive the bus without stopping to think about clearance levels of bridges etc.

Any new bridges would almost certainly be built to large enough dimensions for a double decker bus. Unfortunately there are many existing bridges that don't give those clearances, and even when a bridge is replaced it's not always possible to increase the clearances much. Raising the railway or lowering the road would make the job very much more time-consuming and costly. Worth remembering also that at the time most of those bridges were first build (thereby setting the clearance) double deck buses were smaller and slower (horse-drawn) so bridge strikes were less likely and less severe.

6Gman · 6 Feb 2020

Scott M said:
Think in future all railway bridges should be built to a minimum clearance specification that provide sufficient clearance for all commonly occurring vehicles. As it is obvious how it is an accident waiting to happen if a bridge doesn’t have enough clearance for a double decker bus, which are extremely common on our roads.

Or bus drivers (and lorry drivers, who are a bigger menace in my experience) could just take notice of warning signs.

43066 · 6 Feb 2020

Scott M said:
Think in future all railway bridges should be built to a minimum clearance specification that provide sufficient clearance for all commonly occurring vehicles. As it is obvious how it is an accident waiting to happen if a bridge doesn’t have enough clearance for a double decker bus, which are extremely common on our roads.

Imagine you’re a bus driver, you do a certain route day in day out and it is normally a single decker route. One day, due to a shortage of single deckers, control schedule a double decker onto the route. Think most people would just clock onto their shift and drive the bus without stopping to think about clearance levels of bridges etc.

Not sure there’s any excuse for professional drivers making mistakes like that. As far as I’m aware most commercial vehicles, from vans upwards, have their height clearly displayed in the driver’s cab.

As for the double versus single decker situation, tough. If a train driver regularly drives an eight car train over a route, guess whose fault it will be if he stops short on the day he’s given a ten car?!

sheff1 · 6 Feb 2020

Scott M said:
Imagine you’re a bus driver, you do a certain route day in day out and it is normally a single decker route. One day, due to a shortage of single deckers, control schedule a double decker onto the route. Think most people would just clock onto their shift and drive the bus without stopping to think about clearance levels of bridges etc.

That bridge is one of the most clearly marked I have seen anywhere and is also very obviously low as you approach (unlike some, where the lie of the land can make the clearance seem greater than it actually is).

If a driver going that way day in day out has not noticed such an obvious thing then what else are they missing ?

Andyh82 · 6 Feb 2020

Scott M said:
Think in future all railway bridges should be built to a minimum clearance specification that provide sufficient clearance for all commonly occurring vehicles. As it is obvious how it is an accident waiting to happen if a bridge doesn’t have enough clearance for a double decker bus, which are extremely common on our roads.

Imagine you’re a bus driver, you do a certain route day in day out and it is normally a single decker route. One day, due to a shortage of single deckers, control schedule a double decker onto the route. Think most people would just clock onto their shift and drive the bus without stopping to think about clearance levels of bridges etc.

Looking at the timings and the service involved

The 29 usually runs via Leeman Road but the 15:35 from Linton on Ouse to York is one journey that operates a slightly different route via Holgate & Blossom Street instead, presumably to allow the allocation of a double decker. Therefore it looks quite likely to be driver error.

CM · 6 Feb 2020

Meole said:
Similar accident in Swansea recently however a passenger died there, perhaps in some cases the railway could be rerouted to allow some of such bridges to be removed to allow free bus passage ?

Or perhaps a more cost-effective option other than ripping up and moving railways about could be to teach drivers how to read bloody road signs and pay attention!

Tom B · 6 Feb 2020

Scott M said:
Think in future all railway bridges should be built to a minimum clearance specification that provide sufficient clearance for all commonly occurring vehicles. As it is obvious how it is an accident waiting to happen if a bridge doesn’t have enough clearance for a double decker bus, which are extremely common on our roads.

Imagine you’re a bus driver, you do a certain route day in day out and it is normally a single decker route. One day, due to a shortage of single deckers, control schedule a double decker onto the route. Think most people would just clock onto their shift and drive the bus without stopping to think about clearance levels of bridges etc.

Wouldn't people go - "oh, hmm, this is unusual. It's usually on the single deckers. Oh yeah - there's that low bridge, that's why. I'll go and tell Blakey he's a massive nitwit and I'll get this bus out when he gives me a single decker".

Starmill · 6 Feb 2020

I'm not sure how much clearer this bridge could have been marked as a low bridge.

Really a very serious error here.

Tom B · 6 Feb 2020

Andyh82 said:
Looking at the timings and the service involved

The 29 usually runs via Leeman Road but the 15:35 from Linton on Ouse to York is one journey that operates a slightly different route via Holgate & Blossom Street instead, presumably to allow the allocation of a double decker. Therefore it looks quite likely to be driver error.

... or, as the case may be, now-ex-driver error...

farleigh · 6 Feb 2020

They should put signs on the bridges with the height on.

Then tell the bus drivers how high their bus is.

ExRes · 6 Feb 2020

Meole said:
Similar accident in Swansea recently however a passenger died there, perhaps in some cases the railway could be rerouted to allow some of such bridges to be removed to allow free bus passage ?

I take it you forgot to add the smiley face at the end of your post?

sharpley · 6 Feb 2020

This happened in Leicester a few years ago, where a driver got their routes mixed up. This 22 should have turned left before this bridge, the 21 route goes under the bridge and is always a single decker. No damage to the bridge and minimal delays to the MML above as I recall. Simple (but expensive and dangerous) human error.

Dashcam footage of the crash.
https://www.newsflare.com/video/256...s-crashed-into-leicester-bridge-injuring-five

tbtc · 6 Feb 2020

Edders23 said:
The roof of a double-decker bus "peeled open like a can of beans" after it crashed into a low bridge in York.

(obviously not a criticism of the OP, who is quoting something on the BBC website but...) I really wish people would realise that buses are MEANT to react like this when they hit a bridge - it's much better that the roof comes off in one piece like this (than the alternative, which would be splintering off and shattering into large numbers of pieces - it might sound dramatic to say that it "peeled open" but that's a design feature not a design flaw... oh, and you mean SARDINES, not beans!

(as I say, not a criticism of @Edders23 , who is quoting the article with the "beans" reference!)

CM · 6 Feb 2020

tbtc said:
(obviously not a criticism of the OP, who is quoting something on the BBC website but...) I really wish people would realise that buses are MEANT to react like this when they hit a bridge - it's much better that the roof comes off in one piece like this (than the alternative, which would be splintering off and shattering into large numbers of pieces - it might sound dramatic to say that it "peeled open" but that's a design feature not a design flaw... oh, and you mean SARDINES, not beans!

(as I say, not a criticism of @Edders23 , who is quoting the article with the "beans" reference!)

Well he is actually accurate as these days most tinned food comes in cans that can be "peeled" opened using the ring pull instead of a tin opener...so tin of beans is also accurate but this is now getting off topic.

43066 · 6 Feb 2020

Colin M said:
Well he is actually accurate as these days most tinned food comes in cans that can be "peeled" opened using the ring pull instead of a tin opener...so tin of beans is also accurate but this is now getting off topic.

You’ve rather missed the point.

Can you think of any reasons why a can of baked beans might be designed to “peel” open? I can.

Very different to the reasons why the roof of a bus might be designed to “peel” open, rather than shattering, if said bus collides with a bridge.

CM · 7 Feb 2020

43066 said:
You’ve rather missed the point.

Can you think of any reasons why a can of baked beans might be designed to “peel” open? I can.

Very different to the reasons why the roof of a bus might be designed to “peel” open, rather than shattering, if said bus collides with a bridge.

I've not missed the point at all. I know the reasons why a buses roof is designed to peel open.

I also made no reference at all regarding bus roofs and was merely stating that it's not just tins of sardines that can be peeled opened these days, just about every other tinned food can. So you've clearly read something in my post that isn't even there.

al78 · 7 Feb 2020

Colin M said:
Or perhaps a more cost-effective option other than ripping up and moving railways about could be to teach drivers how to read bloody road signs and pay attention!

Easy to say, near impossible to do. It is one thing to educate drivers, it is an entirely different issue how to make sure they apply what they have been taught. If drivers were always capable of paying attention, we wouldn't have thousands killed and seriously injured on the roads every year.

The driver that hit me when I was cycling to work pulled onto the roundabout at the point I was on the roundabout directly in front of him, i.e. I couldn't be in a more visible place, even the woman behind his big trailer saw me. Humans, for all their intelligence, do things that are extremely careless from time to time, and I don't know of a remedy for that. Punishment ensures consequence, but unless it is severe enough to make people think and increase concentration, it doesn't stop the incident from happening.

Bucephalus · 7 Feb 2020

Already in my relatively minimal experience I can say that mixing up bus routes and going the wrong way is easily done, especially on routes that overlap. Getting lost on diversion is also very possible. I would however, like to think that a bridge displaying anything 14' 4" or below would give pause. Everything leading up to it is very possible

Carlisle · 7 Feb 2020

6Gman said:
Or bus drivers (and lorry drivers, who are a bigger menace in my experience) could just take notice of warning signs.

There’s routes (school busses etc) which probably 90% of the time use a single decker on route x but occasionally substitute a double decker in which case ones told to divert along route y, I suspect it’s these type of scenarios rather than the regular service routes where most of these incidents occur

richw · 7 Feb 2020

To answer a couple of posts. This note features in our duty cards here where applicable.

****warning low bridge, do not use Double decker on this service ****

Deerfold · 7 Feb 2020

All buses on TfL services have iBus which includes a low bridge warning system. The main problem is that it goes off on any bus, including single deckers. It also doesn't know how high the bus is, so goes off when the bus goes over a low bridge. And it does need the system to be on. So long as the system is on, the warning still goes off when the bus is not in service.

Geordie driver · 7 Feb 2020

Never hit a low bridge, but came close on a private hire at about 2 in the morning being directed by the person paying for the hire.

Easy mistake to make, especially on a route you are used to, usual " experts" in this thread who have never driven a bus in service seem to know better.

Low bridge near the Metro Centre in Gateshead, 605 route to Clara Vale, single decker broke down, fitter ( who wouldn't know the route) brought decker out as replacement. New driver, bit nervous, stopped short of the low bridge. She got out, checked the height of the bridge, checked the height of the bus and STILL tried to drive the bus through, but at low speed and just damaged the front upper windows.

carlberry · 7 Feb 2020

43066 said:
Not sure there’s any excuse for professional drivers making mistakes like that. As far as I’m aware most commercial vehicles, from vans upwards, have their height clearly displayed in the driver’s cab.

As for the double versus single decker situation, tough. If a train driver regularly drives an eight car train over a route, guess whose fault it will be if he stops short on the day he’s given a ten car?!

Believe it or not the majority of drivers don't set out to do this kind of thing. Obviously there's no excuse however, if you're a car driver who drives a regular commute, you're likely to have experienced the situation where you get to one end of the journey and cant actually remember most of it. This is a standard human response because the brain basically operates in auto pilot mode; it's done this before; if it does this then this happens and the end result is this. It's basically how we learn and get better because the brain dosent have to work as much on stuff it already knows.
Transpose that to driving a bus and you have a situation where you're constantly having to correct parts of that, especially if you're in the position of swapping between single and double deckers. It's very easy to say 'there's a warning sign' however if you're driving a double deck bus it actually looks identical to a single deck bus except for a small sign which is likely to look much like any other small sign, you'll have perception of hazards left and right because you can see them however it's impossible for the brain to perceive the hazard about it because it cant see it.

Again, there is no excuse for it, however it's worth remembering that there's a human being involved and they're fairly aware that a momentary error can maim or kill somebody (compared with the other examples where a lorry driver might smash up a few pallets of fizzy drink or somebody may be unable to get out of the door they wanted to use).

pdeaves · 7 Feb 2020

carlberry said:
however it's impossible for the brain to perceive the hazard about it because it cant see it.

Maybe there's a case for an entirely new bus (and lorry) design that puts the driver at the highest point. If the driver sees a bridge immediately in front of their face they are more likely to stop. Obviously, the mechanical workings of such a vehicle would need to be different to today's norm but there is no reason why, with all the new technology entering the market, there cannot be a new way of doing this, too.

Gems · 7 Feb 2020

pdeaves said:
Maybe there's a case for an entirely new bus (and lorry) design that puts the driver at the highest point. If the driver sees a bridge immediately in front of their face they are more likely to stop. Obviously, the mechanical workings of such a vehicle would need to be different to today's norm but there is no reason why, with all the new technology entering the market, there cannot be a new way of doing this, too.

So the buses of the future should have a cab at the height of a cargo ships bridge. Nah. That's just silly.

My car has the answer already. A reversing camera. Wouldn't be rocket science to fit a camera to the highest point of a vehicle backed up by GPS sensors. If a bridge is detected along the route the vehicle is taking, the camera image illuminates with a audible warning.

Edders23 · 7 Feb 2020

richw said:
View attachment 73538 To answer a couple of posts. This note features in our duty cards here where applicable.

****warning low bridge, do not use Double decker on this service ****

I wonder how expensive it would be to fit buses with the technical equivalent of that linked to a GPRS warning system that would give an audible announcement to the driver if he entered a road with an obstruction or which had a weight limit over a weak bridge etc.

And to answer the above posts yes as a professional driver myself I am well aware that all vehicles are engineered to absorb the energy of impacts in order to limit that being directed into the occupants which would cause injury

double decker loses roof in York

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member