4S99 - train can't limbo either

[Sonik]

I will say that freight operations on the railway are a little different to freight operations on the roads so I don’t echo the sentiment regarding the Driver specifically.
However, with incidents like this in general, I am always frustrated at the attitudes displayed when a lorry strikes a railway bridge and firmly believe more effort should be made into investigating all the factors involved rather than just trying to shame and belittle the Lorry Driver (who will in all probability be mortified and suffering a massive dent in their professional pride).

That just highlight the difference between rail and road safety principals.

The railway implements safety as an integrated system, with multiple redundancies, whereas roads are much more dependent on single actions of individuals.

 

[Dieseldriver]

That just highlight the difference between rail and road safety principals.

The railway implements safety as an integrated system, with multiple redundancies, whereas roads are much more dependent on single actions of individuals.

Definitely, my point though is that one day there is a chance that a lorry striking a rail bridge could result in a multi fatality major derailment. As you say, on the railway that level of risk is deemed unacceptable and effort is usually made to mitigate against that risk.
The enlightened attitude towards non technical skills and human factors on the railway is something that should be extended to the road haulage industry.

 

[GB]

We used to have loading gauges.

A CCTV based equivalent system at the exit from intermodal yards would make a lot of sense. The technology is trivial these days but of course the railway is slow to adopt.

CCTV still requires someone to view and spot the issue. There are however electronic overheight detectors at some intermodal locations.

 

[Sonik]

CCTV still requires someone to view and spot the issue.

Sorry if not clear, I meant CCTV used with image recognition, this would allow for a sophisticated and fully automated gauge checking solution at relatively low cost.

I was working on image recognition systems for different (non rail) applications over 30 years ago, so I would imagine it's a lot easier and cheaper with the technology available now.

Definitely, my point though is that one day there is a chance that a lorry striking a rail bridge could result in a multi fatality major derailment. As you say, on the railway that level of risk is deemed unacceptable and effort is usually made to mitigate against that risk.
The enlightened attitude towards non technical skills and human factors on the railway is something that should be extended to the road haulage industry.

Fully agree, the principal applies to all modes - the railway has much to learn from aviation on human factors and verbal communication for example.

But it does annoy that road transport seems to be exempt from such debate and the daily carnage is just accepted as a fact of life.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The railway implements safety as an integrated system, with multiple redundancies, whereas roads are much more dependent on single actions of individuals.

It's a long time since I had to prepare and issue what used to be BR29973 'exceptional load' forms. Can you advise what "multiple redundancies" will have applied to the issuing of 'authority to proceed' for an intermodal train such as the one in question these days? Thanks.

Definitely, my point though is that one day there is a chance that a lorry striking a rail bridge could result in a multi fatality major derailment. As you say, on the railway that level of risk is deemed unacceptable and effort is usually made to mitigate against that risk.
The enlightened attitude towards non technical skills and human factors on the railway is something that should be extended to the road haulage industry.

Presumably there is a material risk that an over-height container could be dislodged from a wagon and fall into the path of a passing train (or cause an initial derailment that was then hit by a passing train) and cause a multi-fatality major derailment too? Probably more in fact, because a container or wagon is generally far less robust than a bridge.

But it does annoy that road transport seems to be exempt from such debate and the daily carnage is just accepted as a fact of life.

There is plenty of debate about road safety and many interventions to improve it. For example junction improvements on the Trunk Road network, often largely to protect or separate vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists. Ironically there are many threads on these forums about "Billions of pounds being spent on new roads" when the truth is that most of the money is going on maintaining and renewing the existing ones and on improving safety. A bit like the railways, really.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Presumably there is a material risk that an over-height container could be dislodged from a wagon and fall into the path of a passing train (or cause an initial derailment that was then hit by a passing train) and cause a multi-fatality major derailment too? Probably more in fact, because a container or wagon is generally far less robust than a bridge.

You’re right. Which is why it leaves a bad taste when a railway error that could potentially lead to an incident is dealt with seemingly more maturely and in a more enlightened fashion than a road error that could lead to the same outcome

 

[Sonik]

It's a long time since I had to prepare and issue what used to be BR29973 'exceptional load' forms. Can you advise what "multiple redundancies" will have applied to the issuing of 'authority to proceed' for an intermodal train such as the one in question these days? Thanks.

Dispatch checking is an obvious SPOF for which I already suggested a mitigation above. But unlike roads, the railway does not depend on individual drivers to prepare routes and check clearances for each individual bridge encountered.

A technological solution for bridge clearance would be possible for roads e.g. using satellite navigation, but how would you implement and enforce it? The underlying point there being that it's the decentralized and deregulated nature of the road transport industry that makes implementation of safety changes much more difficult. And changing that would be against the prevailing political religion.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Dispatch checking is an obvious SPOF for which I already suggested a mitigation above. But unlike roads, the railway does not depend on individual drivers to prepare routes and check clearances for each individual bridge encountered.

A technological solution for bridge clearance would be possible for roads e.g. using satellite navigation, but how would you implement and enforce it? The underlying point there being that it's the decentralized and deregulated nature of the road transport industry that makes implementation of safety changes much more difficult. And changing that would be against the prevailing political religion.

Thanks. So, without being distracted by a deviation onto the supposedly worse issues on the roads, we are still in a Single Point Of Failure (SPOF) mode on the rails too.

 

[Sonik]

Thanks. So, without being distracted by a deviation onto the supposedly worse issues on the roads, we are still in a Single Point Of Failure (SPOF) mode on the rails too.

In response to @Deiseldriver's comment, it was intended to made as a general point, for which there will obviously be exceptions. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

 

[Nottingham59]

Dispatch checking is an obvious SPOF

If that was the issue, it strictly speaking wouldn't gave been a single point of failure, as the overheight container would have already been mis-loaded onto the wrong wagon. So that's two failures at least that will have occurred.