Bridge strike at Plymouth (30/08)

[Grumpy Git]

And you have to be quite old to have been taught any imperial measurements. Certainly over 50, I think. Or American!

Definitely over 50.

 

[DelW]

Then they should be familiar with the units used before driving. If I was driving in another country its one of the first thing I'd find out, a certain amount of personal responsibility

Britain has been a metric country for technical, commercial and business purposes, since the mid to late 1960s, with just a few exceptions - mainly miles on road signs and car instruments, and pints of milk and beer. As an engineer I worked exclusively in metric units from my first job in 1973, and very glad to have done so - engineering calculations in imperial have much more difficult-to-use units.

 

[sharpley]

Theres a thread on this incident on a truck drivers forum...

Bridge strike in Plymouth

He’s made a good mess of this one! bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-58387682

www.trucknetuk.com

Here are a few posts from that thread.

With some local knowledge I believe that the vehicle has probably just departed the Alexandra Road store. Their regular drivers would never use this route so this will be a newbie or an agency pleb. This is a brand new 21-reg lorry on the Tesco Express contract and it will be out of Fowler Welch's depot at Heathfield Devon.

For comparison, around 2001 the East-coast mainline was shut for just seven hours, near Grantham IIRC, due to a car transporter connecting with the overhead wires. That cost the company over £1 million, plus interest, so adjusting for inflation from 20 years ago, plus a longer period of time for the bridge repairs (gotta take longer than fixing those cables) and someone is going to need very deep pockets

EDIT not that it matters but it was Newark in 2003 and it cost the haulage company £1,017,144 plus interest. I can't help wondering if this incident bankrupted them.

Driver has absolutely no defence. The lorry will have the height inside the cabin. Our class 2 lorries are 11’ to 12’ depending on year. That bridge is signed at 10’ 11”.

 

[Gareth Hooper]

I just wonder if the driver saw the height signs, but from his perspective thought the "hole" looked big enough, (i.e. they were not bright enough to realise the incline of the road would see them hit it)?

I also wonder if it might be a good move to completely standardise the height signs in metric? They may have read the first sign as "metres" and thought they had plenty of room, not everyone has a good grasp of measurements? In some respects maybe like the recent level crossing collision where less signage may be better?

Just wonder if driver could read English!!!

 

[221129]

But he did - and was right to do so

No. He didn't. He might have organised taxis, but there is no way he phoned around coach operators and sorted that.

 

[Snow1964]

And you have to be quite old to have been taught any imperial measurements. Certainly over 50, I think. Or American!

I am 56 and we were taught metric in junior school second year which would have been 1973

However metric probably hadn’t been taught that long then, as wasn’t enough metre sticks and trundle wheels for whole class, but we were banned from using the yard sticks that were stacked on the cupboard (one of those funny things I remember, because parents still talked in imperial in 1973)

 

[swt_passenger]

I am 56 and we were taught metric in junior school second year which would have been 1973

However metric probably hadn’t been taught that long then, as wasn’t enough metre sticks and trundle wheels for whole class, but we were banned from using the yard sticks that were stacked on the cupboard (one of those funny things I remember, because parents still talked in imperial in 1973)

I was fully metric at secondary school, 1966 onwards. I’m now, (just), an OAP. My late mother, born 1929, was fully au fait with the metric system, having been taught it at school prior to WW2. She got really annoyed about all older people being treated as though it was an unknown…

I think, for most reasonable people, blaming the dual marked road signs is clutching at straws.

 

[Nova1]

"please don't crash into our bridges anymore"

Lorry drivers told to "take care" after railway bridge struck - BBC News

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes, I remember reading the memoirs of a retired Area Manager at Exeter. In his day his Plymouth colleague would have taken control of the incident, I'm sure.

Local 'improvisation' wasn't always a good idea. Back in BR's day, when I was with ScotRail, there was an un-planned line blockage between Perth and Dundee with a need for rail replacement buses. Local staff managed to make contact with a local school bus contractor whose afternoon work had just finished. Great!

Bus soon arrived at Perth station and loaded up with stranded passengers. Driver (who had only ever done local Perth work on pre-arranged routes) asked station staff for directions to Dundee - all long before sat-navs, of course. Helpful staff provided a route and happily waved the bus off.

"Ooops! Shouldn't we have told him about the low bridge just next to the station?"

CRUNCH! Fortunately it only took the roof off and nobody injured.

 

[Tallguy]

Worth noting that there is currently a major rail replacement operation taking place in the Bristol area, due to the T. Meads blockade. No doubt that is eating up a sizeable chunk of the spare bus/coach capacity in the S West.

There will be few, if any coaches from west of Exeter supporting the TM blockade due to driver hours etc. Lots of coach firms in Bristol to give support, whether they have drivers is another matter…….

 

[seawright]

National Rail Enquiries say single line working has been implemented

Looking at the maps on Open Train Times the down line doesn't appear to be signalled for bi-directional working.
Are trains required to pick up a pilot (human token) before proceeding into the single line section or is there some other form of (hi tech) control used in these and similar circumstances?

 

[theking]

They will still be intuitively more familiar to metric as well most younger brits

It doesn't matter what they're familiar with.

If you are told your truck is xx feet and the height warning in the cab shows feet then you don't go under a bridge that is lower than the display.

The worst thing is this bridge has both height signs so this driver has no excuse as even a complete idiot could not confuse 10.9 foot with metres looking at how low that bridge is.

The driver is supposed to be a professional but is a fool for doing that.

All tesco drivers get a risk assessment and a planned route they should follow that driver has clearly ignored that.

Hopefully this driver gets an interview with the traffic commissioner and his licence revoked.

 

[Martin_1981]

Buses are being arranged for next few days from Tiverton, Exeter SD and Plymouth. Some trains will (at this point) still terminate at Totnes, but I think there will be a general shift towards passengers wanting onwards connections to be encouraged to change at Tiverton Parkway.

Tiverton Parkway to Plymouth by road takes approximately 1 hour and 15 mins, the train takes about the same. Therefore any increase in journey time on this leg of the journey as a result of the bus replacement is marginal depending on traffic.

 

[GB]

Looking at the maps on Open Train Times the down line doesn't appear to be signalled for bi-directional working.
Are trains required to pick up a pilot (human token) before proceeding into the single line section or is there some other form of (hi tech) control used in these and similar circumstances?

Single Line Working is in operation so there will be a Pilotman….however s/he doesn’t have to travel with every train.

 

[Spartacus]

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.

 

[RPI]

And you have to be quite old to have been taught any imperial measurements. Certainly over 50, I think. Or American!

I left school in 2000 and we were taught both, it always seemed to be metric for small measurements and feet/miles for anything larger! Whilst we were also taught metric for everything it seemed every teache would always point out the metric measurements and then after say something like "so about 20 feet". I found it very useful, I still measure like that today, anything precise and smaller in metric, anything else imperial!

 

[EbbwJunction1]

No. He didn't. He might have organised taxis, but there is no way he phoned around coach operators and sorted that.

I was there, and you weren't .... so all I can say is what he told me.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Then they should be familiar with the units used before driving. If I was driving in another country its one of the first thing I'd find out, a certain amount of personal responsibility

Should be, yes. But, as with recent discussion on level crossings, relying on other people's sense of personal responsibility is not enough to ensure safety, in particular where the potential harm would be to people other than those taking the risks.

 

[paul1609]

Ivybridge has probably better road access and is right by the A38, however, as you say, is unstaffed. I would have thought the on call manager would have been out to Totnes at some point.

Does the A38 still have the signs inviting drivers to use Ivybridge Station as a Park and Ride for Plymouth even though it has a very infrequent service and Plymouth Station is a hike from where most people want to go?

 

[zwk500]

Should be, yes. But, as with recent discussion on level crossings, relying on other people's sense of personal responsibility is not enough to ensure safety, in particular where the potential harm would be to people other than those taking the risks.

At this bridge, both metric and imperial are clearly signed, and you can see the signs in the photos on the news reports. I don't think standardisation on one set or the other would have changed anything about this incident.

 

[richw]

There will be few, if any coaches from west of Exeter supporting the TM blockade due to driver hours etc. Lots of coach firms in Bristol to give support, whether they have drivers is another matter…….

Truronian have been involved in both blockades putting drivers up in Premier Inn or similar for the required period of their block in Bristol. Knowing which have room for coach parking overnight kills two birds one stone then

Does the A38 still have the signs inviting drivers to use Ivybridge Station as a Park and Ride for Plymouth even though it has a very infrequent service and Plymouth Station is a hike from where most people want to go?

Yes and a huge car park (with height barriers so no good for lining up coaches in!

 

[MadCommuter]

It surprises me that the height restriction signs are of the advisory type (red triangle) rather than mandatory (red circle). Under the mandatory signs, a traffic offence is committed but not with advisories.

 

[zwk500]

It surprises me that the height restriction signs are of the advisory type (red triangle) rather than mandatory (red circle). Under the mandatory signs, a traffic offence is committed but not with advisories.

This was addressed in a previous post upthread, and apparently the mandatory signs can only be used for flat deck bridges, whereas arches must use advisory/warning signs.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It surprises me that the height restriction signs are of the advisory type (red triangle) rather than mandatory (red circle). Under the mandatory signs, a traffic offence is committed but not with advisories.

It seems, from the official Government TRSGD instructions, that the circular mandatory signs can only be used at girder-type bridges (where the span is horizontal). Arch bridges have to use the warning triangle. I'm sure the DfT came up with what, to them, seemed a logical reason for making this distinction!

 

[Spartacus]

It surprises me that the height restriction signs are of the advisory type (red triangle) rather than mandatory (red circle). Under the mandatory signs, a traffic offence is committed but not with advisories.

I believe it's due to it being an arched bridge, and the height across being a long way from uniform. Horizontal, girder type bridges are in my experience more often than not mandatories, though there are some that aren't. That I can't explain.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I’m getting increasingly frustrated with the attitudes shown after bridge strikes.

If a Train Driver makes an error, we tend to investigate, look into the reasons behind that error and as an industry, look into ways that such an incident can be prevented in the future, rather than just looking to punish the Train Driver. The only exception is if a Train Driver has done something deliberately reckless or has a string of incidents that suggest they may not be suitable for the job role.

Why when a lorry hits an underbridge, are people involved in the railway industry constantly just looking to punish the Lorry Driver? I’ve already seen a couple of posts in this thread making flippant and almost gleeful comments at the prospect of this Lorry Driver potentially being out of a job (something which I always find abhorrent). If the Lorry Driver was doing something that deliberately endangered safety which led to this incident then they should be punished, but, with the majority of these incidents it seems to be that the Lorry Drivers involved have made an ‘honest’ mistake (much like a Train Driver stopping their ten coach train on the five car mark at a platform).
Punishing Lorry Drivers doesn’t solve anything, bridge bash incidents continue to occur time and time again regardless. I thoroughly believe that the Road Haulage Industry aswell as the Rail Industry need to work together on this issue more constructively and really look at the human factors involved in these occurrences. This should involve listening to Lorry Drivers (including ones who have had a bridge bash) and see in what ways they may be prevented in the future aswell as the factors that may have led to them happening in the first place.
No Train Driver sets out to have a SPAD and by the same token, I’m willing to bet that no Lorry Driver sets out to deliberately wedge their lorry under a bridge.

 

[MadCommuter]

This was addressed in a previous post upthread, and apparently the mandatory signs can only be used for flat deck bridges, whereas arches must use advisory/warning signs.

Thanks, sorry, I had missed that.

 

[zwk500]

I’m getting increasingly frustrated with the attitudes shown after bridge strikes.

If a Train Driver makes an error, we tend to investigate, look into the reasons behind that error and as an industry, look into ways that such an incident can be prevented in the future, rather than just looking to punish the Train Driver. The only exception is if a Train Driver has done something deliberately reckless or has a string of incidents that suggest they may not be suitable for the job role.

Why when a lorry hits an underbridge, are people involved in the railway industry constantly just looking to punish the Lorry Driver? I’ve already seen a couple of posts in this thread making flippant and almost gleeful comments at the prospect of this Lorry Driver potentially being out of a job (something which I always find abhorrent). If the Lorry Driver was doing something that deliberately endangered safety which led to this incident then they should be punished, but, with the majority of these incidents it seems to be that the Lorry Drivers involved have made an ‘honest’ mistake (much like a Train Driver stopping their ten coach train on the five car mark at a platform).
Punishing Lorry Drivers doesn’t solve anything, bridge bash incidents continue to occur time and time again regardless. I thoroughly believe that the Road Haulage Industry aswell as the Rail Industry need to work together on this issue more constructively and really look at the human factors involved in these occurrences. This should involve listening to Lorry Drivers (including ones who have had a bridge bash) and see in what ways they may be prevented in the future aswell as the factors that may have led to them happening in the first place.
No Train Driver sets out to have a SPAD and by the same token, I’m willing to bet that no Lorry Driver sets out to deliberately wedge their lorry under a bridge.

I agree with this, as understanding what causes bridge bashes is by far the most effective way to reduce them, and that's the best outcome for all concerned.

However, in this instance the driver had a warning of the max height in the cab that was substantially in excess of the low height warning stated. What would the likely outcome be for a train driver who was given posted warning that their train was foul of gauge on a route, then attempted to take the route anyway?

 

[Dieseldriver]

I agree with this, as understanding what causes bridge bashes is by far the most effective way to reduce them, and that's the best outcome for all concerned.

However, in this instance the driver had a warning of the max height in the cab that was substantially in excess of the low height warning stated. What would the likely outcome be for a train driver who was given posted warning that their train was foul of gauge on a route, then attempted to take the route anyway?

If a Train Driver accepted a wrong route that put their train onto a route where it was out of gauge resulting in a more serious incident there would at the very least be a thorough investigation. Generally there would be recommendations made and all factors of that incident would be looked into (not just the Drivers actions). As for the outcome to the Driver, I can’t categorically say as each incident is different but I would be willing to bet that a Train Driver with a reasonable record, who wasn’t proved to be will fully neglectful in the incident (ie, it was proven to be a lapse) and who behaved correctly in the aftermath and cooperated with the investigation would still have a job.
I have never driven a Lorry and don’t have much knowledge of the haulage industry but one thing I do think about bridge bash incidents is what is the consequence to a Lorry Driver if they take an unsuitable route and then encounter a low bridge which they (correctly) stop short of. Is it a temptation to try and risk making it under the structure for fear of reprisal if they end up blocking the potentially narrow road unable to turn around? What I’m trying to say is, is there a way of trying to say to Lorry Drivers ‘look, if you are on course to take your lorry under a low bridge but you correctly stop short of that bridge as you get closer and make no movement towards that bridge, even if you cause a massive headache by blocking that road and costing a lot of time delay, you won’t be in any trouble as you have prevented an incident in the first place’?

If a Train Driver accepted a wrong route that put their train onto a route where it was out of gauge resulting in a more serious incident there would at the very least be a thorough investigation. Generally there would be recommendations made and all factors of that incident would be looked into (not just the Drivers actions). As for the outcome to the Driver, I can’t categorically say as each incident is different but I would be willing to bet that a Train Driver with a reasonable record, who wasn’t proved to be will fully neglectful in the incident (ie, it was proven to be a lapse) and who behaved correctly in the aftermath and cooperated with the investigation would still have a job.
I have never driven a Lorry and don’t have much knowledge of the haulage industry but one thing I do think about bridge bash incidents is what is the consequence to a Lorry Driver if they take an unsuitable route and then encounter a low bridge which they (correctly) stop short of. Is it a temptation to try and risk making it under the structure for fear of reprisal if they end up blocking the potentially narrow road unable to turn around? What I’m trying to say is, is there a way of trying to say to Lorry Drivers ‘look, if you are on course to take your lorry under a low bridge but you correctly stop short of that bridge as you get closer and make no movement towards that bridge, even if you cause a massive headache by blocking that road and costing a lot of time delay, you won’t be in any trouble as you have prevented an incident in the first place’?

I should probably add that what you’re saying about this incident from the Lorry Drivers perspective is very similar in principle to a Train Driver having a platform stop short incident. The Train Driver could have physically counted all the coaches when they relieved the train, they could have an indication of train length visually in the cab and they could have written down the length of their formation on their diagram. However, still, many Train Drivers have stopped their ten coach train on the five car mark at a platform with the potential for doors to be released onto the track side.
This doesn’t mean the Train Driver is stupid or negligent, there are a myriad of factors that can lead to an incident such as this.

 

[zwk500]

If a Train Driver accepted a wrong route that put their train onto a route where it was out of gauge resulting in a more serious incident there would at the very least be a thorough investigation. Generally there would be recommendations made and all factors of that incident would be looked into (not just the Drivers actions). As for the outcome to the Driver, I can’t categorically say as each incident is different but I would be willing to bet that a Train Driver with a reasonable record, who wasn’t proved to be will fully neglectful in the incident (ie, it was proven to be a lapse) and who behaved correctly in the aftermath and cooperated with the investigation would still have a job.

Thanks for this insight.

I have never driven a Lorry and don’t have much knowledge of the haulage industry but one thing I do think about bridge bash incidents is what is the consequence to a Lorry Driver if they take an unsuitable route and then encounter a low bridge which they (correctly) stop short of. Is it a temptation to try and risk making it under the structure for fear of reprisal if they end up blocking the potentially narrow road unable to turn around? What I’m trying to say is, is there a way of trying to say to Lorry Drivers ‘look, if you are on course to take your lorry under a low bridge but you correctly stop short of that bridge as you get closer and make no movement towards that bridge, even if you cause a massive headache by blocking that road and costing a lot of time delay, you won’t be in any trouble as you have prevented an incident in the first place’?

I agree the pressure on road drivers to maintain time and how they interact with other road users is a massive problem. There isn't a quick and easy solution to it though, at least to me.