Container lorry brings services to a halt

[Stompehh]

I grew up very close by and worked for Claas for a short period. My late father worked there his whole life. The people at Combine World are very familiar with the bridge's height. Combines fit under, but only just. No chance when on a low loader.

This is the first time I've heard of a bridge strike at that location.

 

[Elecman]

One of the most bashed bridges in the country was at Disley, Cheshire. The minor road involved led to ONE factory and, by virtue of a second bridge beyond the factory, was not a through route for anything larger than a Transit van.

Every HGV visiting that factory must have been known in advance but they still managed to send overheight lorries. Thankfully the factory is now closed and the site is housing.

That bridge was fitted with an electronic bridge bash system that alarmed to the controlling signalboxes as it was hit so often

 

[Elecman]

Interesting the bridge overheight warning system on the A road to Aylesbury from Bicester at Blackthorn has been removed

 

[HowardGWR]

A52 through Grantham should hopefully get bypassed soon.
Supposedly work has commenced on the ground on the Southern Relief Road, complete with enormous viaduct.

The repaired bridge next to the renewed Broadway station on the preserved GWSR has been struck several times despite immense efforts with chevron paint and now height protection. The point being that this is a road that was long ago bypassed. What people forget is that all long distance road haulage usually begins and ends with a local road. Thus bypasses do not save railway bridges necessarily.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

It's not the hauliers fault.

I'm sorry, I disagree. Are you saying it's the railway's fault?

A lorry driver employed by whatever haulier is expected to know the height of his lorry. Why can't people take responsibility for their actions, why is it always someone else's fault !?

 

[silverfoxcc]

I still cannot understand why the VERY simple idea of putting a substantial bar across the road 30yds in front of the bridge isnt taken up.
Cost of train holdups inconvienience to passengers etc.initial erection and replacement of the bent unit must be cheaper than that

It is all well and good pontificating about signs etc, but these are normally on the bridge itself and by then it is too late, and if in advance of the bridge could get 'lost' in the plethora of other road signs and street furniture

 

[johnnychips]

^I think some posters said in a related thread that there was a danger the bar might collapse and injure or kill a nearby motorist or pedestrian.

 

[Nighthawke]

It's not the hauliers fault.

From the opening post in this thread and the quoted text, clearly NR think otherwise as do I. NR as the injured party are entitled to reclaim their damage costs from the third party - I know as I dealt with damage claims for a network company years ago (not rail). Any dispute will ultimately be dealt with by the courts if necessary.

Maybe a bit more comment rather than a blunt statement might help us understand your thinking.

 

[TrafficEng]

Maybe a bit more comment rather than a blunt statement might help us understand your thinking.

I might be wrong, but I assumed Greenboy was implying it was the driver's fault, not the hauliers.

I agree with what you say though. In terms of financial liability it will be the haulier and/or their insurance company who get sent the bill.

 

[johnnychips]

In respect of Nighthawke’s post #37. If a train driver made a mistake that led to damage or injury, the claim for redress would be made to the operator, not him or her.

Edit: I think TrafficEng and I posted much the same thing at about the same time.

 

[TrafficEng]

^I think some posters said in a related thread that there was a danger the bar might collapse and injure or kill a nearby motorist or pedestrian.

I was one of them. But that was in relation to putting some form of low cost structure up.

silverfoxcc mentions a "substantial bar" which is "30yds" from the bridge. That is a different proposition. A substantial bar would be ok, so long as it is fitted on substantial supports with substantial foundations. We've just added several zeros to the cost per bridge, especially if utility plant has to be diverted to make room for the foundations, or if additional land needs to be purchased.

If there's no budget to make sure the signs are up to minimum standards - let alone minimum plus - then the chances of a budget being available to put these substantial bars up at more than a very small number of sites is close to zero.

Network Rail's approach of putting up bridge protection beams at the most vulnerable locations (usually supported by the bridge structure itself) is the best way to go. The other sites need a major overhaul of the signage and a commitment to keep them maintained properly.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Train drivers are "professional". They have a lot more training than lorry/bus drivers. They are also required to have specific route knowledge that lorry and bus drivers don't necessarily have. In some locations there are 'Check signal' signs on platforms as a reminder because having stopped for just a few minutes the driver might be thinking about other things.

Yet from time to time train drivers pass signals at danger. Even the ones where a sign just told them to check.

Do we hang them? Or do we recognise that humans are fallible and mistakes happen? The most important thing, rather than just taking revenge, is to examine all the circumstances and see if there is anything that can be learned so the chances of the same mistake happening again can be reduced.

That includes looking at the infrastructure and seeing if it can be improved. Is it doing all that is reasonably possible to help the driver, or is it setting a trap for those of us who don't manage to be perfect 100% of the time?

It is hypocritical to expect the drivers to be 100% and do better if the same expectations aren't applied to those responsible for providing and maintaining the infrastructure.

I agree with this 100% as a Train Driver. The attitude on the Railway used to be 'Train Drivers stop at red signals, if they don't, they're idiots/a naughty boy'. Still kept having many many fatalities in crashes caused by SPADs though until that attitude changed... We're all human, if there is an issue with lorries still hitting low bridges, maybe more needs to be done to support/assist HGV Drivers before the incident happens, rather than simply slating them after the event.

 

[Antman]

I might be wrong, but I assumed Greenboy was implying it was the driver's fault, not the hauliers.

I agree with what you say though. In terms of financial liability it will be the haulier and/or their insurance company who get sent the bill.

You're not wrong, that's exactly what I was implying. Hauliers don't want their lorries hitting bridges anymore than NR do.

 

[Antman]

I'm sorry, I disagree. Are you saying it's the railway's fault?

A lorry driver employed by whatever haulier is expected to know the height of his lorry. Why can't people take responsibility for their actions, why is it always someone else's fault !?

No I'm not saying it's the railway industries fault but as I said previously hauliers don't want their lorries hitting bridges anymore than NR do. It's obviously down to human error on the part of the driver.

 

[30909]

Perhaps the first step after this, apparently rare occurrence, would be to place warning or restriction signs opposite the premises exits' with arrows pointing towards the bridge. You would hope that drivers would either halt as they leave the sites or at least exit slowly enough to see and register the restriction. Is this not a fairly inexpensive installation that may prevent a repeat incident?

 

[Spartacus]

Perhaps the first step after this, apparently rare occurrence, would be to place warning or restriction signs opposite the premises exits' with arrows pointing towards the bridge. You would hope that drivers would either halt as they leave the sites or at least exit slowly enough to see and register the restriction. Is this not a fairly inexpensive installation that may prevent a repeat incident?

Would it make a blind bit of difference when the driver clearly didn't see or ignored the prohibition sign on the bridge? The container was carrying a large quantity of rubber gloves, so I'm not convinced it was from the nearby facility.

 

[SteveM70]

Clearly events like this are collectively the responsibility of the haulier and the driver, though the share of responsibility will vary based on the circumstances of each strike. For example:

- is the driver an employee of the haulier or a subcontractor?

- if he’s a subcontractor is he the employee of another haulier or an agency, or an owner operator?

- if he’s driving a vehicle other than his own, was he briefed on its dimensions when he started his shift, and if he wasn’t did he seek out that information?

Apart from that, I think a massive factor in bridge strikes is the use of non-LGV- specific satnavs, which are considerably cheaper but generally don’t carry height and weight restrictions. A proper LGV satnav allows the driver to enter the height, length and weight of his vehicle and it then chooses an appropriate route. Providing of course that the database of bridge info is up to date

It’s never as straightforward as it might seem

 

[Robertj21a]

Clearly events like this are collectively the responsibility of the haulier and the driver, though the share of responsibility will vary based on the circumstances of each strike. For example:

- is the driver an employee of the haulier or a subcontractor?

- if he’s a subcontractor is he the employee of another haulier or an agency, or an owner operator?

- if he’s driving a vehicle other than his own, was he briefed on its dimensions when he started his shift, and if he wasn’t did he seek out that information?

Apart from that, I think a massive factor in bridge strikes is the use of non-LGV- specific satnavs, which are considerably cheaper but generally don’t carry height and weight restrictions. A proper LGV satnav allows the driver to enter the height, length and weight of his vehicle and it then chooses an appropriate route. Providing of course that the database of bridge info is up to date

It’s never as straightforward as it might seem

No, it is very straightforward.

A professional driver should take all that into account. Everything else is excuses.

 

[SteveM70]

No, it is very straightforward.

A professional driver should take all that into account. Everything else is excuses.

It really isn’t.

Agency driver rocks up for work. Gets given his instructions. Asks how high the vehicle is, gets told it’s 13’6”. Hits a 14’ bridge. Turns out the truck is 14’6” tall and the guy at the depot either got confused or made a mistake.

Is that the driver’s fault?

 

[paddington]

It really isn’t.

Agency driver rocks up for work. Gets given his instructions. Asks how high the vehicle is, gets told it’s 13’6”. Hits a 14’ bridge. Turns out the truck is 14’6” tall and the guy at the depot either got confused or made a mistake.

Is that the driver’s fault?

As someone who has no intention of ever driving a large truck, how easy is it to judge vehicle and bridge heights?

 

[Antman]

As someone who has no intention of ever driving a large truck, how easy is it to judge vehicle and bridge heights?

The correct vehicle height should be displayed in the cab.

 

[Antman]

It really isn’t.

Agency driver rocks up for work. Gets given his instructions. Asks how high the vehicle is, gets told it’s 13’6”. Hits a 14’ bridge. Turns out the truck is 14’6” tall and the guy at the depot either got confused or made a mistake.

Is that the driver’s fault?

This is the problem with articulated lorries, the height on the trailer isn't always correct and can vary according to the unit pulling it. A few have come a cropper at the northbound Blackwall Tunnel because of this.

 

[AndrewE]

You're not wrong, that's exactly what I was implying. Hauliers don't want their lorries hitting bridges anymore than NR do.

In that case why don't they issue every driver working for them with a professional satnav that can have the vehicle height entered? Clearly they don't care very much.

OK, the HGV's insurance will cover both the repair to the damage and the legal costs in getting redress (their insurance of course will pay both parties' solicitors)

... for which read "Ultimately the rest of us , not "insurance" will cover both the repair to the damage and the legal costs"

 

[edwin_m]

I imagine if a haulier has a poor record of bridge strikes their insurance premiums will go up.

 

[Edders23]

A52 through Grantham should hopefully get bypassed soon.
Supposedly work has commenced on the ground on the Southern Relief Road, complete with enormous viaduct.

Appart from the roundabout as you come into Grotsville from the A1 I haven't noticed much going on was over there on thursday night but went the back way as pick up was off Alma park road. Certainly no sign of any roadworks on the A52 that side

 

[SteveM70]

The correct vehicle height should be displayed in the cab.

Yes it should, as should the height of the 5th wheel.

It gets complicated when you start to consider trailer heights, which as has been said already dependent on the height of the 5th wheel on the tractor unit. Quite often they have a height on them with a note of the 5th wheel height that’s based on, so often there’s a bit of maths involved in working out the actual height.

It can also vary a bit depending what weight of load is in the trailer, tyre spec etc

 

[furnessvale]

No I'm not saying it's the railway industries fault but as I said previously hauliers don't want their lorries hitting bridges anymore than NR do. It's obviously down to human error on the part of the driver.

And employers have vicarious liability for the actions of their employees, therefore hauliers have joint liability with their drivers.

 

[Antman]

In that case why don't they issue every driver working for them with a professional satnav that can have the vehicle height entered? Clearly they don't care very much.
... for which read "Ultimately the rest of us , not "insurance" will cover both the repair to the damage and the legal costs"

Is there such a thing as a professional sat nav? I don't feel very comfortable with the idea of drivers relying on a sat nav to tell them whether they can go under a particular bridge or not. To say hauliers don't care very much is ridiculous.

 

[Antman]

And employers have vicarious liability for the actions of their employees, therefore hauliers have joint liability with their drivers.

Without going into the legalities there isn't much a company can do to prevent one of their lorries hitting a bridge, if there was I'm sure they would be doing it.

 

[AndrewE]

Is there such a thing as a professional sat nav? I don't feel very comfortable with the idea of drivers relying on a sat nav to tell them whether they can go under a particular bridge or not. To say hauliers don't care very much is ridiculous.

I think there is... you can programme them with vehicle heights or weights and they take account of that when choosing a route. The trouble is they cost much more than the one you buy for a family car - or the free one on your phone.
A lorry driver told me that as his employer wouldn't supply one he certainly wasn't going to put his hand in his own pocket.
In fact they are just 1 Google click away: https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sat-nav/truck-sat-nav/products/go-professional-6250/ so there is absolutely no excuse for any commercial vehice to hit any bridge.