Well they would be cheaper than the cost of a bridge strike.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.
They are just 1 Google click away: https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sat-nav/truck-sat-nav/products/go-professional-6250/
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Container lorry brings services to a halt
- Thread starter Edders23
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
There is a lot they can do. Employing competent drivers for a start, which of course means paying the wages to attract those drivers.
How about a compulsory HGV satnav in every cab? Drivers with variable height vehicles being issued with a measuring stick (such a high tech solution)?
In the meantime, the Traffic Commissioners should be taking a harder line on the operating licences of errant companies.
All easier said than done, there's such a shortage of drivers that they have to take whoever they can get and it's not just a case of throwing more money at it. And these wonderful all singing and dancing sat navs aren't foolproof.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Perhaps make the road signs show the bridge height lower than it actually is, then the near misses might well be avoided.
But then drivers would know the signs were actually wrong, and would think "Yeah, I can make it"
Bridge strikes would probably increase
a very significant point. Ive never driven a truck, but I can imagine the difference in height of a heavily loaded trailer versus an empty one could be substantial
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
Would such excuses be acceptable on rail, of course not. On the roads, standards of safety can plummet, as long as things keep moving.
As far as I am concerned, road users can slaughter each other to their hearts content, but when they impinge on rail safety at LXs and bridge strikes etc., I get upset.
A number of hits are trailers carrying plant with the jib too high etc. I believe one of the hits at Broadway was such an incident . Drivers should check the height but its obvious that doesn't always happen. I notice the TV programs about moving oversize loads or railway engines etc, show the crew checking the height.
TrafficEng
Member
All the drivers need to do is to read section 7.4 (or 7.5) of the current version of Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual and discover that (a) this already happens and (b) what the minimum safety margin should be, if they fancy playing chicken using their lorry against a low bridge.
Most of the time the problem is unlikely to be what's written on the sign, but more likely the driver didn't see or process the information because something else was more important to them at a critical moment in time. (e.g. to continue the train driver analogy, that the signal was missed because the driver had focused on checking all passengers remained clear and nothing was trapped in the doors as they started off)
Back to lorries, an example could be driving along a narrow road the driver might be more concerned about not crashing into something coming the other way and therefore focus their attention on the road ahead, not looking skywards to see a sign telling them their lorry is too high. It might be obvious with hindsight, but in the moment it wasn't.
You get upset? Well I don't suppose anybody is too happy about it but the fact is people make mistakes.Would such excuses be acceptable on rail, of course not. On the roads, standards of safety can plummet, as long as things keep moving.
As far as I am concerned, road users can slaughter each other to their hearts content, but when they impinge on rail safety at LXs and bridge strikes etc., I get upset.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
There was another thread on this board where a local council did exactly that and bridge bashes went down.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
If I'm a professional driver it doesn't matter who I work for. It's my responsibility to check everything about the lorry, and the load. I know many carry an extending rule to double check the height. It's not rocket science.
so it works i one isolated area does it. But if everyone did it, it would be known, and have the reverse effect
BRblue
Member
Ok I am going to have to pipe up here as before joining the railway I spent 20 years truck driving, 10 of those transporting containers just like the one involved here.
First off, in those 20 years I never hit a bridge although I did squeeze under a few with a couple of inches to spare.
Every truck should have an adjustable height indicator in the cab ( that is the law) and the driver should adjust this depending on the height of the load his vehicle is carrying. I had a bridge height road atlas that I used to check the route before setting off and I believe you can now get sat navs that show low bridges.
Now there will always be occasions when for instance you are diverted or take a wrong turn, and as pointed out earlier in the thread truck drivers are only human. But in my opinion a lot of bridge strikes are not down to human error but down to incompetence... lack of planning, not checking vehicle height, not paying attention to the road ahead etc. If you see a low bridge ahead you stop and check if unsure not plough on regardless!
Unfortunately driving standards are not as good as they were, a sad indictment of a struggling industry and one that has suffered from poor governance for years.
Maybe a bit more joined up thinking by both Network Rail and The Road Haulage Association could help but doubt that would ever come to fruition.
In this particular incident I notice the container is what is referred to as a high cube being 12 inches higher than a standard container, so quite a high chance the driver could of forgotten this when route planning and setting the in cab height indicator... we are all human and we can all make mistakes.
First off, in those 20 years I never hit a bridge although I did squeeze under a few with a couple of inches to spare.
Every truck should have an adjustable height indicator in the cab ( that is the law) and the driver should adjust this depending on the height of the load his vehicle is carrying. I had a bridge height road atlas that I used to check the route before setting off and I believe you can now get sat navs that show low bridges.
Now there will always be occasions when for instance you are diverted or take a wrong turn, and as pointed out earlier in the thread truck drivers are only human. But in my opinion a lot of bridge strikes are not down to human error but down to incompetence... lack of planning, not checking vehicle height, not paying attention to the road ahead etc. If you see a low bridge ahead you stop and check if unsure not plough on regardless!
Unfortunately driving standards are not as good as they were, a sad indictment of a struggling industry and one that has suffered from poor governance for years.
Maybe a bit more joined up thinking by both Network Rail and The Road Haulage Association could help but doubt that would ever come to fruition.
In this particular incident I notice the container is what is referred to as a high cube being 12 inches higher than a standard container, so quite a high chance the driver could of forgotten this when route planning and setting the in cab height indicator... we are all human and we can all make mistakes.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,734
Supposedly the section between the B1174 (at that roundabout) and A1 is under construction.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
Given the number of HGVs that make off from bridge bashes when they are capable of doing so, without warning anyone of the potential for a rail accident, perhaps some are not as unhappy as you would have us believe.
TrafficEng
Member
Absolutely agree.
I'd like to know whether a high cube has ever been accidentally loaded onto the wrong kind of (railway) wagon, putting it out of gauge. Unless there is a systematic method in place then human nature must mean it has happened at some point.
What systems are in place to stop it happening, and to detect errors before they cause an accident? Are any of the systems and/or technology transferable to road freight?
That's the kind of discussion which should be taking place (generally, not just here), rather than simply finger pointing and blame allocation.
TrafficEng
Member
Perhaps that has something to do with fear of the consequences of 'fessing up, which will only get worse the more severe you make the consequences of doing the right thing in the event of a minor bump.
Aviation safety culture emphasises confession, sharing, understanding and learning. The 'no excuses' culture exhibited on this thread and elsewhere promotes a 'catch me if you can' response, against which the next logical step becomes fitting every site with 24/7 CCTV. That doesn't seem to be the most intelligent way to tackle the issue because you will still be seeking to punish after the event, rather than working to prevent dangerous things happening in the first place.
Nobody is condoning lorries hitting bridges but all the time they're driven by human beings mistakes are going to be made.
DerekC
Established Member
The compulsory HGV satnav would then become a piece of safety-critical kit and if the guidance it gave was wrong-side wrong it would be a guaranteed getout for any court case. How much would the HGV satnav cost then?
The problem is that although a bridge bash is very serious for railway performance, it's not actually a big safety risk because of the mitigations we apply on the railway side, so the road safety people treat it as a relatively minor offence. And of course compared with texting on your mobile phone at 60mph on the A34 and running your truck into a car full of people, it is.
Absolutely right about aviation culture - but road safety culture just isn't like that - many people treat it as "get away with it if you can". So you do have to match the treatment of offenders accordingly. In an ideal world (as is already done in some cases, I think) you would have a height limit set 15cm below bridge height and a compliance camera with six points attached for anyone going for it with an overheight vehicle. There could be a provision for special loads to go nearer the limit with police permission.
I have recently retired from driving Lorries after nearly 40 years, and at the last company I worked for, you had the height of the fifth wheel displayed in the cab, and a seperate height posted in two prominent positions on the trailer, just add the two together, and off you go.........
There were on a few occasions when I changed trailers four times, all with different heights, just something else to think of.
I always carried a 'truckers atlas' with all bridges under 16' 6'' marked, I guess I was 'old school'.......
I understand that it might be difficult if you were carrying a container, as there were two standard sizes...........
There were on a few occasions when I changed trailers four times, all with different heights, just something else to think of.
I always carried a 'truckers atlas' with all bridges under 16' 6'' marked, I guess I was 'old school'.......
I understand that it might be difficult if you were carrying a container, as there were two standard sizes...........
TrafficEng
Member
The culture and how people behave in it are two separate things. In aviation there are still people and companies who try to "get away with it if you can", which is one of the reasons accidents still happen. The rail industry is not dissimilar.
The problem with roads is the right kind of safety culture simply doesn't exist. Whet there is exists of scraping bits up off the road and looking to see whether anyone can be blamed and punished.
If I see a road sign which is defective the only thing I can do is to email the council, and if I get any response at all it will be a standard reply telling me it will be looked at withing XX days. If Dieseldriver (for example) sees something defective on the railway then there is a formalised route for it to be reported and dealt with.
Again, the emphasis is on catching and punishing. As we don't spend money on vehicle height detectors and warning signs, where is the fund going to come from to install evidential quality compliance equipment? And the first requirement would be installing legally valid signage.
If the focus was on safety rather than punishment then for the same money a far greater number of sites could be fitted with warning equipment, and all sites would have adequate signs.
But don't you think it's a shame that any sanction is less than the price of just one Satnav? Clearly the companies' insurance premiums must go up less than £400 (or whatever) per prang, or else they would recognise that the proper Satnav is cheaper.
What gets me is that the culprits (Trucking employers or under-qualified/incompetent drivers) don't pay anything like the price that it costs the rest of us.
If you add in NR paying the TOCs for the delays (and TOCs handing a little bit of that on in Delay repay) plus all the costs of actually inspecting bridges and remediating I'm certain that insurance payouts are nowhere near the actual cost to the railway.
And that's before we even start to consider the people whose plans are wrecked by a "train can't go" answer to why they will miss their plane, or their lunch before a show in London, or their connection home into rural Wales or Scotland.
They won't trust rail again, which is why I think we / the Government / the powers-that-be have to get the gloves off with this supposedly "professional" industry. There are technical aids, employment practises, organisational approaches to address the problem, but hey, who cares? Every bridge we bash will undermine people's faith in rail. Puts money into our pocket every time! Ker-ching!
We have this discussion over and over again, but not twice a day because it is so common that it is usually not newsworthy.
What more can we do?
RSA BOB
Member
Just a point about signs etc, I have just watched a short vid about 11/9 Bridge in the USA its got all that and yet this still happens so what next.
TrafficEng
Member
Stop treating it as a Road vs Rail war would be a good start.
RSA BOB
Member
Wrong road is the offender not the railway.
A MASSIVE solid girder.
How far has that got us to date? Answer the questions.
I am all for Root-Cause Analysis, behaviour modification, soft engineering interventions (like flashing signs) and anything else that will help, but it is a lost cause.
You say you are an Engineer, so presumably professional and (hopefully) objective: Would you like to hazard a guess about how the the relative economic damage done to road and rail by just one bridge bash balances out in the long-term? And then the damage to the network and Rail's credibility after 2 per day?
Last edited:
TrafficEng
Member
If the bridge in question is the Norfolk Southern–Gregson Street Overpass then it already had one of those. Hence the dramatic footage of trucks having the roof sliced off.
The obvious answer when that doesn't work is to increase the headroom. A site with that frequency of strikes - which cannot be closed to traffic - needs a solution which will engineer the problem out. Expensive, but the cases where it is required are limited.
I think RSA BOB's response has more than adequately addressed that point.
It only becomes a lost cause when people give up before trying.
If we are talking about long-term economic damage then we also have to consider the cost of the punitive regime some prefer. If hauliers are put out of business and experienced drivers are banned for making a one-off mistake then there will be a cost which is simply transferred to the consumer. The cost will just hit the economy from a different direction. Likewise additional training and technology requirements are not cost-free, and in an industry with tight margins the cost will be passed on. Again hitting the economy.
So in response to your unnecessarily prefixed question, here's one piece of string. Feel free to compare it to the length of the one you are holding. Meanwhile, can we please spend some pocket change on low cost improvements? At the very least complying with the legal duties placed on the infrastructure owners.
Technically they do.
If a sign states that a bridge is 13' 0" then a vehicle of that height (or even an inch or two higher) will be able to fit under it.
- Status