Container lorry brings services to a halt

[edwin_m]

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?

This is the only accident from this cause I can recall: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/incident-involving-a-container-train-at-basingstoke-station

At 10:13 hrs on 19 December 2008, a shipping container, which was loaded on a freight train travelling from Wakefield Europort to Eastleigh, struck the canopy above platform one at Basingstoke station at about 25 mph (40 km/h)as the train passed through. The canopy was damaged over a length of 130 m, and pieces of wood were scattered along the platform. No-one was hurt.

The immediate cause of the incident was that the combination of the container and the type of wagon it had been loaded onto was too high for the route on which the train was travelling, allowing the left-hand top corner of the container to strike the canopy.

The system for identifying container types and container / wagon combinations was prone to human error, in that:

More details on the link. Gauging is fairly conservative so it's possible an outsize load could make it through without hitting anything, in which case I guess nobody would be any the wiser.

 

[Lucan]

^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.

Not if it is designed properly. If it is made from mild steel it will bend rather than collapse, and it does not need to be brute-force solid and expensive as some of those posters have claimed. Hitting a masonry bridge is far more likely to bring down debris to injure pedestrians, because masonry is brittle and friable.

In a previous engineering job I was involved in designing certain structures that would intentionally break "gracefully", and I'd enjoy designing one for this application. It would be sacrificial but would stop the lorry and be far cheaper to replace than the bridge strike would cost.

 

[LAX54]

Well this bridge, still has a 'watchman' on duty until Monday, inspecting after each train, if no further issues, inspection will go weekly until fixed, but is causing problems, HOBC booked that way tonight, but not allowed over the bridge, will run to Norwich Goods Yard/Line D, then via Wymondham & Thetford, (and same way back Sunday), 2,300 feet and 3,000 tonnes.

Charge to owner the FULL cost of delays & repair, that will focus the mind a bit !

 

[furnessvale]

And then the damage to the network and Rail's credibility after 2 per day?

Make that FIVE per day and you are closer to the truth.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

This is the only accident from this cause I can recall: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/incident-involving-a-container-train-at-basingstoke-station

More details on the link. Gauging is fairly conservative so it's possible an outsize load could make it through without hitting anything, in which case I guess nobody would be any the wiser.

This was the one I was thinking of. The container made it to Eastleigh / Southampton by being hauled through a tunnel on the route at walking pace otherwise there would have been an argument at the tunnel due to the sway of the container at speed.

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.

I believe the post I read on this board somewhere (I can't find it) suggested a significant difference between actual height and the advised height.

 

[TrafficEng]

This is the only accident from this cause I can recall: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/incident-involving-a-container-train-at-basingstoke-station

More details on the link. Gauging is fairly conservative so it's possible an outsize load could make it through without hitting anything, in which case I guess nobody would be any the wiser.

Thanks. A really interesting read. So, multiple layers of checking, but human involvement in all allowed mistakes to be made with the end result. Does anyone know if ERIC is still in use or has there been a new system introduced?

Especially interesting is the issue with the overheight detector being switched off due to false alarms. Obviously the loading gauge variations issue is a complex one, and not as simple as just measuring the overall height of the vehicle. It seems to me there is a parallel between this and the problem of detecting overheights at arch bridges where the critical limitation might be the position of the corners of the lorry rather than the overall height. If they haven't already found a solution it could make an interesting PhD project for someone.

 

[Antman]

Well this bridge, still has a 'watchman' on duty until Monday, inspecting after each train, if no further issues, inspection will go weekly until fixed, but is causing problems, HOBC booked that way tonight, but not allowed over the bridge, will run to Norwich Goods Yard/Line D, then via Wymondham & Thetford, (and same way back Sunday), 2,300 feet and 3,000 tonnes.

Charge to owner the FULL cost of delays & repair, that will focus the mind a bit !

Was the owner driving the lorry when it hit the bridge?

 

[Bald Rick]

This will continue to happen until serious penalties are levied on road hauliers

EXACTLY

but what of the payments to TOC's and FOCs? A bridge strike is counted as 'NR's fault' and in this case there will be surely many 10s of thousands to pay GA and others.

For the umpteenth time, NR does go after the hauliers (and their insurers) for the costs of the train delays, as well as repair costs and incident management costs. One of my friends used to do the job.

 

[Chris M]

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.

I had school friend who lived on a very small lane, although in this instance width not height was the main limiting factor. Every time they had something delivered they would tell the company "we live on a very small lane. Anything larger than a transit van will not fit. Use the smallest vehicle you have." Large vans, small lories regularly turned up. Even once the item was despatched on an articulated lorry...

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

The Basingstoke incident quoted above is the most recent that led to an incident with RAIB involvement, but there have been plenty of others. Anyone familiar with Bridge 10 at Neasden on the Dudding Hill Line will know why it has interesting marks through it!

 

[TrafficEng]

I believe the post I read on this board somewhere (I can't find it) suggested a significant difference between actual height and the advised height.

Me, post #69.

The guidance requires the imperial measurement on the sign to be the headroom minus a 3" safety margin, then rounded down to the next lowest multiple of 3". A similar approach is used for the metric figure.

So the actual headroom could be as much as 6" more than what is stated on the sign.

But it isn't safe to use that difference to squeeze under the bridge because:
1) You don't know how much the rounding actually was
2) The headroom will vary with super-elevation, camber, cross-fall and/or slope (plus vehicle length)
3) The bridge deck may not be level
4) The person with the tape measure could have been an idiot
5) The measurement should take 2 & 3 into account to find the worst case (but see 4)
6) The person designing the sign possibly has never heard of Chapter 4, let alone read it
7) The road might have been resurfaced after the measurement, but nobody changed the sign
8) Hitting a bridge is expensive and embarrassing and renders you public enemy No1 on here

 

[furnessvale]

8) Hitting a bridge is expensive and embarrassing and renders you public enemy No1 on here

Actually, it is dangerous and life threatening, not that I would expect anyone from the road lobby to consider such things important.

 

[Class 170101]

Me, post #69.

No its not you. Its not on this thread as far as I can see. It was a story about a board member who took a trailer to a depot but had to go via a police station to get an appropriately cleared route for said container. They were offered one via a housing estate by the police station. Once arrived at the depot another lorry arrived after with another trailer of the same size. The Board member related that they asked said driver how they to the depot and they said via a route with a low bridge and they related how said Lorry driver knew, being a local, that the 'official' height had been reduced but said driver being local knew that the trailer he had would still fit.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I understand that it might be difficult if you were carrying a container, as there were two standard sizes...........

I suspect that is the issue. There are 2 heights Standard 8' 6 and high cube 9' 6. I suspect that it would be difficult to tell the difference just by looking at a container unless it is in a row of them, with some different heights. If the container was standard then the lorry bed could be 4ft 3. The high cube is unlikely to fit this bridge. I suspect due to the height its a high cube container

 

[GB]

I suspect that is the issue. There are 2 heights Standard 8' 6 and high cube 9' 6. I suspect that it would be difficult to tell the difference just by looking at a container unless it is in a row of them, with some different heights. If the container was standard then the lorry bed could be 4ft 3. The high cube is unlikely to fit this bridge. I suspect due to the height its a high cube container

Containers have various markings on them to denote whether it’s 8’6 or 9’6. I would expect haulier drivers to know this and take note on their prep or hand over.

 

[2HAP]

Me, post #69.
7) The road might have been resurfaced after the measurement, but nobody changed the sign

That actually happened once, at Faversham. Lorry collided with bridge one afternoon. Police questioned driver, who said it fitted under that morning. Turned out road had been resurfaced that day and reduced headroom by 3". Sign was thus wrong and police took no further action against lorry driver.

 

[furnessvale]

Containers have various markings on them to denote whether it’s 8’6 or 9’6. I would expect haulier drivers to know this and take note on their prep or hand over.

Indeed every container is marked. There are more than 2 heights, starting from 4ft high half tanks upwards.

Moving into swap bodies, heights can go above 9' 6" but again, all are marked.

 

[Meerkat]

The drivers should be prosecuted every time, with significant punishment for those who don’t stop and report.
There are no excuses, just mitigation. The driver should be responsible for checking the height - get a tape measure! A big yard could have an adjustable gate of some sort - prove the lorry fits under the declared height.
The hauliers should have it in all contracts that the driver double checks, otherwise they don’t have a safe system of work.

 

[AndrewE]

The drivers should be prosecuted every time, with significant punishment for those who don’t stop and report.
There are no excuses, just mitigation. The driver should be responsible for checking the height - get a tape measure! A big yard could have an adjustable gate of some sort - prove the lorry fits under the declared height.
The hauliers should have it in all contracts that the driver double checks, otherwise they don’t have a safe system of work...

...and that they do not go out of the gate without a satnav designed for the job and programmed for the journey. If they don't even ask for this (let alone make it mandatory to use them) how can they claim to have a safe system of work? £400 is nothing compared with their direct and immediate costs of a bridge bash, let alone the wider costs to the rest of us.
I would take away the licence to operate from any firm that failed this test.
Please don't give us excuses and whinges about how hard it is to make a living in the industry, it's the the cowboys undercutting the good ones that undermine the price and have set us on the road to becoming a third-world economy.

 

[Class 170101]

Sat nav is not a requirement though in a car (and I cannot see why it would be for a lorry), its merely an aid.

 

[AndrewE]

Sat nav is not a requirement though in a car (and I cannot see why it would be for a lorry), its merely an aid.

Most cars use is not for business purposes, and I haven't heard of many moving a railway bridge deck either.
You don't think the consequences of a bridge bash are worth avoiding by requiring the use of easily-available preventive measures?

 

[Meerkat]

Sat nav is not a requirement though in a car (and I cannot see why it would be for a lorry), its merely an aid.

A car driver doesn’t have to worry about height/width/weight restrictions!

 

[HSTEd]

.... How many low bridges over roads are there?

What fraction of them would be impossible to engineer away by changing the vertical alignment of either the road or the railway?

We should not have low bridges on a railway in open terrain where nothing prevents them humping the railway a few metres.

 

[Antman]

Most cars use is not for business purposes, and I haven't heard of many moving a railway bridge deck either.
You don't think the consequences of a bridge bash are worth avoiding by requiring the use of easily-available preventive measures?

A sat nav isn't going to be foolproof anyway, if the driver puts the wrong height in there will be the same problem.

 

[Antman]

The drivers should be prosecuted every time, with significant punishment for those who don’t stop and report.
There are no excuses, just mitigation. The driver should be responsible for checking the height - get a tape measure! A big yard could have an adjustable gate of some sort - prove the lorry fits under the declared height.
The hauliers should have it in all contracts that the driver double checks, otherwise they don’t have a safe system of work.

I'm sure drivers are prosecuted, none of the suggestions on here offer anything new.

 

[Meerkat]

.... How many low bridges over roads are there?

What fraction of them would be impossible to engineer away by changing the vertical alignment of either the road or the railway?

We should not have low bridges on a railway in open terrain where nothing prevents them humping the railway a few metres.

who is going to pay for that? The railway shouldn’t have to pay just because road authorities have allowed bigger vehicles than the builders of the railways could imagine.

 

[HSTEd]

who is going to pay for that? The railway shouldn’t have to pay just because road authorities have allowed bigger vehicles than the builders of the railways could imagine.

Given that the road authorities and the rail authorities are functionally the same (the state), it makes precious little difference.

This is going to continue indefinitely, and the only way to remove this problem is to make the bridges taller.
All the Government posturing and initiatives occasionally proposed are for is to distract from the necessity of actually spending some real money to solve this problem permanently.

 

[Meerkat]

If there are alternatives why spend huge amounts of money?

 

[furnessvale]

.... How many low bridges over roads are there?

What fraction of them would be impossible to engineer away by changing the vertical alignment of either the road or the railway?

We should not have low bridges on a railway in open terrain where nothing prevents them humping the railway a few metres.

Sounds reasonable enough with a few caveats.

1. Who pays?

2. It would be more the a "few" metres horizontally, and could well need additional land take on the approaches.

3. On anything other than level track, such humping may well increase gradients to an unacceptable level.

What spare money the railway has to spend on our roads network is more correctly at present being spent on LX elimination.

 

[Class 170101]

You don't think the consequences of a bridge bash are worth avoiding by requiring the use of easily-available preventive measures?

Not suggesting that - merely that its not, as far as I know a legal requirement, whether it should be part of the law is another discussion altogether.