Container lorry brings services to a halt

[Robertj21a]

...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.

No need for a Satnav if the driver is a professional. The old timers will still use proper maps plus, perhaps, a Satnav for the last mile if he hasn't been there before. Many truckers cover the same routes frequently, including the usual diversionary options.

 

[HSTEd]

1. Who pays?

The DfT, given that it is ultimately responsible for both road and rail systems?

How much do you think this bridge strike merry-go-round costs society in rail and road disruption, legal fees and god knows what else?

 

[AndrewE]

No need for a Satnav if the driver is a professional.

and there's the rub!

The old timers will still use proper maps plus, perhaps, a Satnav for the last mile if he hasn't been there before. Many truckers cover the same routes frequently, including the usual diversionary options.

so how come we have 5 bridges bashed per day then?
An industry in denial. The rest of us pick up the bill...

 

[AndrewE]

.... 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.

I am not sure that putting in a succession of humps is a good idea if there is any chance of a km-long freight train using the line... or if fast trains run at 90 mph-plus!

 

[HSTEd]

I am not sure that putting in a succession of humps is a good idea if there is any chance of a km-long freight train using the line... or if fast trains run at 90 mph-plus!

Assuming you remain inside the specification for gradient and vertical curve radii I very much doubt there will be a problem.

In addition remaining brick arch bridges should be replaced with steel structures with decks designed to be as thin as possible using modern design techniques and things like Ultra-High-Performance Concrete.
In many cases a thin-deck bridge will remove the height issue.

 

[AndrewE]

Assuming you remain inside the specification for gradient and vertical curve radii I very much doubt there will be a problem.
In addition remaining brick arch bridges should be replaced with steel structures with decks designed to be as thin as possible using modern design techniques and things like Ultra-High-Performance Concrete. In many cases a thin-deck bridge will remove the height issue.

apart from the fact that when it gets hit it will move a lot further...

 

[Llanigraham]

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

And as was proved at the recent bridge bash by a bus in Swansea, unfortunately fatal.

 

[Bald Rick]

.... 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.

Every bridge is lower than the maximum permitted road vehicle height in the U.K.

 

[Edders23]

Maybe Highways England should do a few cost benefit analyses on bridges that are regularly hit and look into lowering the road beneath the bridges that might ultimately reduce the problem

 

[HSTEd]

Every bridge is lower than the maximum permitted road vehicle height in the U.K.

Well that is just because there is no legislated maximum road vehicle height.

But there is a de-facto maximum

 

[Lucan]

..and that they do not go out of the gate without a satnav designed for the job and programmed for the journey

Satnavs are not that reliable.

 

[AndrewE]

Satnavs are not that reliable.

So how do they get away with selling them? Perhaps you have been buying cheapo copies?
If cars can be self-driving why can't a satnav manage a route?

 

[GB]

Maybe Highways England should do a few cost benefit analyses on bridges that are regularly hit and look into lowering the road beneath the bridges that might ultimately reduce the problem

It may reduce the problem but you are not addressing the root cause of the issue though and that is drivers either disobeying the signs or not knowing the height of their vehicle (or both). Lower a road that has a height restriction of say 12'6 to increase the restriction to 13'6 for example...how long before the bridge is hit by something that is 14'? Its not always feasible to lower the road at a lot of bridges anyway and as there are 1000s across network the costs would be astronomical.

 

[Meole]

So how do they get away with selling them? Perhaps you have been buying cheapo copies?
If cars can be self-driving why can't a satnav manage a route?

A driver should input the vehicle and particular load dimensions into the satnav for each journey to be safe, but there is no compulsion so we get fatal accidents such as the recent bus error in Swansea which also stopped any passenger trains for a morning, is there a case for prosecuting casual use of a satnav as careless rather than accepting mistakes ? An Irish lorry driven by an E European taking a multi million jet engine load from Dublin to Milan recently came off a minor single road in mid Wales following the shortest car route rather than the A55 or even the old A5.

 

[HSTEd]

It may reduce the problem but you are not addressing the root cause of the issue though and that is drivers either disobeying the signs or not knowing the height of their vehicle (or both). Lower a road that has a height restriction of say 12'6 to increase the restriction to 13'6 for example...how long before the bridge is hit by something that is 14'? Its not always feasible to lower the road at a lot of bridges anyway and as there are 1000s across network the costs would be astronomical.

If we are really getting five strikes a day the costs of doing nothing are also astronomical.
And any height gain that can be gained reduces the number of vehicles that can strike it, so reduces the likelihood of an impact.

 

[Lucan]

Every bridge is lower than the maximum permitted road vehicle height in the U.K.

Is that a way of saying that there is no specified maximum vehicle height? I didn't know that. Nevertheless there is a bridge height above which height restriction signs are not required (does anyone know what it is?) so that is a kind of maximum height.

 

[w1bbl3]

Is that a way of saying that there is no specified maximum vehicle height? I didn't know that. Nevertheless there is a bridge height above which height restriction signs are not required (does anyone know what it is?) so that is a kind of maximum height.

A vehicle / load shouldn't exceed 5.03m (16'5) from the roadway this is minimum clearance above which a bridge doesn't need have its height indicated by way of a signage. All motorway or trunk road bridges should have at least 5.1m clearance.

There is technically no limitation on the width, length and height of a vehicle or load but beyond 2.9m wide, 18.65m long, 44t or 10t 11.5t per axle and 5.03m high and the load is abnormal and must be notified to the relevant bodies.

The fines and punishments for unnotified abnormal loads are far more serious than than any punishment for a bridge bash.

There are IIRC around 2000 "low bridges" and these disproportionately are railway over bridges due to 18th and 19th Century railway builders not quite reasonably foreseeing modern trucks.
The problem bridges are in the 2.1m to 3m and 3.5m to 4.5m ranges where the former are low enough that a high transit or box van will not clear the and the later than a normal curtainsider artic will not clear the deck.

Some bridges do get bashed disproportionately and there is a argument IHMO for the local authority and network rail jointly investing in either deck raising or road lowering for these rather than just installing protection beams.

 

[Meerkat]

The costs of fixing the bridges would be enormous. Lots of them are near stations, restricting the ability to lift the track, and also probably restricting the ability to lower the road due to proximity of junctions and buildings

 

[Spartacus]

The Mk1 human eyeball is the No. 1 measure that can be used to prevent bridge strikes of used correctly.

The general attitude of the road haulage industry is exemplified by the number of hit and runs and late reports on bridge strikes.

 

[Antman]

The costs of fixing the bridges would be enormous. Lots of them are near stations, restricting the ability to lift the track, and also probably restricting the ability to lower the road due to proximity of junctions and buildings

The road has been lowered under a few bridges but in most cases it's just not possible.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

Indeed - we also need lorry drivers and owners to act in a more responsible and professional manner and know how high their vehicles are ( also what weight they are and how wide they are) and drive appropriately and on appropriate routes. That bridge has a 3t limit for a reason.....................

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?

Yes. He should check the height. It is his responsibility.

Your Honour Dave down the yard told me the height was 13'6.

Did you check the height of your load.

No your Honour Dave down the yard told me it was 13'6...............

( yeah that isnt going to play well with the beak)

 

[jfowkes]

Yes. He should check the height. It is his responsibility.

Is there always the facility/ability for a driver to accurately check the height of their load?

Genuine question, I really don't know the answer to that.

 

[DarloRich]

Is there always the facility/ability for a driver to accurately check the height of their load?

Oh I don't know? Perhaps something like a tape measure might do the job?

I return to my point: Did you check the height of your load? No your Honour Dave down the yard told me.................

 

[Spartacus]

Is there always the facility/ability for a driver to accurately check the height of their load?

Genuine question, I really don't know the answer to that.

All sorts of telescopic measuring sticks are available, the extreme low-tech solutions is a broom head with a measuring tape attached. Hang the broom head on the top and pull the tape down.

Lots of good and easy solutions here: http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=91911

 

[High Dyke]

Supposedly the section between the B1174 (at that roundabout) and A1 is under construction.

It is at the current time. So once the road is built through its entirety we'll see if bridge strikes diminish on the bridges through town.

I was involved in a bridge strike at Ancaster last year, again on a busy route between two A-roads. The lorry driver stated he hadn't hit the bridge with his container lorry, but he heard "bang, bang, bang"... I suggested he'd hit the bridge and also showed him the damage on the bridge. When I drove buses and coaches for the firm next door to the bridge at Ancaster I always refused to take a double-decker through the bridge - that would've been an offence, but it didn't stop others trying and making a mess of the top deck.

 

[Antman]

Is there always the facility/ability for a driver to accurately check the height of their load?

Genuine question, I really don't know the answer to that.

No there isn't and I have to chuckle at some of the suggestions, tape measures and broom handle......... yeah right. Some places might have some sort of rudementry measuring stick but it's only intended as a guide.

 

[AndrewE]

No there isn't and I have to chuckle at some of the suggestions, tape measures and broom handle......... yeah right. Some places might have some sort of rudementry measuring stick but it's only intended as a guide.

A truly professional industry (not!)
Using a tape measure might be beneath you, but it would do the job, especially if you had made or bought a gauging stick as described in the truck drivers forum.
I hope you find the magistrate is in a good mood when you meet one in a formal setting, you will be hoping for leniency!

 

[Antman]

A truly professional industry (not!)
Using a tape measure might be beneath you, but it would do the job, especially if you had made or bought a gauging stick as described in the truck drivers forum.
I hope you find the magistrate is in a good mood when you meet one in a formal setting, you will be hoping for leniency!

We're going over and over the same thing here, double decker buses hit low bridges despite the height being clearly displayed in the cab. Obviously it's down to human error, I'm not excusing it but the fact is that we all make mistakes.

 

[talltim]

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.

But they (should) have input into the training of their staff. As a comparison with train drivers has already been raised, a driver coming from a different TOC will be route and traction trained by their new TOC (and that training will need to be kept current). Do hauliers do any of that?

 

[Antman]

But they (should) have input into the training of their staff. As a comparison with train drivers has already been raised, a driver coming from a different TOC will be route and traction trained by their new TOC (and that training will need to be kept current). Do hauliers do any of that?

There are all sorts of safety systems in place on the railway to legislate for human error, all the training in the world isn't going to prevent mistakes being made.