One issue in relying on a height figure alone is that of road profile and it's effect in conjunction with the vehicle's wheelbase. Low bridges are often found in combination with a road that dives under and with a long vehicle, this increases the effective height of the vehicle. On this basis, a short vehicle of X height may pass easily under but a longer one of the exact same height will not. Vehicle headroom requirement is a dynamic thing! A driver may have been told that a particular bridge is fine with a certain height by a driver of a short truck or client that only deals with one type of vehicle only for the driver of a longer one to come unstuck.
-
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
I dunno. A standard 8'6" container looks pretty much square end on (they are 8' wide). A 9'6" high container is visually definately higher than it is wide.
No, but training should reduce it a lot. This thread, and all the others similar, aren't because large vehicle drivers occasionally make a mistake and hit a bridge, its because it happens multiple times a day.
Nighthawke
Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 67
A mistake would be mis-reading whatever device is used. Not bothering to measure is negligence and a blatant disregard of safety for persons and property. Some of the comments on here seem to be defending the indefensible. Habits are quick to form and hard to break but sooner or later will catch you out.
Even some small hatchbacks now have speed limit sign recognition systems.
Maybe height restriction sign detection systems (with an “input your height” demand for lorries) should be compulsory for large lorries, tractor units, and double deckers?
The ORR seem to demand that kind of level of ALARP for the railway, time for a level playing field for rail and road safety?
Maybe height restriction sign detection systems (with an “input your height” demand for lorries) should be compulsory for large lorries, tractor units, and double deckers?
The ORR seem to demand that kind of level of ALARP for the railway, time for a level playing field for rail and road safety?
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,519
Not difficult at all. That's what they have a measure for.
So you think he deliberately drove a low loader with a JCB on the back into 25,000 volts? If he did I would award him the 'Darwinism prize of the year'
There are many reasons why a lorry might clip something overhead, and believe it or not, one reason is the height measurements are wrong. Do the signs ever get changed after resurfacing?
What led you to assume that I don't know that insurance claims put up the premiums for all of us? Any reasonably intelligent and aware person knows that. If you re-read my post, it was about the NR spokesman saying the average cost of bridge strikes to NR wa £13,000, which I doubted very much.
I don't assume you don't know, but there is a definite tendency for some people to assume that "It doesn't matter, the insurance will pay" so (really for their benefit) I felt that I had to respond to your absolute
We do seem to have a lot of very inexperienced citizens on here, & it is possible that they haven't absorbed the reality yet!
What other root cause could there possibly be?!
Many large firms probably don’t have insurance anyway. If you have a large fleet it’s more cost effective to pay a bond, £500k, into the scheme set up for the purpose and it’s then cheaper just pay any claims. Many bus and transport companies do this along with the military, most local councils etc.
Quite a few, there’s a lot of research into what’s known as Human Factors in both the health and aviation industries which is equally applicable and indeed the RAIB also make use of this on how they investigate.
There are many factors at play in accidents/incidents, not always the very obvious ones (although sometimes it can be that simple). I can’t imagine many drivers deliberately driving down a road knowing that their vehicle is too tall to pass under a bridge, which is what some people are trying to suggest happens.
Human factors are the main cause.
No, they’re not.... I’ve investigated many serious and complex healthcare related incidents. They are just as relevant to these kind of incidents. They’re nothing like side issues.
As I’ve said the reasons you give are not the only reason that bridge strikes will happen.
TrafficEng
Member
Not so. (that a well designed modern 'thin' bridge deck will move a lot further if hit)
I don't know what level of structural engineering knowledge you have, so I will reply on the basis of 'very little'. Apologies in advance if that is an incorrect assumption. However, it should also help other people interested in the topic who don't have much prior knowledge of structural engineering for bridges.
The 'movement' problem falls into two main categories. There is a third significant category which would be collapse of the abutments/supports, but if that were an issue the bridge owner should already have identified it as a risk and applied mitigation.
1) Movement of the whole bridge deck. This is where the entire superstructure moves as a whole relative to its support points (bearings). A newly built bridge should be designed so an impact load (within design parameters) doesn't cause the structure to be displaced off its bearings. If it does move then either the design was inadequate, or assumptions about the impact load were incorrect. (See Note 1)
2) Deformation of the structure. This is where the impact causes structural members to deform (bend) and/or fail (a significant risk with cast iron beams). A newly built bridge should be designed so an impact load (within design parameters) doesn't cause deformation or failure of structural members.
Either 1 or 2 can happen with or without the other. It also assumes we are discussing non-arch bridges as it is improbable one of these would be built today.
It is entirely possible to design and build a bridge with a much thinner deck than traditional designs, and these won't 'move' as a result of a normal impact.
One of the reasons why bridge strikes are such a risk is due to the existence of many old structures that do not conform to modern design standards either in terms of lateral restraint, or of member (and material) strength, to enable them to behave as required in the modern environment.
Which brings me onto Note 1. Looking at the pictures closely, the bridge in this case appears to be a relatively modern replacement one. If it has been 'moved' then it should raise questions about the design standards in use at the time, and whether other structures of a similar age might be at greater risk than previously assumed. There would be a lot more value in discussing issues like that, rather than the hamster-wheel of whether or not lorry drivers should be measuring their trucks with a broom.
TrafficEng
Member
Perhaps high vehicles should have cabs that are at the top. The sight of a bridge coming towards the top of your head (or lower!) might focus the mind!
This is a relevant point (even if said in jest).
For road safety reasons there is a move towards redesigning lorry cabs to put the driver lower because this removes/reduces some of the blind spots where pedestrians and cyclists are likely to be (e.g. to the side or in front of the cab).
One consequence of making lorries safer for (predominantly) the urban environment might have the effect of increasing the number of bridge strikes as the lower driving position could affect perception of overhead objects.
Search "Urban Lorry" for more details.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Any firm doing this would then have to pay a claim such as a bridge strike directly off its bottom line, so the incentive to avoid them should be greater. Even with insurance a firm with a poor track record of claims is likely to pay more premium in future years.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,519
I would be very surprised if he deliberately drove it under 25kv.
I'd be far less surprised if he accidentally drove it under 25kv because of a lapse in concentration as to what his height was on that trip.
TrafficEng
Member
It is an interesting idea, and technology certainly has a part to play. But I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on the effectiveness of relying on a sign recognition system if you were approaching the north side of the bridge here: 53.360440, -2.037280
Certainly anywhere there is a rail/road interface. But I doubt ORR would accept a system which relies on recognition of something which may or may not be there and/or visible at the critical time.
More likely some form of GPS driven warning device (not a Sat Nav) that responds in a certain way if the vehicle enters a geo-fenced area. But unlike TPWS (where it is always safe for a train to be forced to a standstill) there would be scenarios where it wasn't safe to automatically stop a road vehicle (unless all road vehicles are fitted with a connected system £££££). This approach would also be ineffective in the case of arched bridges where it is completely safe to pass through them at the speed limit for the road if you are in the correct position, but a strike can happen (at any speed) if you are too near the kerb.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
The mocking tone of this section of this post just reinforces the view that the road haulage industry does not take safety. especially of others, seriously.
No one is seriously suggesting thay HGV drivers should measure the height of their vehicles with a broom. That was simply a demonstration as to how easy it would be IF THE DRIVER COULD BE BOTHERED.
It would be just as easy for every HGV to be equipped with proper gear to measure the height, but that would cost money so that is out of the question.
duffield
Established Member
How about successful insurance claims by NR having a compulsory 'victim surcharge' above and beyond the cost of the actual incident, to be paid by the haulage firm directly and - by law - not recoverable from insurance, with this surcharge to go into a ring-fenced fund for improved signage, sacrificial beams, warning systems or other relevant measures?
Start with a relatively modest surcharge, in case of unintended consequences; increase as necessary.
Haulage firms with good records would not be affected at all (as this charge would not increase insurance costs), and eventually (along with - obviously - the railway) the whole haulage industry should benefit from less bridge strikes.
(Awaits dismissive comments that this is ridiculous because it would increase the costs of the haulage firms (with bad records) in the short term so 'we would all pay')
Start with a relatively modest surcharge, in case of unintended consequences; increase as necessary.
Haulage firms with good records would not be affected at all (as this charge would not increase insurance costs), and eventually (along with - obviously - the railway) the whole haulage industry should benefit from less bridge strikes.
(Awaits dismissive comments that this is ridiculous because it would increase the costs of the haulage firms (with bad records) in the short term so 'we would all pay')
TrafficEng
Member
I'd invite you to re-read every post I've made on this subject and reconsider whether (a) I take safety seriously and (b) am in any way a representative of "the road haulage industry".
Hence the 'hamster-wheel' comment. It doesn't matter what high/low tech or cheap/expensive solution you opt for - it will not be used if the driver cannot be bothered. Or more likely forgets to measure, mis-measures, forgets the measurement, doesn't see the signs, doesn't see the bridge, or is a complete idiot. It is a discussion that can go round and round ad infinitum and still never stop a bridge being bashed.
Ok, here's my 'solution'. It should be mandated that every lorry and tractor unit carrying a variable height load should be fitted with an external height indicator pole on the cab. This pole would be adjustable and it would be the duty of the driver to set the top of the pole to be the same as the highest point of the load before every journey. This could be a difficult job to do accurately, but for reasons I'll go on to explain, the driver would be incentivised to do it well.
The adjustable pole would be fitted with a calibrated digital sensor which would give an accurate reading of overall height to be displayed digitally in the cab - with the availability of a digital feed to devices like SatNavs and the Tacho.
The reason for having the indicator pole external to the cab is so the police and/or any concerned member of the public can easily spot and report a vehicle which is being driven with an incorrectly set height measurement. Furthermore, the top of the pole could be fitted with some form of laser target that would enable roadside enforcement equipment to compare the indicated height to actual height thus allowing automatic penalties to be issued if there is a significant under indication of height. (The driver's incentive to do their job properly). A digital transponder could be used instead.
The same equipment could be fitted at depots so the driver could verify the height indicator was correct before going onto the road. Companies could be incentivised to do this through lower insurance premiums if their depots and fleets are so equipped. (This could also incentivise rapid retrofitting)
Foreign vehicles without the equipment would be stopped at the point of entry and sent back.
If mandated and factory fitted, such a system could cost less than the entertainment system and therefore be insignificant in terms of new-vehicle cost. The system would reduce the possibility of the driver mismeasuring or miscalculating the height, and the digital display overcomes the problem of remembering the height for the duration of the journey.
In fact I think it might be the perfect solution..... Other than the fact fixed-height lorries and buses already have the height prominently displayed in the cab, yet those drivers still hit bridges.
So could we please accept that although accurately measuring the height of lorries is important, and punishing drivers who "can't be bothered" might have a role to play, it is not going to stop bridges being hit without a more comprehensive approach towards other aspects of the problem.
TrafficEng
Member
I like the idea of more money being made available for prevention, but how would this work with foreign registered/owned vehicles?
There are international agreements in place regarding insurance cover but I'm not aware of anything simiar for legally-uninsurable risks like this surcharge.
Impounding and selling the vehicle is unlikely to be much use as the bridge strike might write it off, or result in significant repair costs, and in the case of right-hand drive vehicles the net UK sale value would be minimal. I think it would also be legally complicated where the vehicle was leased and/or owned by a third party.
Added to which, UK law couldn't prevent a foreign insurer making a full payout (including the surcharge) to the foreign haulage company.
Before anyone points out that foreign vehicles are only a small part of the problem - if it is a means to side-step crippling costs in the event of a bridge strike then hauliers may decide to set up an offshore operation and transfer ownership and/or registration of the vehicles there. The Government would then have to use other laws to prevent offshoring - which may in turn be incompatible with a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU.
back in the 60's there used to be a national grid transmission line which went across the site of a local brickworks (sadly now a housing estate) one day a crane was brought in for some work being done on the kilns the driver managed to make contact with the transmission line generating so much heat that the tyres melted but amazingly the driver in the cab survived !!
I bet the tyres on that low loader probably prevented it from being a more serious incident
If you hit a bridge and you haven’t bothered to take the legally required precautions then the offence and punishment could justifiably be much higher.
You need to make it a “not betting my licence on that mate” moment when the people at the yard say “trust us mate, it’s low enough”.
If you've hit a bridge you've made a mistake, I'm assuming nobody would do so deliberately. Higher punishments aren't going to prevent human error. Despite all that's been written on the subject in this thread I've not seen any constructive solutions.
- Status