Container lorry brings services to a halt

[SuspectUsual]

Thinking about this from another perspective, there are hundreds of thousands of high vehicles on the UK’s roads, including many not permanently based here, with the majority of them being tractor and trailer combinations meaning that the overall maximum height of any given tractor unit can vary trip by trip.

On the other hand, there are - relatively speaking - a far lower number of low bridges, and obviously they’re all fixed in position and can vary in height only by very rare exception (eg the resurfacing example upthread).

So, in a world where we’ve sent people to the moon, it must be possible to have the detection device and appropriate alarms fitted to the bridge rather than the vehicle. Some sort of sensor similar to a burglar alarm that “sees” the approach of an over height vehicle and triggers audible and visual alarms.

It couldn’t ever guarantee to eliminate bridge strikes, but could it reduce them as far as reasonably possible? And create a watertight prosecution case in the event that the alarm is ignored?

 

[Bald Rick]

Thinking about this from another perspective, there are hundreds of thousands of high vehicles on the UK’s roads, including many not permanently based here, with the majority of them being tractor and trailer combinations meaning that the overall maximum height of any given tractor unit can vary trip by trip.

On the other hand, there are - relatively speaking - a far lower number of low bridges, and obviously they’re all fixed in position and can vary in height only by very rare exception (eg the resurfacing example upthread).

So, in a world where we’ve sent people to the moon, it must be possible to have the detection device and appropriate alarms fitted to the bridge rather than the vehicle. Some sort of sensor similar to a burglar alarm that “sees” the approach of an over height vehicle and triggers audible and visual alarms.

It couldn’t ever guarantee to eliminate bridge strikes, but could it reduce them as far as reasonably possible? And create a watertight prosecution case in the event that the alarm is ignored?

They’ve been in use at least 30 years. Largely ineffective.

 

[TrafficEng]

Edit - on this approach the bridge has a triangle sign (red border) with 12ft 0 ins. No metric. The first beam which is set back 1-2 ft has black and yellow diagonal paint the full width of the beam (2 lanes and 1 pavement) across it about 9ins high . From Google there appear to be no warning signs on the immediate approach roads and min roundabout about 150m away on this side of the bridge.

You beat me to it. The following comments are based on March 2019 streetview images, the situation today may be different.

Approaching Crown Street from either direction on Currock Street there are no signs warning of a low bridge if you turn into Crown Street. No warning signs as you exit the junction towards the bridge either.

The first sign is approx 70m from the junction, so not easily seen before Crown Street is entered. A triangular warning sign (13'0) with no distance plate and no backing board. The bridge is non-arch, therefore a traingular sign is wrong. The sign is approx 115m from the bridge. For a road with an 85%ile speed (for cars) of 21-30mph a warning sign should be 45m from the hazard. (115m would be appropriate in the 41-50mph category).

The warning sign is also located where the road narrows sharply, so HGV drivers would be concentrating on oncoming traffic rather more than a sign.

The sign on the bridge itself is triangular and therefore wrong for this kind of bridge. The chevron markings on the bridge extend beyond the limits of the carriageway on both sides, so also wrong.

On the lamp column immediately before the bridge there is a 'no right turn' sign. It is unclear what right turn this refers to, but it is wrongly located for any of the possibilities.

The same lamp column also has a 'New Road Layout' sign, but from at least August 2018 it had been rotated almost 180 degrees. It was on the same lamp column in April 2009, so had been in place approx 10 years by March 2019. Legally* it should be removed no later than 3 months after completion of the works.

Both signs on the lamp column act as a distraction from the bridge.

"No excuses".

(* Chapter 4, paragraph 1.15.1)

 

[jfowkes]

You really are obsessed with the road haulage industry. Just because a small percentage of drivers (and one is one too many) manage to hit low bridges it doesn't mean that the industry is rotten to the core, in fact safety is higher now than it's ever been but it's never going to be perfect.

Comparisons to the railway and airline industry are ridiculous.

I don't think the comparisons are ridiculous at all. Why shouldn't we have an expectation that the haulage industry has the same safety standards as rail or aviation? What is fundamentally different, and why are those things set in stone?

Aviation safety increased a lot when CRM (Crew Resource Management) was introduced, as it was recognised that a lot of crashes and other incidents were due to human factors. It took effort and time, but it was done. Are there reasons we should not expect the same from haulage?

 

[headshot119]

On the lamp column immediately before the bridge there is a 'no right turn' sign. It is unclear what right turn this refers to, but it is wrongly located for any of the possibilities.

The perspective on Streetview is quite bad, but it's supposed to stop you turning right from the access next to the large billboard, and it does face towards there.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think the comparisons are ridiculous at all. Why shouldn't we have an expectation that the haulage industry has the same safety standards as rail or aviation? What is fundamentally different, and why are those things set in stone?

Because the consequences of mishandling are drastically smaller in road haulage than in rail or aviation.
It's hard to think of a reasonable situation where a mishandled HGV can cause as much damage as a mishandled airliner or train.

 

[TrafficEng]

So? The driver would be able to prove he had taken all reasonable steps and it would be someone else’s fault.
Can you find an example of a bridge being hit that was incorrectly signed?

In addition to 2HAP's example, by looking closely at Google streetview images I am certain the example yesterday on the A102 at Homerton has been hit (probably multiple times) whilst it was incorrectly signed.

For another example, see the reports of a strike on the A5104 at Penyffordd in June 2015. A Polish lorry (reportedly 4.0m) hit a bridge signed at 13'0" / 4.1m. I've not been able to find the eventual outcome of this example (the signs were unchanged a year later), nor the exact height of the bridge. But if it was correctly signed at 13'0" the true clearance should be in the range 13'3" to 13'6". Converting those clearances back to the metric signing system gives a figure of 3.9m or 4.0m. (if 4.1m is correct then 13'0" is wrong)

The Penyffordd example also demonstrates another issue. The sign appears to be fitted flat to the side of the bridge. In this case the bridge is skewed meaning the sign is not facing approaching traffic at the correct angle (it points away to the side). Instead the signs should be mounted on brackets that allow them to be rotated and set at the appropriate angle to the road to optimise visibility. This isn't pedantry - if the sign is not at the correct angle the retroreflective surfaces don't work as they should and the sign is less visible than it should be.

 

[jfowkes]

Because the consequences of mishandling are drastically smaller in road haulage than in rail or aviation.
It's hard to think of a reasonable situation where a mishandled HGV can cause as much damage as a mishandled airliner or train.

The damage from a single HGV yes, but collectively the harm is large, I suspect larger than would be acceptable in either the rail or aviation sectors. Not just considering bridge strikes here, but incidents and accidents in general.

 

[HSTEd]

The damage from a single HGV yes, but collectively the harm is large, I suspect larger than would be acceptable in either the rail or aviation sectors. Not just considering bridge strikes here, but incidents and accidents in general.

Yes, but the shear number of HGVs mean doing anything about it is astronomically more expensive than doing anything about train safety.

How many train cabs have to be fitted with GSM-R or ATP or whatever?
Now think how many HGV cabs there are.

 

[TrafficEng]

The perspective on Streetview is quite bad, but it's supposed to stop you turning right from the access next to the large billboard, and it does face towards there.

Thanks, that might make sense in terms of the restricted visibility I suppose.

However, the sign is incorrectly located as it should be on the access road and not opposite it. Turn prohibition signs should always be in advance of the junction they apply to. (partly so the sign is never obscured by other vehicles).

They should never be positioned so they are visible to drivers they don't apply to (as this one is).

The exceptions to this are where the sign is incorporated into a traffic signal head, but not applicable here.

 

[TrafficEng]

Now think how many HGV cabs there are.

A. Using 2018 figures there were 524,000 HGVs licensed in the UK. That doesn't include any non-UK licensed vehicles that might be driven on UK roads.

To that we need to add buses and coaches. 24,600 double deck, and since some low bridges are too low for single decks we need to add another 47,300 for them. In fact, as we are being safety conscious we shouldn't forget minibuses as they may also encounter a too-low bridge and can be driven by 'non-professionals' with lower risk awareness, plus carry a fragile cargo. So the total for UK coach/bus/minibus combined is 160,000.

Then we need to think about the DfT statistical category of 'Light Goods Vehicles' (not to be confused with the 'Large' ones). That includes 'Transit' type vans that aren't heavy enough to be HGVs, but are higher than some of the lower bridges. The total number of licensed LGVs in 2018 was 4,127,000. I haven't found a split between 'Transit' type and car-based vans so will do something controversial and assume a 50/50 split, rounded down to 2,000,000 for the larger size. Happy to be corrected on that if anyone has better data.

Someone earlier in the thread said there were 2000 'low' bridges. To make a crude assessment of where best to spend money, if we look at the ratio of bridges to HGV+bus there are 342 vehicles to each bridge.

An alternate way of looking at it is that for the same money we can spend 342 times as much per bridge on a 'solution' than we could per vehicle. If we go for a £300 SatNav (need to think about fitting costs too) then the budget could be £102,600 per bridge.

Repeating the process to include 'Transit' style LGVs (I think we should) then the ratio (HGV+bus+Transit) is 1342:1 - so for a spend of £300 per vehicle we could have £402,600 of wonga to spend per bridge.

It should be obvious that addressing the problem on a 'site' basis is likely to be more cost effective than doing so on a 'per vehicle' basis, especially when you take into account the need for any 'solution' to deal with all the non-UK registered vehicles we haven't yet counted.

 

[Antman]

I don't think the comparisons are ridiculous at all. Why shouldn't we have an expectation that the haulage industry has the same safety standards as rail or aviation? What is fundamentally different, and why are those things set in stone?

Aviation safety increased a lot when CRM (Crew Resource Management) was introduced, as it was recognised that a lot of crashes and other incidents were due to human factors. It took effort and time, but it was done. Are there reasons we should not expect the same from haulage?

They are completely different, you can't put a lorry onto auto pilot.

 

[eastdyke]

An alternate way of looking at it is that for the same money we can spend 342 times as much per bridge on a 'solution' than we could per vehicle. If we go for a £300 SatNav (need to think about fitting costs too) then the budget could be £102,600 per bridge.

Repeating the process to include 'Transit' style LGVs (I think we should) then the ratio (HGV+bus+Transit) is 1342:1 - so for a spend of £300 per vehicle we could have £402,600 of wonga to spend per bridge.

It should be obvious that addressing the problem on a 'site' basis is likely to be more cost effective than doing so on a 'per vehicle' basis, especially when you take into account the need for any 'solution' to deal with all the non-UK registered vehicles we haven't yet counted.

Although there are around 1800 bridge strikes at rail over road bridges network wide how many of those involve a strike to the abutments? Satnavs wont stop any of those!

Just looking at the numbers for L(Large)GVs (and there would be a need to add Satnav updating contract costs as well), I would rather money be spent on attempting to reduce ALL deaths in which LGVs have an involvement. Amongst pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists that number approaches 100 p/a.
The most dangerous bridges from a death to third parties point of view would probably be skew rail over road bridges where the risk of the vehicle toppling is exacerbated by vehicle speed.

Back to the strike that kicked this thread off, I follow the Anglia routes in a little detail and, as noted up-thread, cannot recall a previous strike at this bridge.
What will happen? My guess:
Driver will get prosecuted for failing to obey a road sign, careless driving, around 6 points on HIS/HER licence, a £500-£1000 fine and the operator (which could also be the driver) having to suffer a substantial insurance hike. There could also be follow on consequences (ie arising from any previous).
NR will make a claim for costs and Schedule 8, could be well into ?6 figures subject to the work that may ultimately be needed for full repair.
NR/Suffolk County Council will review site arrangements for signage and other possible mitigation. In the absence of any previous history all will likely be quite modest.

 

[GB]

Because the consequences of mishandling are drastically smaller in road haulage than in rail or aviation.
It's hard to think of a reasonable situation where a mishandled HGV can cause as much damage as a mishandled airliner or train.

That is a very strange a depressing attitude to take towards safety and explains a lot if that's how the haulage industry thinks.

The bridge bash that started thread moved the bridge from its bearings and moved the track out of alignment by 30mm. Its not unreasonable to suggest that this has the potential to cause issues with the safe running of the trains. Containers rip open like paper when they hit bridges, so if you get something a little more substantial like a scrap metal trailer or plant equipment that 30mm might have been 60+mm, enough to buckle or crack a rail. And what about the incident on the M20 a few years ago when a lorry carrying plant equipment hit a concrete footbridge causing it to collapse onto the busy motorway. It was only pure luck no one was killed.

 

[al78]

That is a very strange a depressing attitude to take towards safety and explains a lot if that's how the haulage industry thinks.

I don't think it is the haulage industry alone, it is generally the case that the level of regulation and safety measures are proportional to the damage potential (consequence of error). This is why bicycles have far less regulation than motor vehicles, because the consequences of carelessness/incompetance are much lower.

 

[talltim]

Because the consequences of mishandling are drastically smaller in road haulage than in rail or aviation.
It's hard to think of a reasonable situation where a mishandled HGV can cause as much damage as a mishandled airliner or train.

Errm, how about a bridge strike? Causing a derailed train?
You only have to think about what happened at Great Heck to realise that even a small road vehicle can cause a lot of damage.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think it is the haulage industry alone, it is generally the case that the level of regulation and safety measures are proportional to the damage potential (consequence of error). This is why bicycles have far less regulation than motor vehicles, because the consequences of carelessness/incompetance are much lower.

The risk depends on the likelihood and the severity of the accident that might result. The likelihood depends on several factors, including how likely the accident is for every hazard event but also how frequent the hazard events are. With large numbers of trucks passing under bridges every day, the chances of a bridge strike are quite high overall even if they are low for an individual truck passing under a specific bridge on one occasion.

Having said that I don't believe there have been any rail casualties in an underbridge strike since 1978*, so the overall safety record is far better than level crossings for example.

*http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=1101

The underbridge concerned had been struck a few minutes previously by an item of construction plant being conveyed by road on a low-loader semi-trailer and the impact had damaged and displaced the bridge superstructure, introducing a severe distortion into the track over the bridge. Though an immediate attempt was made by eyewitnesses to the incident to convey a warning to approaching trains, the 07.43 3-car diesel multiple-unit passenger train from Aberdeen to Inverness (2N13) which had left Inverurie at 08.12 was already approaching the damaged bridge. The driver saw the track distortion too late to stop short of the bridge and the train came to rest some 37 yards beyond the bridge with the two leading coaches derailed. It was fortunate that only minor injuries were sustained by 5 passengers and 2 members of the staff, one of whom, the buffet car attendant, was detained in hospital overnight.

 

[HSTEd]

Errm, how about a bridge strike? Causing a derailed train?
You only have to think about what happened at Great Heck to realise that even a small road vehicle can cause a lot of damage.

This is an extremely low probability event however, so the resources it is worth expending to avoid it are still tiny despite the serious consequences of such an event.

 

[TrafficEng]

Errm, how about a bridge strike? Causing a derailed train?
You only have to think about what happened at Great Heck to realise that even a small road vehicle can cause a lot of damage.

How many accidents [over whatever timeframe you wish] involving death or serious injury have occurred due to:
a) Bridge strikes
b) Vehicles encroaching onto the railway (e.g. Great Heck, Oxshott)
c) Level crossing incidents

Which of these would be the main focus and priority for investment using a risk analysis based approach?

Edit: Cross-posted with edwin_m

 

[talltim]

This is an extremely low probability event however, so the resources it is worth expending to avoid it are still tiny despite the serious consequences of such an event.

At a guess, they are higher than running off a road a long way before an underbridge and ending up on a track, but crash barriers were changed (on motorways at least)

 

[HSTEd]

At a guess, they are higher than running off a road a long way before an underbridge and ending up on a track, but crash barriers were changed (on motorways at least)

Remember that the resources we can justify expanding on proportional (approximately) to the product of the severity of the consequences and the probability of it occurring.

A bridge strike is exceedingly unlikely to cause anything as bad as Great Heck.

This is also why we don't expend massive resources preparing for a large bolide impact, even though the consequences of that would be cataclysmic in a way we can't really imagine.

 

[talltim]

This is also why we don't expend massive resources preparing for a large bolide impact, even though the consequences of that would be cataclysmic in a way we can't really imagine.

Hollywood spent $175m on a training film about such an event https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/

 

[TrafficEng]

Having said that I don't believe there have been any rail casualties in an underbridge strike since 1978*, so the overall safety record is far better than level crossings for example.

The Oyne accident report makes interesting reading, not least to see how times have changed - a witness having to drive to a local farm to make a telephone call to alert the authorities, and another phoning a local hotel and asking someone to go and tell the signalman.

The report also mentions various improvements and initiatives designed to reduce the problem (UK wide) but depressingly it is clear many of these are yet to be acted upon.

Despite the bridge deck being lifted 1'8" and displaced laterally by 3'3" it seems the original structure is still in use, so was presumably repaired and moved back into its correct position. If so, it is a demonstration of the strength of these structures, let down by a lack of horizontal and vertical restraint. It is difficult to tell whether the lateral restraint problem was addressed.

Judging by the condition, it appears the 1978 vintage sign was also still in place (as of 2008). And being a triangular warning sign is wrong for the type of bridge. Yellow and black conspicuity markings had been added, but also incorrectly. In 2008 there were no warning signs in advance of the bridge (in the direction the lorry was travelling) which for a site that was the scene of one of the worst bridge strike accidents in the UK is - to put it mildly - somewhat surprising.

In some ways more concerning is the site being close to the A96 with the bridge being approx 250m away from the junction between the B9002 and A96 (not dissimilar to the Saxham situation).

In 2016 there were no warning or direction signs on the A96 to indicate there is a height restriction on the 'B' road which is signposted off it. Maybe this would be appropriate in the middle of nowhere on roads only by locals and sheep, but on a trunk road that will be used by drivers from anywhere it is inexplicable why the highway authority doesn't feel the need to give drivers better information.

It is worth comparing the signing to that at the next junction towards Pitcaple. The bridge on the minor road approached from that junction is also a good case study in how not to provide and maintain signage at low bridges. (and why SatNavs won't help much)

 

[quarella]

I don't think the comparisons are ridiculous at all. Why shouldn't we have an expectation that the haulage industry has the same safety standards as rail or aviation? What is fundamentally different, and why are those things set in stone?

Aviation safety increased a lot when CRM (Crew Resource Management) was introduced, as it was recognised that a lot of crashes and other incidents were due to human factors. It took effort and time, but it was done. Are there reasons we should not expect the same from haulage?

Trains and planes operate in controlled environments so to match the aviation and rail industries lorries will have their own dedicated highways with controllers dictating movements.

 

[furnessvale]

Trains and planes operate in controlled environments so to match the aviation and rail industries lorries will have their own dedicated highways with controllers dictating movements.

From my point of view, roads can do what they want to each other. My concern is the interface between a very safe rail system and roads which adopt totally different safety standards. The effect those roads have on rail's safety record is what needs addressing.

 

[QueensCurve]

Won't make any difference. Drivers hitting low bridges etc are simply not concentrating at the time

I fear this may be true. There must however be some way of dealing with what is a human factors problem to get better outcomes.

 

[Edders23]

Because the consequences of mishandling are drastically smaller in road haulage than in rail or aviation.
It's hard to think of a reasonable situation where a mishandled HGV can cause as much damage as a mishandled airliner or train.

There was one 2 years ago on the M1 with 8 or 9 people killed because the driver wasn't paying attention 40 to 44 tonnes of HGV can do a lot of damage and cause a lot of travel disruption through closure of roads

 

[Antman]

Train services suspended (or diverted via Tonbridge) between Otford and Ashford via Maidstone East due to another bridge strike on the B2016 at Wrotham Heath.

 

[TrafficEng]

Train services suspended (or diverted via Tonbridge) between Otford and Ashford via Maidstone East due to another bridge strike on the B2016 at Wrotham Heath.

Interesting one. The lorry appears to be on the A20 side of the bridge. On both A20 approaches to the B2016 roundabout there are advance warning signs (ADS) that include the height restriction roundel. (even though the bridge itself had triangular warning signs).

But approaching from the M26 direction, the ADS includes a black panel indicating the preferred route for HGVs (to Orchard Place Business Centre) is to turn onto the B2016. Sometime between August 2018 and May 2019 that sign has been laid (or fallen?) flat on the ground and surrounded by orange and yellow safety fencing. I wonder whether it has been put back up.

Either way, it is a bit unconventional to sign a preferred route for lorries that takes you directly towards a low bridge (located just after the junction).