Most Bridge Strikes in 2019

[HSTEd]

Now maybe we should use this list to determine what bridges should be rebuilt to have greater clearances........

Would be rather expensive though

 

[1955LR]

The GWSR put a fixed structure on the road bridge at Broadway after many hits.

 

[Bald Rick]

The GWSR put a fixed structure on the road bridge at Broadway after many hits.

That’s a protection beam, and in use on many bridges on the national network.

However it technically forms part of the bridge structure, so any report of a strike still requires exactly the same action (traffic stopped / reduced in speed, a pair of railway eyes to examine the bridge and line for damage / misalignment).

It does, however, reduce the risk of structural damage to the main bridge span itself.

 

[Maurice3000]

I recall reading an article years ago accusing either Network Rail or the DfT (I forgot which) of a false economy in not wishing to clean up the legacy signage mess.

The argument was something along the lines of that all HGVs have their height stated in the cab on a plate created by the manufacturer and required by UK law to state its height in metric units (with imperial being optional).

At the same time reduced height signs are required by UK law to be used for any clearance that is less than 5 metres and the reduced height sign should show metric measurements (with imperial being optional).

As there are many old (pre-1970’s?) signs still hanging about that are imperial-only, because the responsible organisation doesn’t want to pay for a replacement, and there are many HGV drivers born after the 1960’s (or not born in the UK) and so less familiar with imperial measurements this is a recipe for disaster. It would be interesting to see if the Irish or French have considerably fewer bridge strikes than us here.

Continued bridge strikes are obviously far more expensive than sorting your signage mess out. Hence the accusation of false economy.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

The A5 bridge is "Protected" by warning signs well in advance of the bridge giving drivers a warning whilst they can still turn round.
There are also substantial beams protecting the bridge.
Interestingly the height signs before and also on the bridge are red circle prohibition signs, not just the usual triangular warning signs. This means that overheight vehicles are contravening a prohibition for which they can be directly prosecuted.

 

[High Dyke]

I've often wondered why they don't build a frame - perhaps made of metal and hinged so no one walking by get's hit, a few meters in front of the bridge which is the same size as the bridge.

If the lorry is to big and goes through it the driver would know he'd hit it and stop immediately before hitting the actual bridge?

There are some bridges in the UK that already have that type of advance warning system, be it chains and bells or more substantial metalwork before the bridge. Still doesn't stop some of the bridges being bashed.

Equally, Nimbyism on the part of local authorities means they don't want large structures on approach roads, especially where the bridge is entering a residential area. This is partly why the rail industry has being adding protection beams to bridges.

The A5 bridge is "Protected" by warning signs well in advance of the bridge giving drivers a warning whilst they can still turn round.
There are also substantial beams protecting the bridge.
Interestingly the height signs before and also on the bridge are red circle prohibition signs, not just the usual triangular warning signs. This means that overheight vehicles are contravening a prohibition for which they can be directly prosecuted.

A previous employer used to get quite irate with me for refusing to drive double-deck buses under a bridge with the circular signs; even though I knew certain vehicles would pass under the bridge without incident. They didn't seem to grasp it was still an offence.

 

[Spartacus]

For those interested, from my experience of dealing with the effects of bridge strikes the nationality of the driver has absolutely nothing to do with likelihood of driving into a low bridge.

I've seen all sorts of daft excuses, one idiot driver being absolutely adamant that the bridge sign was wrong as the height in his cab was lower than that on the bridge. It took him a while to grasp the issue of the trailer behind him, and now firmly wedged into the bridge, being significantly taller than his cab.... There's a lot of drivers out there who seem totally oblivious to the height of their vehicle and the issues it may cause, and as for those who do often significant damage to their vehicles and drive off......

 

[Taunton]

Sorry, yes. Obviously the police collect details on drivers, number plates, etc etc. NR will collect ownership details (and a number plate often helps ) to pursue insurers. But NR has no interest in the driver’s nationality, and I don’t see how it is relevant.

Actually NR should have considerable interest. The RAIB accident reports into multiple level crossing incidents have directly highlighted that the risk assessments done have assumed the HGV drivers have done the UK HGV training and testing, which includes level crossing procedures. But the drivers of the vehicles in the incidents were from other EU countries whose licences are fully valid but such training does not take place.

Time was of course when UK HGVs were invariably driven by UK-licenced drivers. Not any more.

Paras. 22 and 74 (and photos of the wreckage) in the Sudbury accident RAIB report here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8fea40f0b60241000175/R142011_110811_Sewage_Works_Lane.pdf

 

[steamybrian]

A mention for bridge strikes on Heritage Railways....
Amongst the top bridge strikes must be the Spa Valley Railway on which two bridges are regularly hit.
(a) The A26 Eridge Road bridge Tunbridge Wells. Despite a headroom of 14 feet 6inches it was hit 4 times in one month.
(b) Broom Lane Bridge between High Rocks and Groombridge. A headroom of 9 feet 3inches on a narrow country lane.

Any other contenders..

 

[Bald Rick]

Actually NR should have considerable interest. The RAIB accident reports into multiple level crossing incidents have directly highlighted that the risk assessments done have assumed the HGV drivers have done the UK HGV training and testing, which includes level crossing procedures. But the drivers of the vehicles in the incidents were from other EU countries whose licences are fully valid but such training does not take place.

Time was of course when UK HGVs were invariably driven by UK-licenced drivers. Not any more.

Paras. 22 and 74 (and photos of the wreckage) in the Sudbury accident RAIB report here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8fea40f0b60241000175/R142011_110811_Sewage_Works_Lane.pdf

Yes I know all about that incident as I was there.

However it is a very different scenario to a bridge bash.

 

[Taunton]

Yes I know all about that incident as I was there.

However it is a very different scenario to a bridge bash.

Ah. Then you would have been able to speak to the HGV driver and discover this. It's comparable to a bridge strike because it is inappropriate handling of a large vehicle which causes real risk to the railway users.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah. Then you would have been able to speak to the HGV driver and discover this. It's comparable to a bridge strike because it is inappropriate handling of a large vehicle which causes real risk to the railway users.

He was already in the care of Her Majesty’s finest at that point.

It’s a different scenario because:

1) if you drive a vehicle that is too high for a bridge you intend to go under, you will hit it. That is not a risk, it’s a certainty. Therefore drivers are expected to know the height of their vehicle and drive accordingly, specifically not trying to drive through an aperture where the vehicle will not fit. The control is simple and universal - a sign on the bridge giving the maximum height (and/or width) that can be accommodated. The same principle applies all over the world. The only issue will be the use of metric / imperial units (now clarified through updated regulations in 2016), but that is not limited to ‘foreign’ drivers, there will be plenty of U.K. drivers who don’t know what 12’6” means in relation to their 4m high vehicle.

2) if you drive a vehicle across a level crossing, particularly one where you have to (in some way) operate yourself (phones, gates, obeying instructions etc), and you get something wrong (unintentionally or otherwise), most of the time there is no consequence. Unfortunately, occasionally there is a consequence, and very, very occasionally that consequence is serious. That is a risk. Therefore there are procedures to control that risk. These procedures vary by crossing, by location and (of course) by country. They can and do vary widely. NR will very much have an interest where such crossings are likely to be used by people who do not understand how they work, perhaps because English is not their first language. Then the risk control can be amended accordingly, typically by local briefing of the users (these crossings are almost always private access roads).

In the case of Sewage Works Lane, one avenue of defence used by the driver was that he didn’t call the signaller because he didn’t understand the procedure. Unfortunately for him, NR had plenty of voice recordings of all the previous times he had used the crossing correctly. And whilst he was a foreign national, he had lived in this country for a while.

 

[camflyer]

Ely loses one of its claim to fame

Cambs bridge loses its 'most bashed' title

Stuntney Road bridge in Ely has lost its 2018 title of ‘Britain’s most bashed bridge’ - despite being struck 19 times in the last year.

www.elystandard.co.uk

 

[rob.rjt]

At least two of the bridges on the list have 'bypass' level crossings. In both cases, the main route for traffic is under the bridge, so to use the crossing, high vehicles must turn off the main road and rejoin. In one direction, this means that the high vehicle needs to cross the traffic coming the other way at both ends of the crossing.

Is there some reason that in places like that, the bridge cannot be closed and all traffic forced to use the crossing?

 

[camflyer]

At least two of the bridges on the list have 'bypass' level crossings. In both cases, the main route for traffic is under the bridge, so to use the crossing, high vehicles must turn off the main road and rejoin. In one direction, this means that the high vehicle needs to cross the traffic coming the other way at both ends of the crossing.

Is there some reason that in places like that, the bridge cannot be closed and all traffic forced to use the crossing?

I don't see any reason why that couldn't be done with the one next to Ely Station. Maybe just narrow the road to make it only usable by pedestrians, cycles and motorbikes.