Sign under bridge: tasteless or amusing?

[jon0844]

If you hit a bridge, how would you deal with it? Phone 999, phone the number on the bridge, email or send a letter (first class perhaps, just to be on the safe side)?

 

[GearJammer]

If you hit a bridge, how would you deal with it? Phone 999, phone the number on the bridge, email or send a letter (first class perhaps, just to be on the safe side)?

Id send a letter...... 2nd class, not like its important is it :/

Ring the number on the bridge, get NR to ask the caller for details, ask the caller if there is any visable damage, if so what?

Assuming as with most bridge strikes there is no visible damage then advise drivers (train) on the route to proceed with caution, if no damage can be seen run trains over the bridge at a TSR untill an engineer can get to the site to do a proper inspection.

Like i said, hitting the panic button and getting the job stopped is not nessary, just causes hold ups and costs for no reason. Absolutely no need to be calling 999. Seems most on here can't use their brains or common sence, they just want to make mountains out of molehills and create problems where there isnt any.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I might also add (again) 'I' don't hit bridges!

 

[tony_mac]

There are a couple of cases listed on this thread where road vehicle bridge strikes did cause derailments - several people died in one of them.

A barge isn't a road vehicle, but what difference does that make? The pilot didn't realise what damage he had done and didn't report it, the tracks weren't broken, but the train still derailed.
Do you think that preventative safety action should only happen for an exact set of circumstances that has already killed people?

If it's a paint scrape, then no, it obviously isn't an emergency - but the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I think it's reasonable to err on the side of caution, given the possible consequences.

Who is going to judge if the strike is hard enough to buckle a rail? A random vehicle driver (who has good reasons to play down the incident, as the barge pilot did), or wait for a railway engineer?
If the person on the other end of the phone has no real idea as to what damage was actually done, is it responsible to still send a train over that bridge and just hope for the best?

 

[itsjustmyjob]

I'm finding it a bit bizarre that a sign which is essentially meant to be lighthearted and humorous has now attracted 90+ additional posts.

Night all.

 

[the sniper]

I'm finding it a bit bizarre that a sign which is essentially meant to be lighthearted and humorous has now attracted 90+ additional posts.

Night all.

I've been on here enough years now to not be surprised by this turn of events, sadly...

 

[carriageline]

Id send a letter...... 2nd class, not like its important is it :/



Ring the number on the bridge, get NR to ask the caller for details, ask the caller if there is any visable damage, if so what?



Assuming as with most bridge strikes there is no visible damage then advise drivers (train) on the route to proceed with caution, if no damage can be seen run trains over the bridge at a TSR untill an engineer can get to the site to do a proper inspection.



Like i said, hitting the panic button and getting the job stopped is not nessary, just causes hold ups and costs for no reason. Absolutely no need to be calling 999. Seems most on here can't use their brains or common sence, they just want to make mountains out of molehills and create problems where there isnt any.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I might also add (again) 'I' don't hit bridges!

Whilst I somewhat agree with what you say, here's my point of view:

Some bridges have whats called a light vehicle dispensation, and basically any vehicle smaller than a transit van doesn't stop the job, and can continue aslong as nothing amiss is reported close to the bridge (and a few other checklists are not true, like vehicle trapped under bridge)

On any other bridge, a bridge strike doesn't necessarily stop the job either, depending on it's classification (red, amber, double amber and green), which basically ranges from continue at line speed (green) to completely stopping the job (red), and the two ambers just involve cautioning at different speeds (5 and 20 for the first train on each line)

Now I don't personally trust the general public to give a good damage report, seeing as, for example, the lorry is stuck underneath the bridge it can make things difficult. The BSN/E (bridge strike nominee and examiner) have strict rules to abide by. And what do you do with bridges that have gouges and bricks missing from precious strikes?

Whilst as you say not many bridges have been damaged badly enough to close it, an E/TSR could still be imposed until remedial work is carried out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[edwin_m]

Some of the examples weren't strictly relevant but I gave you a better one. In that incident time was of the essence in trying to stop the train, and it probably would have been stopped if it happened today, as somebody involved would have had a mobile and the signaller would have been able to contact the train by radio. Thus illustrating the value of having contact numbers and bridge details displayed on the bridge (the signaller got mixed up between bridges in that incident).

I believe the action to be taken on a bridge strike does vary between bridges, and some of them are considered solid enough that as strike is not an immediate risk to rail traffic. However unless the witness is a structural engineer with knowledge of the design of that particular bridge, that's not really their call.

I believe these plates do exist on some road-over-rail bridges too (any views anyone?) and vehicles or masonry falling onto the railway is also a major hazard. I also mentioned the cement lorry at Oxshott, which would almost certainly have been a multi-fatality if either the truck had fallen ahead of the train rather than on top of it, or it had been peak hour with many passengers in the coach that was crushed. Heck goes to illustrate that even a fairly small vehicle can cause a catastrophe in the wrong circumstances.

So I for one agree totally that these incidents need to be treated as emergencies. I would also add that anyone responsible for causing one deserves the full force of the law both criminal and civil.

 

[Tomnick]

Indeed - when trains are stopped following a bridge strike, that's a result of us complying with the requirements of the Rule Book. It's not a time to start applying common sense (get it wrong and end up on a manslaughter charge? Not for me thanks.). Like everything else, I'm sure that it's been risk assessed to within an inch of its life by those who know their stuff, and if they have determined that the risk is sufficiently high to justify stopping the job whilst it's looked at, then who am I (or anyone else on here) to argue? If individual bridges have been assessed to determine that either a green dispensation or a light vehicle dispensation is appropriate, what does that say about the others?

Great Heck - no, it didn't involve the bridge directly, but the fact that it was an overbridge is irrelevant. They're still provided with bridge strike plates which, given that a vehicle striking the parapet is likely to end up in a similar position to that which the Land Rover ended up in on that fateful morning, is certainly justified. If someone had been able to contact the railway directly, using the information and details provided on the bridge strike plate (if one was provided back then), perhaps things would have turned out rather better...

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I'm finding it a bit bizarre that a sign which is essentially meant to be lighthearted and humorous has now attracted 90+ additional posts.

It has turned into a discussion about bridge safety and who best to contact.

This is a discussion forum, discussion happens.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Indeed - when trains are stopped following a bridge strike, that's a result of us complying with the requirements of the Rule Book. It's not a time to start applying common sense (get it wrong and end up on a manslaughter charge? Not for me thanks.). Like everything else, I'm sure that it's been risk assessed to within an inch of its life by those who know their stuff, and if they have determined that the risk is sufficiently high to justify stopping the job whilst it's looked at, then who am I (or anyone else on here) to argue?

Given GearJammer's previous posts on disregarding the height limit when driving lorries under bridges, I'm not entirely confident that after his next inevitable collision with such a bridge he will report it....

 

[GB]

Jesus christ don't you lot exagerate... go off on one, and twist things all out of proportion.

Where did i say that 'i' hit bridges..... i don't!
Where did i say that hitting bridges should'nt be reported..... i did'nt say that.

I said that bridge strikes should not be treated as emergencies, i asked for an example as to when a simple bridge strike caused the closure of a bridge/railway as im not aware of any, the examples you've given (Heck does'nt even come into it, the car never hit the bridge, and it was a road over a railway) you give an example of a barge hitting a bridge in the USA (a barge is a lorry is it) and a bridge that calapsed due to lack of maintenance.

Im sorry but bridge strikes in my opinion are not and should not be treated as an emergency, there is absolutely no need to dial 999, yes they should be reported but there is no need to get the job stopped, anybody with an ounce of common sence can tell wether they have seriously damaged a bridge. You lot are sugesting that even a gently tap should be treated as an 'emergency'....... right up to the point where you sugest a cyclist hitting a bridge! Listen to yourselves, its pathetic.

Yes bridge strikes should be reported but don't stop the job, a TSR could be put in place while an engineer goes to inspect said bridge but hitting the panic button and stopping the bridge is just overkill!

It's already been pointed out that a bridge strike can cause structural or track alignment issues so why in your opinion should these not be treated as emergencies?

It has also been pointed out that bridges are usually classified and will have a predetermined ESR applied (or job stopped if it's unclassified or classified red), but trains need to be stopped so the bridge classification can be checked and drivers advised. So it's not like NR just sit with their thumbs up their bum like some would suggest.

Your seemingly lack of knowledge about what damage the vehicle you drive for a living can actually do is quite something.

 

[Tibbs]

Next year will see 0800 becoming free from all phones, including mobiles. Like it used to be on some networks before they got greedy.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

In the old (old) days before free minutes etc. 0800 numbers were free, but people set up call forwarding from 0800 numbers giving very cheap mobile calls, with no revenue to the phone company.

They introduced the charge for 0800 numbers to combat this.

 

[Maxfly]

Jesus christ don't you lot exagerate... go off on one, and twist things all out of proportion.

Where did i say that 'i' hit bridges..... i don't!
Where did i say that hitting bridges should'nt be reported..... i did'nt say that.

I said that bridge strikes should not be treated as emergencies, i asked for an example as to when a simple bridge strike caused the closure of a bridge/railway as im not aware of any, the examples you've given (Heck does'nt even come into it, the car never hit the bridge, and it was a road over a railway) you give an example of a barge hitting a bridge in the USA (a barge is a lorry is it) and a bridge that calapsed due to lack of maintenance.

Im sorry but bridge strikes in my opinion are not and should not be treated as an emergency, there is absolutely no need to dial 999, yes they should be reported but there is no need to get the job stopped, anybody with an ounce of common sence can tell wether they have seriously damaged a bridge. You lot are sugesting that even a gently tap should be treated as an 'emergency'....... right up to the point where you sugest a cyclist hitting a bridge! Listen to yourselves, its pathetic.

Yes bridge strikes should be reported but don't stop the job, a TSR could be put in place while an engineer goes to inspect said bridge but hitting the panic button and stopping the bridge is just overkill!

Sweet baby Jesus wept, I thought you had enough common sense to be to get that obviously a cyclist tapping it doesn't count unless of course you know many cyclists that can remove a couple of bricks by doing so??? Did you look up shore street bridge or pay attention to the links where bridge strikes ended up in derailment etc?? As said above certain brides have dispensation so the level of strike can be judged and action taken accordingly.
Try listening to yourself sometimes, your the type of person that is the reason for over the top h&s in so many places as you lack the common sense to see where the risk of a vehicle hitting a bridge may be an emergency.

 

[GearJammer]

his next inevitable collision with such a bridge

'NEXT' inevitable collision?????????? Oh im sorry, when was the first one? :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I somewhat agree with what you say, here's my point of view:

Some bridges have whats called a light vehicle dispensation, and basically any vehicle smaller than a transit van doesn't stop the job, and can continue aslong as nothing amiss is reported close to the bridge (and a few other checklists are not true, like vehicle trapped under bridge)

On any other bridge, a bridge strike doesn't necessarily stop the job either, depending on it's classification (red, amber, double amber and green), which basically ranges from continue at line speed (green) to completely stopping the job (red), and the two ambers just involve cautioning at different speeds (5 and 20 for the first train on each line)

Now I don't personally trust the general public to give a good damage report, seeing as, for example, the lorry is stuck underneath the bridge it can make things difficult. The BSN/E (bridge strike nominee and examiner) have strict rules to abide by. And what do you do with bridges that have gouges and bricks missing from precious strikes?

Whilst as you say not many bridges have been damaged badly enough to close it, an E/TSR could still be imposed until remedial work is carried out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A sensible reply... thank you.

So in your opinion should bridge strikes be treated as emergencies by dialing 999... or reported to NR and treated accordingly with the information provided?

 

[Tomnick]

So in your opinion should bridge strikes be treated as emergencies by dialing 999... or reported to NR and treated accordingly with the information provided?

A bridge strike should be treated as an emergency and dealt with as such by following the instructions on the plate and (first) contacting Network Rail directly - who can then quickly determine whether any dispensations apply and arrange for trains to be stopped if necessary.

 

[Deerfold]

'NEXT' inevitable collision?????????? Oh im sorry, when was the first one? :roll:

I don't know. you didn't report it.

 

[carriageline]

'NEXT' inevitable collision?????????? Oh im sorry, when was the first one? :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




A sensible reply... thank you.



So in your opinion should bridge strikes be treated as emergencies by dialing 999... or reported to NR and treated accordingly with the information provided?

I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer, as( as with most things) each scenario will be different and it depends completely on analysing what's the most important risk. Personally, as a signallers I want the information to me as quickly and accurately as possible so I can use my knowledge to apply the rules. But if your faced with a car on fire with people trapped inside it, most people ( and me included) wouldn't hesitate to contact 999 first.

We have also established (which I would hope is a nationwide thing) from a helpful poster that the police control rooms and NR are fairly good at communicating these sorts of things between theirselves, so the information would reach them. But the question is how quickly, and how accurately would it get there?

For example, if a lorry has hit the underside of a bridge (nobody is hurt) then call the NR number, then possibly 999 (although I would suspect NR would notify then anyway) as getting trains stopped is the priority there.

But if, for example a car has hit the bridge and is now ingulfed in flames then obviously 999 then NR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk