What additional measures can be put in place to reduce bridge strikes?

[BrianW]

Why are there not measures to PREVENT bridge strikes?

 

[ComUtoR]

Why are there not measures to PREVENT bridge strikes?

Like a sign placed on a bridge stating it's height ?

Or an early warning regarding overheight vehicles please turn here ?

Maybe we could put vehicle heights in tall vehicles and maybe have some kind of test that requires it to be checked each time ?

What about a road sign warning of low bridge ahead ?

 

[BrianW]

Like a sign placed on a bridge stating it's height ?

Or an early warning regarding overheight vehicles please turn here ?

Maybe we could put vehicle heights in tall vehicles and maybe have some kind of test that requires it to be checked each time ?

What about a road sign warning of low bridge ahead ?

The prevalence of bridge strikes shows that existing arrangements, predominantly signs, don't work.

And drivers are people, so unreliable.

Is there no technology that would work- eg lasers, flashing lights, engine cutouts, solid steelwork like that which prevents campervans from some car parks, tech that works at level crossings with overhead electrics... lives are at stake

 

[Wookiee]

Who's paying for all of that on the thousands of rail bridges around the country?

 

[zwk500]

The prevalence of bridge strikes shows that existing arrangements, predominantly signs, don't work.

And drivers are people, so unreliable.

Is there no technology that would work- eg lasers, flashing lights, engine cutouts, solid steelwork like that which prevents campervans from some car parks, tech that works at level crossings with overhead electrics... lives are at stake

Engine cutouts would be just as dangerous - you don't want a car ending up under the truck - and would be problematic to install, especially at a location with varying clearances like this. Solid Steelwork is used where practical but it's not always sensible in each location. Lasers and flashing lights would presumably not have very much impact as people already miss the high-vis paintjobs and warning signs.

The cheapest solution over the life of the bridge is to replace it with one that meets clearance requirements. As has been done a little up the road on the Westbury-Salisbury line.

 

[DelW]

Is there no technology that would work- eg lasers, flashing lights, engine cutouts, solid steelwork like that which prevents campervans from some car parks, tech that works at level crossings with overhead electrics... lives are at stake

If you look on YouTube for the many videos of the "11ft 8in bridge", many of those measures have been tried, the bridge has been raised (by 8 inches, limited by the rail alignment), yet still trucks hit it.

These measures are effective, but not *completely* effective against inattentive or ignorant drivers.

 

[swt_passenger]

I posted some info about bridge protection beams from a highways point of view last month after the Plymouth incident:

Bridge strike at Plymouth (30/08)

Can't say I've seen any here, particularly on the usual ones struck, but that's reassuring to hear. I'd have thought this would be worthy of further roll out. Is there a criteria for fitting, as in three strikes and you're out we'll put up a beam? here is one...

www.railforums.co.uk

Theres also discussion of the rules on signage for arched bridges in that thread.

 

[ComUtoR]

Is there no technology that would work- eg lasers, flashing lights, engine cutouts, solid steelwork like that which prevents campervans from some car parks, tech that works at level crossings with overhead electrics... lives are at stake

Laser triggered warnings and solid steelwork both exist and bridges still get hit.

Check out the video where a driver ignores 2 clear warnings but is eventualy stopped by the water curtain.

FYI people still drive through the water curtain !

 

[John Webb]

.....The cheapest solution over the life of the bridge is to replace it with one that meets clearance requirements. As has been done a little up the road on the Westbury-Salisbury line.

The bridge referred to by zwk500, I assume:
Railway bridge over Warminster Road

© Copyright David Smith and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

(click on pictures to go to the larger originals on the Geograph website)

 

[BrianW]

Who's paying for all of that on the thousands of rail bridges around the country?

Who's paying the cost of bridge strikes at present?

 

[swt_passenger]

Who's paying the cost of bridge strikes at present?

The road vehicle‘s insurers, unless they cannot be identified - it seems to get asked and answered in every bridge strike thread…

 

[BrianW]

The road vehicle‘s insurers, unless they cannot be identified - it seems to get asked and answered in every bridge strike thread…

Thank you for the info SWT- maybe when I've been a Forumite as long as you I'll have seen more bridge strike threads (my mere 599 messagess to your 25,813). Do you know how well the sums recouped from insurers cover the costs, inc 'consequentials' eg delays. I note for instance Tesco's recent profit announcements while recalling the also recent Plymouth bridge strike to which you also refer.

I found this: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/stories/delays-explained-bridge-strikes-2/ (which, in passing, also links to 'Putting Passengers First')

There must also be 'collateral damage' to drivers' mental health

 

[spyinthesky]

Instant ban, for life . These people put so many lives at risk

 

[swt_passenger]

Thank you for the info SWT- maybe when I've been a Forumite as long as you I'll have seen more bridge strike threads. Do you know how well the sums recouped cover the costs, inc 'consequentials' eg delays. I note for instance Tesco's recent profit announcements while recalling the also recent Plymouth bridge strike.

I don’t know how the costs compare to the recovery, but people have previously posted that they definitely do get chased. In the Plymouth case it was assumed the fault was with a haulage subcontractor. The likes of Tescos don’t generally operate their own lorry fleet.

 

[BayPaul]

Laser triggered warnings and solid steelwork both exist and bridges still get hit.

Check out the video where a driver ignores 2 clear warnings but is eventualy stopped by the water curtain.

FYI people still drive through the water curtain !

I do like the water curtain!

 

[BrianW]

I don’t know how the costs compare to the recovery, but people have previously posted that they definitely do get chased. In the Plymouth case it was assumed the fault was with a haulage subcontractor. The likes of Tescos don’t generally operate their own lorry fleet.

A common misunderstanding of ownership:

Rail chaos in southwest England set to continue after Tesco truck hits bridge

‘Only travel if your journey is essential’ – Great Western Railway

www.independent.co.uk

 

[XAM2175]

I do like the water curtain!

And projecting the stop sign onto it is genius, frankly.

 

[BrianW]

Laser triggered warnings and solid steelwork both exist and bridges still get hit.

Check out the video where a driver ignores 2 clear warnings but is eventualy stopped by the water curtain.

FYI people still drive through the water curtain !

Loving the 'industry spokesperson' comments- 'not our fault' ..

and at the end is it the original driver getting back in the cab to drive on?- surely that must be a potential danger, or will he be completely unaffected. Would a UK train driver be expected to continue after a serious incident? I'm thinking of how sports have got more cautious about players deciding for themselves whether fit to contnue.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I do like the water curtain!

And projecting the stop sign onto it is genius, frankly.

Yes, definitely innovative and if they really help why not.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, definitely innovative and if they really help why not.

Does require a large volume of water though, which means coming up with a way to source it, store it and drain it. For a critical piece of infrastructure it's worth it, but for each and every brick arch bridge we have in this country?

I personally think more bridges should be fitted with the chain-and-bar things they have at the Blackwall tunnel. Cheap to fit and maintain yet robust enough to take multiple hits without replacement. Big enough to see and loud enough to let you know you should stop.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Thank you for the info SWT- maybe when I've been a Forumite as long as you I'll have seen more bridge strike threads (my mere 599 messagess to your 25,813). Do you know how well the sums recouped from insurers cover the costs, inc 'consequentials' eg delays. I note for instance Tesco's recent profit announcements while recalling the also recent Plymouth bridge strike to which you also refer.

I found this: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/stories/delays-explained-bridge-strikes-2/ (which, in passing, also links to 'Putting Passengers First')

There must also be 'collateral damage' to drivers' mental health

The brand on the side of the lorry isn't always the lorry owner. But I'd assume "the railway" will recoup all the costs it can.

Instant ban, for life . These people put so many lives at risk

Surely only if the lorry driver is proven to be fully at fault after a full investigation. Ruining someone's life if it wasn't their fault seems very harsh. There is always an attitude on these forums that lorry drivers are automatically in the wrong and must be shot if they make a mistake and maybe we will hold a bit of an investigation after. If railwaymen make a fault then noone must apportion any blame till after all the details are known and even then it's likely there'll be some mitigating factor. Whilst it is most likely the lorry drivers fault, we can not say for certain at this stage & I trust the police and their employer are more understanding than you.

 

[nickswift99]

There are very many reasons it can happen. There is, for example, a bridge at the south end of Stoke-on-Trent station that is signed, correctly, as being 10' 4" high. But a 10' 3" lorry or bus won't fit under it, as there is a dip in the road so the length of the vehicle means it isn't at road height at the lowest point.
Conversely, at the North end of the station the bridge there was for many years signed as 13' 4" High but a 13' 8" double decker bus fitted under with room to spare! There was a historical reason for this. More recently the bridge was renewed and road realigned and all is now correct. As an interesting aside, in a novel twist British Rail once ran a locomotive over the top of the bridge and onto the road!

https://mobile.twitter.com/sotlive/status/1008391099302531074

In your first example, the signage is incorrect.

The Department for Transport manual on road signs (https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/772037/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-4.pdf) makes it clear that height and width restrictions are to be signed based on subtracting 3 inches from the most narrow point of the obstruction and then rounded down to the nearest 3 inches, so if a 10'3" vehicle won't fit then the sign should not display a height larger than 9'9".

 

[norbitonflyer]

In your first example, the signage is incorrect.

The Department for Transport manual on road signs (https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/772037/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-4.pdf) makes it clear that height and width restrictions are to be signed based on subtracting 3 inches from the most narrow point of the obstruction and then rounded down to the nearest 3 inches, so if a 10'3" vehicle won't fit then the sign should not display a height larger than 9'9".

The second example is also wrong, as whatever the actual headroom, you cannot round down to the nearest 3" and end up with a value ending in 4 !

 

[nickswift99]

I think this perfectly illustrates that driving an HGV is not easy even if you are fully observant and understand the size of your load.

 

[Deafdoggie]

In your first example, the signage is incorrect.

The Department for Transport manual on road signs (https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/772037/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-4.pdf) makes it clear that height and width restrictions are to be signed based on subtracting 3 inches from the most narrow point of the obstruction and then rounded down to the nearest 3 inches, so if a 10'3" vehicle won't fit then the sign should not display a height larger than 9'9".

But that's not the issue, a 10' 3" vehicle will fit under, just not a 10'3" vehicle that is also long.

 

[BayPaul]

But that's not the issue, a 10' 3" vehicle will fit under, just not a 10'3" vehicle that is also long.

A prudent local authority would surely make allowance for that in determining the number, or also add a length restriction to the road.

 

[ComUtoR]

Would a UK train driver be expected to continue after a serious incident?

In some cases, yes.

 

[nickswift99]

But that's not the issue, a 10' 3" vehicle will fit under, just not a 10'3" vehicle that is also long.

Section 7.3.5 of the Manual addresses this point, so any vehicle complaint with construction and use regulations must be able to fit and hence the sign should show a reduced height if the clearance is uneven

 

[Deafdoggie]

A prudent local authority would surely make allowance for that in determining the number, or also add a length restriction to the road.

Section 7.3.5 of the Manual addresses this point, so any vehicle complaint with construction and use regulations must be able to fit and hence the sign should show a reduced height if the clearance is uneven

The road is such that to give clearance to long vehicles would make the height unseable for most vehicles. With the advent of Satnav they put a weight restriction on the road (except access) to try to prevent heavy (and therefore most long) vehicles being sent that way.

 

[BrianW]

I found this interesting: A36 Wilton, via Googlemaps: advisory?

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com