Bridge bashing

[uax6]

This bridge was replaced just a few years ago so should be built to latest standards and be strong enough. It still caused major disruption though.

 

I live within a few miles and diversions to avoid this have caused problems on our local country roads as well as delays to trains.

 

I see that the company is based in Norfolk so not that local to know the bridge but the driver should still be able to read and know height of his vehicle.

 

And as the said company are just about to lose their Operating Licence for other issues (so I hear) this will really top out their year!

 

Andy g

Edit see here:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/failed-failed-and-failed-again-west-norfolk-firm-s-licence-revoked-for-litany-of-safety-breaches-1-5240715

Edited December 13, 2017 by uax6

[Bernard Lamb]

I remember reading not so long ago that a skip lorry got stuck under the bridge by kings langley station can’t remember what exactly happened but somehow iirc that the arm was still raised

 

I was on the next London bound train.

Fortunately there was a Structural Engineer at Watford Junction and he was at the scene in around 45 minutes and gave it the all clear.

I think you are correct about the arm as when I went that way a few days later by road there was a deep gouge mark towards the top of the arch but to one side.

Bernard

[JJGraphics]

Is it not time that legislation was introduced that would allow NetworkRail and the TOCs to fully recover all their losses from these incidents and also to introduce seriously punitive fines for the owners or operators of vehicles involved in bridge strikes . . . or am I completely missing something here?

[beast66606]

As it happens there was an early morning bridge bash just outside Eccles Road yesterday, closing the line until mid afternoon. Its fortunate it happened before full services started - the 05:33 Norwich - Cambridge and the 05:57 Norwich - Liverpool Lime Street both turned back to Norwich at Eccles Road - a couple of sheets of corrugated iron and some steel bars appear to have been dislodged onto the track. This is the closest I could get for a photo.

 

 

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

Is it not time that legislation was introduced that would allow NetworkRail and the TOCs to fully recover all their losses from these incidents and also to introduce seriously punitive fines for the owners or operators of vehicles involved in bridge strikes . . . or am I completely missing something here?

What! Do you expect the politicians to annoy the Road Haulage Association?

Edited December 13, 2017 by TheSignalEngineer

[ejstubbs]

Is it not time that legislation was introduced that would allow NetworkRail and the TOCs to fully recover all their losses from these incidents and also to introduce seriously punitive fines for the owners or operators of vehicles involved in bridge strikes . . . or am I completely missing something here?

 

One would have thought that a charge of careless driving should be more or less automatic, unless there are obvious extenuating circumstances.  It's not like misjudging a gap in busy traffic: the bridges have signs stating the clearance available.

[ejstubbs]

What! Do you expect the politicians to annoy the Road Haulage Associationj?

 

Anyone who gets annoyed at being asked to carry out their business in a safe and responsible fashion can stay annoyed as far as I'm concerned.

 

(At the risk of pandering to a stereotype: small haulage firms all too often seem to be run by the sort of person who is will complain at the slightest provocation about 'excessive regulation' and how it hampers the small businessman.)

[Mad McCann]

 

 

 

And as the said company are just about to lose their Operating Licence for other issues (so I hear) this will really top out their year!

 

Andy g

Edit see here:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/failed-failed-and-failed-again-west-norfolk-firm-s-licence-revoked-for-litany-of-safety-breaches-1-5240715

 

 

 

By the sounds of it they're probably looking to relocate to Texas anyway... ;-)

Edited December 13, 2017 by Mad McCann

[Fat Controller]

During one week in 1978, working next to the bridge at Glebe Street, Stoke, I witnessed the following bridge strikes:-

New Leyland National single-decker lose the 'pod' from its roof.

Skip lorry that had not lowered the 'gallows' used to lift skips on and off.

Flat-bed loaded with bales of either wool or sheepskins.

[highpeakman]

And as the said company are just about to lose their Operating Licence for other issues (so I hear) this will really top out their year!

 

Andy g

Edit see here:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/failed-failed-and-failed-again-west-norfolk-firm-s-licence-revoked-for-litany-of-safety-breaches-1-5240715

 

 

 

By the sounds of it they're probably looking to relocate to Texas anyway... ;-)

 

That says it all really.

 

As they have to reapply for a licence at the end of the year and only kept trading now by the "narrowest of margins" it doesn't look too good does it? 

[TheSignalEngineer]

During one week in 1978, working next to the bridge at Glebe Street, Stoke, I witnessed the following bridge strikes:-

New Leyland National single-decker lose the 'pod' from its roof.

Skip lorry that had not lowered the 'gallows' used to lift skips on and off.

Flat-bed loaded with bales of either wool or sheepskins.

For about four months in 1970 I was in an office next to that bridge. Bashes or late brake squeal on realising they wouldn't make it were a daily occurrence.

[caradoc]

Bridge strikes are a daily occurrence on the national network, so much so that plates are now fitted to Network Rail structures giving a number to call if a strike occurs. I fear it is only a matter of time before a lorry damages a bridge severely enough to cause a major rail accident; IMHO any road haulage operator that fails to take adequate measures to prevent bridge strikes, should, after say three incidents, lose their licence to operate, and their senior managers should be banned from the industry forever.

[phil-b259]

Is it not time that legislation was introduced that would allow NetworkRail and the TOCs to fully recover all their losses from these incidents and also to introduce seriously punitive fines for the owners or operators of vehicles involved in bridge strikes . . . or am I completely missing something here?

 

 

What! Do you expect the politicians to annoy the Road Haulage Associationj?

 

 

Have a look at this from the Insurance Industry https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi1r6j7sIfYAhVmKsAKHTNNCaoQFghSMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.allianzebroker.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fallianzebroker%2Fen_gb%2Fapplication%2Fcontent%2Fdocuments%2Fnews-and-insight%2Fnewsletters%2Fcommercial-motor%2Fmarch-2016%2Frailway-bridge-strikes.current.html&usg=AOvVaw07hUigK-uS2QjU0QYmJame

 

As per the PDF

 

Conarken v Network Rail:-

In 2011, the Court of Appeal considered this case.Damage caused to a Network Rail bridge by a negligent motorist meant the track across the bridge was temporarily closed. Network Rail was contractually obliged to compensate the TOCs for the resultant financial loss due to schedule disruption. The compensation amount was calculated using a formula detailed in the ‘track access agreements’ between Network Rail and TOCs. Network Rail brought a claim against the negligent motorist. The motorist denied liability to pay Network Rail  damages for the disruption compensation, arguing it was pure economic loss and therefore not recoverable. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the loss of income following damage to revenue generating property is a recoverable loss. The measure of damages  depends on what is reasonable. In this instance, the Court found that the formula contained in the agreements was reasonable. The claim therefore succeeded.

 

And

 

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Handy:-

The decision in Conarken was further confirmed in this similar case, reiterating that Network Rail can recover from negligent parties the compensation that it is contractually obliged to pay to TOCs.

 

Example costs:-

 

1. Mercedes Sprinter impacted with a bridge. Cost of repairs totalled £2,937. The claim for disruptionwas £283,747.

2. A DAF 18T Tipper hit a bridge. Repairs totalled £6,542. The claim for disruption was £149,408.

[Trainshed Terry]

This one bridge I know well, as I have only have know one 12ft lorry to get through to the other side, but it ended up looking like a sardine can had been opened.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.9490418,1.0482351,3a,41.6y,18.5h,95.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDCvaBcSYHrMuOZbd7Abz6Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DDCvaBcSYHrMuOZbd7Abz6Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D8.219419%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

 

Terry

[Welly]

This one bridge I know well, as I have only have know one 12ft lorry to get through to the other side, but it ended up looking like a sardine can had been opened.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.9490418,1.0482351,3a,41.6y,18.5h,95.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDCvaBcSYHrMuOZbd7Abz6Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DDCvaBcSYHrMuOZbd7Abz6Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D8.219419%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

 

Terry

That one has a level crossing right next to it!!!!

[LMS2968]

That one has a level crossing right next to it!!!!

What's the clearance to the overhead wires, though?

[TheSignalEngineer]

I have often wondered why triangular signs are still used on many low bridges as these were always regarded as advisory e.g.the one at Woodhead with a horse on it where the Trans Pennine Trail crosses. A red circle denotes a compulsory sign thus one with a height limit shown would signify a prohibition. I'm surprised that the insurance industry doesn't lobby for conversion to circular signs on all low bridges in the light of the court cases above as they could then get out of paying when drivers ignore them. It would also bankrupt those drivers and companies who think signs and regulations don't apply to them.

There are plenty if inconsistent applications like these at Chinley

 

[Titan]

What's the clearance to the overhead wires, though?

 

Plenty for a 12 foot high lorry!

[Coryton]

I have often wondered why triangular signs are still used on many low bridges as these were always regarded as advisory e.g.the one at Woodhead with a horse on it where the Trans Pennine Trail crosses. A red circle denotes a compulsory sign thus one with a height limit shown would signify a prohibition. I'm surprised that the insurance industry doesn't lobby for conversion to circular signs on all low bridges in the light of the court cases above as they could then get out of paying when drivers ignore them. It would also bankrupt those drivers and companies who think signs and regulations don't apply to them.

There are plenty if inconsistent applications like these at Chinley

Chinley bridges.JPG

 

I suppose the argument is that it's just telling you what the height is.

 

You shouldn't actually need a sign prohibiting you from trying to fit under it if your vehicle is too high - that's down to the laws of Physics.

[TheSignalEngineer]

That one has a level crossing right next to it!!!!

 

What's the clearance to the overhead wires, though?

16' 6" available clearance according to the sign at the junction, so the wire is at standard height which is about 2' above that.

[phil-b259]

I have often wondered why triangular signs are still used on many low bridges as these were always regarded as advisory e.g.the one at Woodhead with a horse on it where the Trans Pennine Trail crosses. A red circle denotes a compulsory sign thus one with a height limit shown would signify a prohibition. I'm surprised that the insurance industry doesn't lobby for conversion to circular signs on all low bridges in the light of the court cases above as they could then get out of paying when drivers ignore them. It would also bankrupt those drivers and companies who think signs and regulations don't apply to them.

There are plenty if inconsistent applications like these at Chinley

Chinley bridges.JPG

 

I believe that the latest guidance issued by the DfT is that prohibit roundels rather than warning triangles should be used and metric as well as imperial measures should be displayed. This guidance relates to new signage however and there is no obligation to change warning triangles provided they are still accurate and in good order.

 

The other thing to remember is that a prohibition (as in the circular sign) requires the highways authority to raise and implement what is known as a 'Traffic Regulation Order'. To do so the council must hold a public consultation and have legal papers drawn up with the final go ahead technically requiring the authorisation of the Secretary of State for Transport. All in all a lot of extra work compared to simply putting up Warning triangles - which by their nature have no legal baggage associated with their installation.

[BR60103]

Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis of putting a steel beam across the road a dozen feet or so before the bridge?

 

We have a bridge, right by the railway station, with a dip in the road. The road was redone a few years ago and something happened. The marked clearance is good for vehicles under 20' long but others may be still coming down the dip. The street is now off limits to trucks, and it's one of the main downtown streets.

[rodent279]

So is the height of lorries marked when it is empty or full?

Is there a system for measuring the maximum height on the spot after loading/unloading?

[Edwin_m]

I can't imagine more than 10% of the driving public would know the legal implications of a sign being circular rather than triangular.  As somebody suggested earlier, if they ignore an indication of safe height regardless of shape and drive into a bridge, that must be enough evidence for some sort of driving offence. 

[rodent279]

I can't imagine more than 10% of the driving public would know the legal implications of a sign being circular rather than triangular.  As somebody suggested earlier, if they ignore an indication of safe height regardless of shape and drive into a bridge, that must be enough evidence for some sort of driving offence. 

Driving without due care & attention, surely?