Bridge bashing

[bimble]

1 hour ago, Adam88 said:

Sensor-operated traffic lights or signs might be helpful at some locations.  Near where I live there are solar-powered, speed-triggered signs.  I would have thought it worthwhile investigating something similar for frequently hit bridges.  

 

They have that at the 11'8" bridge... and people still hit it. Even with the sign that lights up next to the red lights activated by overheight vehicles telling them to turn...

[F-UnitMad]

55 minutes ago, SHMD said:

Right. That's it.

I'm going to model a bridge strike on my next build!

...including the driver looking around at the devastation whilst scratching his head.

 

 

Kev.

(Better than road-works or a bus-on-a-bridge!)

 

I think you've been beaten to that one, somewhere on RMweb someone has modelled a "modified" double decker bus under a low bridge with it's roof on the floor behind it.

 

Stick the driver in the back of the police car for greater accuracy. That's what happened to me. Partly for the compulsory breath test, partly for the investigating interview, and partly to be hidden from Mr Apoplectic Local Councillor who turned up at the scene to have a good purple-faced rant at the local press.

 

No doubt in his mind I was an "Incompetent Moron" who he would've happily strung up from the nearest lamp post - fortunately the Police who dealt with me were far more professional than that and did not treat me like that at all.

My story was posted very early on in this thread, and probably elsewhere on RMweb; I was an HGV driver for 25 years in total - 12 at the time of my bridge strike, That was the only bad accident I was involved in. Yes it was my fault for not checking the height of a trailer that looked exactly the same as all the others at that company, but I take great exception to being labelled an "Incompetent moron" by anyone.

Edited October 24, 2020 by F-UnitMad

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, johnofwessex said:

If Builders cut through a BT line .......... their insurers wont cover them for the resulting claim & many construction companies have been bankrupted as a result

So how much does it cost to knot together two ends of a telephone cable ?

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, SHMD said:

Right. That's it.

I'm going to model a bridge strike on my next build!

...including the driver looking around at the devastation whilst scratching his head.

 

 

Kev.

(Better than road-works or a bus-on-a-bridge!)

 

 

I've seen at least one layout with an over-height lorry driving away from a low bridge with no indication of how it got under.... (and no, there wasn't space for it to have turned round).

 

[Michael Hodgson]

33 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

I think you've been beaten to that one, somewhere on RMweb someone has modelled a "modified" double decker bus under a low bridge with it's roof on the floor behind it.

 

The best way to model a bus. 

Much better than sticking a "Rail Replacement Service" label on the front, though that does save you the bother of wiring your layout.

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, Adam88 said:

Sensor-operated traffic lights or signs might be helpful at some locations.  Near where I live there are solar-powered, speed-triggered signs.  I would have thought it worthwhile investigating something similar for frequently hit bridges.  One bridge near where I live is often in the news for being hit, the local paper states (therefore this must be true) 39 times in eight years.  Traffic jams, diversions and rail replacement buses are inconvenient and costly.

 

1 hour ago, SHMD said:

 

Don't make me laugh!

 

Lights changing to red, (for some reason), makes most road users speed up - especially "Rented Van Man* ".

 

 

Kev.

(* Other genders are available - if they want to be associated, for fairness reasons, with such a stupid male trait!)

 

Best deterrent would be to place a concrete beam the same height as the bridge across the road about ten metres ahead of the bridge.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, bimble said:

 

They have that at the 11'8" bridge... and people still hit it. Even with the sign that lights up next to the red lights activated by overheight vehicles telling them to turn...

If you look back the signs have got more and more obvious but the number of strikes didn't seem to reduce.

They have now gone to the considerable trouble of lifting it 8" with all the associated railway track works but it still keeps getting hit.

Most appear to be rental trucks or removal vans.

 

The sensors are actually on the building before the traffic lights which gives truckers plenty of opportunity to stamp on the brake or turn before they get to it.

 

Raising the bridge:

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by melmerby

[F-UnitMad]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

Best deterrent would be to place a concrete beam the same height as the bridge across the road about ten metres ahead of the bridge.

Or just after the last available diversionary route for the bridge, since even if the bridge is protected, by a massive girder for instance, the delays to road traffic are substantial.

 

An alternative would be to restrict the 'loading gauge' of road vehicles to less than the lowest main road bridges there are, or rebuild/modify/dig out the road so that all bridges have at least 16ft 6inch clearance; the motorway standard.

 

Edit - just to make it absolutely clear - the above comment (in bold now added) was being sarcastic, in the extreme. Sorry this wasn't as flamin' obvious as the sheer impracticality of such suggestions.

Edited October 24, 2020 by F-UnitMad
Clarify sarcasm.

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

An alternative would be to restrict the 'loading gauge' of road vehicles to less than the lowest main road bridges there are, or rebuild/modify/dig out the road so that all bridges have at least 16ft 6inch clearance; the motorway standard.

And how much would either of those solutions cost as tall lorries in the UK are up to 3 feet taller than some main road bridges?

Creating more clearance would also be difficult in places.

[phil-b259]

59 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

 

Best deterrent would be to place a concrete beam the same height as the bridge across the road about ten metres ahead of the bridge.

 

And what happens when that gets knocked off its supports and squashes a car coming the other way?

 

There is a very good reason why bridge protection girders can only be fitted at the bridge itself - namely if clouted they are not going to be pushed over by the force of the impact.

 

The rules relating to the UK highway network make it clear that new build structures over the public highway (as opposed to car parks etc) less than 16'6" (the height below which every structure must have its height displayed on warning signs) are not acceptable because of the risk of them (i) becoming unsafe / dangerous to other road users when it and (ii) or, to mitigate that risk they would need to be massively intrusive structures.

 

 

[F-UnitMad]

3 minutes ago, melmerby said:

And how much would either of those solutions cost as tall lorries in the UK are up to 3 feet taller than some main road bridges?

Creating more clearance would also be difficult in places.

Precisely.

Better training, and certainly better pay & conditions for drivers, so that there are more who actually want to do the job & take pride in it, rather than the 'can't give a stuff' rotten apples that do exist, and ruin the reputation of all the others, are the real answers.

[melmerby]

This is about as substantial you can get:

https://goo.gl/maps/n1XGmA5N1adkypdz9

 

Here's a low bridge (4.2m) with no warning on the bridge itself (a canal & I have a feeling it is listed)

There are signs further back in each direction but none on the bridge or immediately before it.

Before the M40 was built it was regularly hit by HGVs

There used to be extra warnings for over height vehicles but they have now gone.

https://goo.gl/maps/CS32us1wC7TvqoGg6

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by melmerby

[phil-b259]

11 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

 

An alternative would be to restrict the 'loading gauge' of road vehicles to less than the lowest main road bridges there are, or rebuild/modify/dig out the road so that all bridges have at least 16ft 6inch clearance; the motorway standard.

 

Stop and think for a moment before proposing unviable schemes.

 

What about water mains, gas pipes, sewers, electrical cables, surface water drainage all of which are usually to be found beneath roads? if you need to lower the road surface then all those have to be lowered too - and that in turn may require pumping equipment is needed as the contents of sewers do not flow uphill by itself!

 

Then you have the issue that to avoid HGVs grounding the ramps leading down to your freshly dug out bridge need to be gentle - what about peoples driveways that front onto the road near the bridge or road junctions right next to said bridges that mean altering several roads is now needed.

 

Finally who exactly is going to PAY for all this work? - you can bet your bottom dollar it WON'T be road haulage companies - it will be either regular tax payers or rail passengers.

[Budgie]

If you are going to lower the road under low bridges how are you going to stop the road flooding when it rains? Even a couple of inches of water is dangerous as it hides what's under the surface.

[F-UnitMad]

43 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Stop and think for a moment before proposing unviable schemes.

Sorry, I should have added some smiley faces to my 'proposal', but I wasn't sure what to use for Sarcasm or Ironic, which clearly hasn't come through with just the written word.

 

I KNOW lowering the road and or raising old bridges is a ridiculous suggestion.

That's why I suggested the "better" options of training & drivers' pay.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

Best deterrent would be to place a concrete beam the same height as the bridge across the road about ten metres ahead of the bridge.

Monty has featured here before, but despite a multitude of signs, height detectors lights, it still gets hit. I think there are 38 items in total 'protecting' it.

 

https://howmanydayssincemontaguestreetbridgehasbeenhit.com/history/

[peanuts]

8 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Precisely.

Better training, and certainly better pay & conditions for drivers, so that there are more who actually want to do the job & take pride in it, rather than the 'can't give a stuff' rotten apples that do exist, and ruin the reputation of all the others, are the real answers.

would still be negated by the pressure to rush about and get 12 hours work done in ten hours from those in the office .verbatim convo from Friday at debrief .TM why did it take you 20 mins to get from drop 14 to drop 15 its only a mile . ME low bridge at 11'8"  we are at ,11'9" so went around .TM well everyone else goes that way and get under it why didn't you ? ME its my licence and my choice I wasn't risking it. TM  well its going against your performance every one else goes under and so will you next time .ME can I have that in writing with your signature? TM no ME well I will be going around . saddly there are far to many transport managers and planners like this whos only effort is to push you into rushing around and cutting corners to "get the job done " ASAP leading to tired stressed drivers making stupid mistakes .

[Grizz]

This all goes back to politics. In the UK we are brought up to believe, by the media and politicians that it is ok to kill people on the roads in ‘accidents’. Otherwise it wouldn’t happen.
We are told that it is terrible, but that it is unfortunately the price we have to pay for the freedom we enjoy. This has been reinforced for decades through the unspoken rule that car / road vehicles represent the individual, freedom and success and that railways represent the collective, a socialised, socialist form of transport. 
 

Errors of judgement by drivers. These fall into two categories.
1. Private drivers of privately owned vehicles, driving for non business reasons. 
2. Professional drivers, those paid to drive, either as their main role, bus drivers, HGV, van drivers etc, or as a requirement of their employment, (e.g. a builders wagon etc where the person is expected to drive it by the employer or as an employed contractor).

If businesses are professional they must be held to professional standards of behaviour and actions. In transport this only seems to apply to all other modes of transport other than roads, otherwise air, rail and shipping would be allowed to kill and injure the same number of people. 

 

Political parties will never level the playing field with regards to the minimum required safety standards between directly competition fields. It is not a vote winner. The UK will continue to require the railways, both passenger and freight, to not be allowed to kill anyone as a result of their businesses operations. If the railways were allowed to operate on a level playing field with businesses using the road network and were allowed to kill and injure the same number of people every year that say road haulage does, then the railways could be run much cheaper and could then directly and fairly compete with the competition. 
 

Even with the number of road deaths, crashes and general disruption caused every year the media still point the finger of blame when trespassers graffiti criminals and people taking their own lives die as a result of their own actions, the railway is still to blame and must do better. 
 

Bridge bashes are just another symptom of the complete acceptance of this double standard. If it weren’t it would not be allowed to happen. As per my previous point in an earlier post, if freight trains were allowed to run out of loading gauge and hit over a 1000 road bridges a year then the railways would be shut down.

 

The double standards are best shown in the maintenance of infrastructure. The is NO comparative financial incentive for road maintenance to be done quickly, on time or to a vague standard, otherwise pot holes would never reoccur, usually with the same licensed highways contractor being paid to do the same work over and over again. Lining the pockets of corrupt big businesses who hide behind the county council highways front.
 

If there is an over run of pre planned engineering works on the railway network at say Clapham Jcn, the cost is £36,000 per minute. This is a great incentive not to over run. It obviously reduces on local lines but it still likely to cost serious money, with people screaming down the phone and constantly phoning the PICOP enquiring how much longer are the delays going to take. What huge fines or comparative financial incentives are in place for the direct competitor, the UK road network? No incentive because it is not politically desirable. Road delays, bridge strikes, road injuries and deaths and all the other tolerated behaviours will always continue because someone somewhere is happy making money out of the status quo. Otherwise it would change. 
 

High horse stabled and soap returned to box. It is now the start of my week off so I’m off to get slammed later today so I can temporarily block out the stress in my work life. 
This is allowed as I will not be breaching any of the strictly enforced drugs and alcohol laws that my industry rightly has to abide by. Unlike the some other industries who are in direct competition, who are lightly regulated and even less lightly to be mediscreened because of the sheer numbers of people driving and the total lack of political will to hammer them and ore importantly their bossesin the same way.....

 

Happy Days....

 

 

[F-UnitMad]

41 minutes ago, Grizz said:

It is now the start of my week off so I’m off to get slammed later today so I can temporarily block out the stress in my work life. 
This is allowed as I will not be breaching any of the strictly enforced drugs and alcohol laws that my industry rightly has to abide by. Unlike the some other industries who are in direct competition, who are lightly regulated and even less lightly to be mediscreened because of the sheer numbers of people driving and the total lack of political will to hammer them and ore importantly their bossesin the same way.

Your bitterness blinds you to the fact that road haulage does have very tight regulations, especially regarding drink & drugs. The last company I worked for had random testing in place - one driver was sent home one night just because of the smell of alcohol on his coat, even though his breath test was clear, and a couple of warehouse FLT drivers were sacked on the spot when they failed the drugs test.

The one major difference between rail & road is that railways are a "closed" system - not everyone can drive their own private vehicle on the railways, for very obvious reasons. The roads never have been a closed system, and might only reach that point when every single vehicle is self-driving. Until then you will never get a "level playing field", and as this Country's railways shot themselves to pieces as far as freight movement is concerned, they'll never be able to compete with road haulage for the majority of goods, full stop.

 

 

[Grizz]

Road deaths are still tolerated. Professional road business kill people every year and Railways are not allowed to do this! It is acceptable otherwise it would not happen. Full stop 

[F-UnitMad]

7 minutes ago, Grizz said:

Railways are not allowed to do this

But it still happens!!! There's no "allowed" about it, in either case.

 

[Grizz]

It is allowed to continue. Politically it is allowed to continue otherwise it would not happen. Law and regulation would be brought in to stop it from happening. I have not stated anywhere that all companies do this or all haulage drivers are incompetent. Rules and strictly enforced regulations where brought in to ensure that railways no longer injured and killed people and damaged property because politically it was decided that it could no longer be tolerated and rightly so. We killed people and damaged property, then it was stopped from happening. 
 

Bridge bashing by road haulage and bus / coach operators it politically acceptable otherwise it would not happen over 1000 times per year.
The greatest step forward, thanks for the heads up Phil-B259, is that NR can now legally pursue those who are involved through their insurance companies.

Hopefully in the absence of the political will to stop this from happening, over three time per day on average, it will bankrupt those businesses who continue to fail to properly train their staff or provide their already over worked and over pressured staff with adequate and up to date route availability maps. The railways have to. It is mandatory to have ‘Enforceable’, and that is the root cause issue here, weight and gauge compliance on all routes. 
 

How about this. If a bus or a wagon hits a bridge, potentially endangering the lives of people on the railway and certainly causing massive disruption and financial costs, then all directors of the companies involved face a minimum of 5 years in jail, bankruptcy and barred from all and any involvement in the industry for life. Perhaps this might help to focus people minds. Particularly bus companies with other people’s children sitting on the top deck.......
 

We regularly have 44 ton wagons using our tiny country back roads in subtropical Sussex and they do this in the certain knowledge that due to no one ever being present to catch them and enforcing weight restrictions on bridges and other restrictions, they will always get away with it. The usual excuse in the extremely remotely chance that they are stopped is ‘oh my Satnav sent me this way’. 
 

When I joined the railway there was a policy of not drinking on duty or prior to being on duty. But having lined up in order of  Seniority to collect my small cash payment in a little windowed envelope, it was so not enforced that some of my first pay packet was spent in the pub at lunch time. Then we went back to work after. The bosses definitely did it too, only always in different pubs. They knew we did it, we knew they did it, they knew we knew they did it and so on, but unless something went catastrophically wrong no one ever really enforced the rules and you stayed out of each other’s pubs. Then after 1992, around the time of the Cannon Street crash the rules did change. Politically they changed. It was no longer Politically acceptable for this to happen. It did still happen but the enforceable consequences where such that it gradually disappeared. 
 

The ‘good old days’ of meeting up in the nearest local pub to your night shift job are well over. Drinking heavily right up until the landlord said “Come on boys it’s way passed locking up time, Old Bill have passed twice and you’ve got a job to go to” and the one who drank the least usually drove the van or yellow peril. This seems like a different life time and it was. Train drivers drank. Airline pilot used to drink and fly. People may still do this sort of thing but there are now enforceable consequences to their actions. 
 

 

[PhilJ W]

9 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Monty has featured here before, but despite a multitude of signs, height detectors lights, it still gets hit. I think there are 38 items in total 'protecting' it.

 

https://howmanydayssincemontaguestreetbridgehasbeenhit.com/history/

I ran down the list as far as this one.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-22/passengers-rescued-after-bus-crashes-into-melbourne-overpass/7188800

This line of the news report stuck out. "The name of the operator, Gold Bus, was taped over to avoid embarrassment." 

[Grizz]

1 minute ago, PhilJ W said:

I ran down the list as far as this one.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-22/passengers-rescued-after-bus-crashes-into-melbourne-overpass/7188800

This line of the news report stuck out. "The name of the operator, Gold Bus, was taped over to avoid embarrassment." 

Wow that is ‘proper stuck’.....oops...

 

Interesting that Coach operator should be allowed to tape over their name to ‘avoid embarrassment’. If the media are doing their job properly they should be highlighting who has achieved this.....this... this.....magnificent achievement! 

 

If this were the UK and it were a train related ‘rail disaster’ the uk media would be screaming to know who was behind it.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

I ran down the list as far as this one.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-22/passengers-rescued-after-bus-crashes-into-melbourne-overpass/7188800

This line of the news report stuck out. "The name of the operator, Gold Bus, was taped over to avoid embarrassment." 

It didn't go unnoticed.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ballarat-company-gold-bus-defends-decision-to-cover-up-logo-at-south-melbourne-bridge-crash-scene-20160223-gn0uxe.html