Bridge bashing

[johnofwessex]

Given the amount HGV drivers are - allegedly being paid now, why cant the truck owners pay for a proper 'Trucker' satnav with all the height width & weight restrictions on it?

[Trainshed Terry]

6 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

Given the amount HGV drivers are - allegedly being paid now, why cant the truck owners pay for a proper 'Trucker' satnav with all the height width & weight restrictions on it?

 

Unfortunately it would only increase the costs of transporting goods, as most haulage company's are stretched on how much the cost of fuel and road tax costs. Ever since deregulation of the road haulage many years ago, it still a very tough market to make a priffit in.

 

It still the cheapest way to transporting goods.

   

[phil-b259]

6 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Saw pictures of damage  the lorry managed to move bricks at the base of the arch ,the news item called the driver a Tesco idiot .Also managed to have a go at GWR with comments such as  why couldnt they have given us earlier warning and dose not matter as trains in the s/west never run on time.They also asked if Tesco were going to pay for the damage fat chance of that !

 

Oh believe me Tesco / the lorry operator (as I believe like most supermarkets store deliveries are contracted out to logistics 'partners') WILL pay.

 

By 'pay' you should also note that includes not only the direct cost of the bridge repairs (including man hours), it also includes the cost of p-way, telecoms, S&T doing their inspections (i.e. extra work) plus extra signallers (Plymouth had to be double manned when it was only rostered to be single manned overnight to cope with the single line working)  and not forgetting the compensation payments Network Rail will have to shell out to GWR, XC, etc for trains being delayed or cancelled.

 

There have been a number of high court cases over the past decade where lorry operators have tried to wiggle out of the latter but all such attempts have been struck down by Judges who have made it clear there can be no dodging / reducing the large bill from Network Rail.

 

see https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/644.html

 

and https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2015/1175.html

 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by phil-b259

[Reorte]

When you say the lorry operator will pay I assume that what that means is that their insurance will? (although maybe a company like Tesco is large enough to self-insure?)

[F-UnitMad]

54 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

Given the amount HGV drivers are - allegedly being paid now, why cant the truck owners pay for a proper 'Trucker' satnav with all the height width & weight restrictions on it?

I think very heavy emphasis should be placed on the word "allegedly". If it happens at all it won't be overnight.

The last Company I worked for was a big outfit specialising in the food & drinks supply chain. I ended up working for them as a result of a hostile takeover bid they did on the family-run, but still big, Company I'd signed up with. As a family-run business it was a good company. Every depot had a 24-hr staffed garage, several had proper canteens, truck washes, etc. We were treated as human beings.

Once the Corporate monster took over, all that went. I have never known such a huge company run on such a threadbare shoestring. Totally run by bean-counters. For instance, the first winter under their rulership the Top Brass complained about all the trucks being filthy. We reminded them they'd shut down the proper truck wash at our yard, and the poxy little jetwash they'd put in place was frozen solid. A Company like that pay for truck satnavs?? Don't make me laugh.

I was glad to get out via redundancy, and I wasn't alone.

[phil-b259]

36 minutes ago, Reorte said:

When you say the lorry operator will pay I assume that what that means is that their insurance will? (although maybe a company like Tesco is large enough to self-insure?)

 

Yes, in reality its the vehicle / company insurers that will pay - but as with all such incidents the operator will find their insurance premiums increase considerably over the subsequent few years to pay for it!

 

And note what I said earlier about supermarkets contracting out their logistics - in fact pretty much every single shop delivery lorry is actually operated by a 3rd party logistics specialist (e.g. Wincanton) even if it does have a stonking great Tesco / Asda / B&Q / Halfords, etc logo on the side!

Edited August 31, 2021 by phil-b259

[johnofwessex]

8 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

 

Unfortunately it would only increase the costs of transporting goods, as most haulage company's are stretched on how much the cost of fuel and road tax costs. Ever since deregulation of the road haulage many years ago, it still a very tough market to make a priffit in.

 

It still the cheapest way to transporting goods.

   

 

How much is a trucker satnav?  

 

How much is a Truck?

 

How much can having one save, especially looking at the costs of a bridge bash - I suspect that a Haulage Company is in for an interesting meeting with Tesco shortly and if its underwriters are looking to limit 3rd party costs to £5 million it may no longer be a 'going concern'

Edited September 1, 2021 by johnofwessex

[F-UnitMad]

Another haulage Company I worked for (in the last Century - man that makes me feel old!!) appointed a senior chap to look into it's accident history, with a view to reducing the amount.

He found that something like 75% of collisions occured while reversing. So they were low speed incidents, sometimes with other vehicles, but often with fixed obstacles that caused minor damage to the trucks - broken lights etc. They were 'minor' incidents but the amount across the fleet added up. The Company was one that delivered almost "anything anywhere", so we often had to get in some stupid places.

He also found that the majority of these reversing incidents had happened in bad weather. So one of the solutions he proposed was to buy each driver an umbrella, so they would get out the cab in bad weather & go look for themselves what was behind them before backing up!!

What the Company actually did was quite ahead of it's time - they fitted the fleet with reversing cameras & a screen in the cab. The investment must've been substantial but also must have paid off too.

 

[Hobby]

13 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

They will, through their Insurance. No need to be quite so cynical.

 

Very often they are hit by things like skip lorries and other such fly-by-nights which are probably 50/50 that they have any insurance at all! I was just comenting that in this case with "Tesco" plastered over the side there should be no issues as the last thing they want is bad publicity...  No need to read more into the post than there was!

 

Anyone any idea how successful NR are at getting their money back in these sorts of cases?

Edited September 1, 2021 by Hobby

[Talltim]

Another one, in Machynlleth

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/live-a487-shut-trains-disrupted-21452079

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Talltim

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

How much is a trucker satnav?  

 

Under £400 for the commercial version of a TomTom unit which can be tailored for each truck that uses it.

[Hobby]

It looks like it should clear it if it was lowered flat, had he started to lift it or was it partly up?

[Hobby]

2 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Under £400 for the commercial version of a TomTom unit which can be tailored for each truck that uses it.

 

That's pretty cheap, small fry against the costs of the rigs, insurance and wages...

[MarkC]

7 minutes ago, Talltim said:

Another one, in Machynlleth

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/live-a487-shut-trains-disrupted-21452079

 

 

 

What the actual...???

 

Looks as though someone forgot to lower the back end after tipping...

[Talltim]

This pic looks like there may be a worksite next to the bridge

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Talltim

[ColinK]

Just found a better photo of the bridge bash at Plymouth.  What it looks like to me is that the lorry was just under the maximum height of the bridge. But when it started to climb the steep hill just beyond it, the top of the truck caught the bridge.

 

Going to be an interesting (and profitable) one for the lawyers - ‘the sign says 3.3 metres and my truck is 3.25 metres, so according to the signage I’m OK to pass through’.  If the road has been resurfaced since the signs were errected, the clearance could be less than indicated.  Could change who gets the blame and pays the bills.

 

One of the major bus companies is working with suppliers to devise a system that alerts the driver through their ticket machine if he/she is approaching a low bridge.

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

 I was just comenting that in this case with "Tesco" plastered over the side there should be no issues as the last thing they want is bad publicity...  No need to read more into the post than there was!

 

  I didn't quote what you said. I quoted lmsforever who said fat chance of Tesco paying for the damage. My comment not to be so cynical was aimed at that comment - and what more could've been read into it??

 

As far as I know, NR are very successful at recovering costs from bridge strikes.

[Fat Controller]

42 minutes ago, MarkC said:

What the actual...???

 

Looks as though someone forgot to lower the back end after tipping...

Not unknown; tipper drivers, and skip lorries, quite often drive off-site without waiting for the hydraulic rams to come to the end of their travel.

[Hobby]

@F-UnitMad misread it, then, apologies... 

 

Just out of interest when you were driving how do those "bridge height" signs work from the lorry driver's point of view? Do you take them as gospel, so if your lorry is 2.9m tall and the sign says 3.0m would you go through or would you allow some sort of "extra" clearance? (Following on from Colin's post above yours).

[MarkC]

1 minute ago, Fat Controller said:

Not unknown; tipper drivers, and skip lorries, quite often drive off-site without waiting for the hydraulic rams to come to the end of their travel.

More bad news if so for the driver - potential "driving without due care and attention" charge there...

[Fat Controller]

Just now, MarkC said:

More bad news if so for the driver - potential "driving without due care and attention" charge there...

Indeed; possibly, there might be other charges concerning unsecured loads, or a vehicle/load in unroadworthy condition. It's common practice in the skip business to have two or more empty skips stacked together, with predictable consequences.

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, Talltim said:

Another one, in Machynlleth

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/live-a487-shut-trains-disrupted-21452079

 

 

 

I saw a similar incident on the A13 about twenty years ago. The truck was a write off, the body was laying upside down behind the truck chassis that was banana shaped. It was an 8 wheeler but the inner axles the wheels were off the ground. The bridge was a farm bridge but escaped unscathed but still bore the scars until it was recently replaced due to road widening.

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

It looks like it should clear it if it was lowered flat, had he started to lift it or was it partly up?

As has been stated above it was probably just leaving the site or the driver had simply forgotten to lower the body.

[4069]

41 minutes ago, ColinK said:

Just found a better photo of the bridge bash at Plymouth.  What it looks like to me is that the lorry was just under the maximum height of the bridge. But when it started to climb the steep hill just beyond it, the top of the truck caught the bridge.

 

Going to be an interesting (and profitable) one for the lawyers - ‘the sign says 3.3 metres and my truck is 3.25 metres, so according to the signage I’m OK to pass through’.  If the road has been resurfaced since the signs were errected, the clearance could be less than indicated.  Could change who gets the blame and pays the bills.

 

One of the major bus companies is working with suppliers to devise a system that alerts the driver through their ticket machine if he/she is approaching a low bridge.

No- the lorry is 13'4" high and the bridge is signed at 10' 9". No room for doubt there!

[SamThomas]

1 hour ago, ColinK said:

Just found a better photo of the bridge bash at Plymouth.  What it looks like to me is that the lorry was just under the maximum height of the bridge. But when it started to climb the steep hill just beyond it, the top of the truck caught the bridge.

 

Going to be an interesting (and profitable) one for the lawyers - ‘the sign says 3.3 metres and my truck is 3.25 metres, so according to the signage I’m OK to pass through’.  If the road has been resurfaced since the signs were errected, the clearance could be less than indicated.  Could change who gets the blame and pays the bills.

 

One of the major bus companies is working with suppliers to devise a system that alerts the driver through their ticket machine if he/she is approaching a low bridge.

 The only winners regarding this incident will be the legal profession.

 

SatNav's for commercial &/or large vehicles are already available so no need to "re-invent the wheel".

[SamThomas]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

@F-UnitMad misread it, then, apologies... 

 

Just out of interest when you were driving how do those "bridge height" signs work from the lorry driver's point of view? Do you take them as gospel, so if your lorry is 2.9m tall and the sign says 3.0m would you go through or would you allow some sort of "extra" clearance? (Following on from Colin's post above yours).

If I found myself in that position then (if the truck had air suspension) I would lower the suspension & drive through very, very slowly & once clear return the suspension to the "travel" height.

If the truck was on springs then I would drive through even slower.

 

Incab height indicators should display the maximum height for a fixed body - for variabkle height loads it's up to the driver to measure the height & adjust the incab indicator.