Bridge bashing

[Wickham Green too]

Looks like the fortress bridge is substantial enough not to have suffered fatal wounds.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Looks like the fortress bridge is substantial enough not to have suffered fatal wounds.

Only a flesh wound then?

[Wickham Green too]

Perhaps just a graze ?

[boxbrownie]

I am pretty sure that bridge is 9’9” height from the lowest points, not the centre which is considerably higher, looks like he was chancing his luck there.

Edited September 10, 2021 by boxbrownie

[PhilJ W]

7.5 tonner, one step up from white van man.

[Arun Sharma]

Today's letters' page in the Daily Telegraph has a letter making the point that a single vehicle bridge strike cut all rail services to Cornwall. It makes [again] a case for a diversionary route and strongly suggests restitution of the Bere Alston to Tavistock to Okehampton line. It also makes the point that as much of the trackbed still exists it would be cheaper than a completely new line using a new route.

[Hobby]

And still a damned sight more expensive than the odd bridge strike where any costs will often be covered by the vehicles insurers.... I could see a sort of argument for it when talking about the sea wall but it doesn't stand up at all for a bridge strike, if they got it for that think of all the other places that would want the same treatment, Cornwall isn't unique in that way... Aberystwyth anyone?

[jcm@gwr]

15 minutes ago, Hobby said:

And still a damned sight more expensive than the odd bridge strike where any costs will often be covered by the vehicles insurers.... I could see a sort of argument for it when talking about the sea wall but it doesn't stand up at all for a bridge strike, if they got it for that think of all the other places that would want the same treatment, Cornwall isn't unique in that way... Aberystwyth anyone?

 

Although I agree with most of your post, I think that the residents of Cornwall might

be a little upset with you comparing the whole of their county, with a medium sized 

coastal town in Wales!

[RJS1977]

Although of course, it isn't just Aberystwyth. The recent bridge strike at Machynlleth also cut off Barmouth, Tywyn, Porthmadog, etc. Barmouth bridge is also about to close for the next 3 months for structural work.

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, jcm@gwr said:

Although I agree with most of your post, I think that the residents of Cornwall might

be a little upset with you comparing the whole of their county, with a medium sized 

coastal town in Wales!

 

I nearly said Cardigan Bay which is probably a better description, as it's the whole area, there's similarities, both are holidays destinations, reliant on tourism and both can be cut off (by rail!) by one bridge strike... And both had alternative railway routes which were closed...

 

It just seems that Cornwall always makes the most noise, even though I suspect most travel into and out of the county is by road!

[Michael Hodgson]

27 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 Barmouth bridge is also about to close for the next 3 months for structural work.

I don't think repairs to Barmouth Bridge count as a bridge strike.

 

On the other hand the loss of the Severn Bridge in 1960 was a bridge strike - the result of two barges colliding having failed to find Sharpness Docks in the fog.

[kevinlms]

13 hours ago, Arun Sharma said:

Today's letters' page in the Daily Telegraph has a letter making the point that a single vehicle bridge strike cut all rail services to Cornwall. It makes [again] a case for a diversionary route and strongly suggests restitution of the Bere Alston to Tavistock to Okehampton line. It also makes the point that as much of the trackbed still exists it would be cheaper than a completely new line using a new route.

Surely rather than reinstate a line, it would be cheaper to rebuild the offending bridge? I can't see anyone building a new line, just so it can be used if the existing bridge gets hit. Poor value for money.

[SamThomas]

16 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

7.5 tonner, one step up from white van man.

 Nope - wrong.

 

It's a 12 tonner at least - not phyically big, even small refrigerated trucks like these have a payload of (IIRC) around 6 tonnes so that rules out 7.5 tonners & white van man.

 

By all means knock delivery drivers from "white van man" (80 - 90 drops a day man) right through to the trunking drivers with 44 tonners - just remember where the problem really lies - the "must have it tomorrow & don't want to pay shipping" mentallity. Anyone who is a prolific user of the major mail order outfits is part of the problem that has been created over recent years.

 

So, can we please stop knocking the drivers who are only trying to earn a living (albeit with the odd mistake here & there) - we can always start having a pop at train drivers who have the odd SPAD or open the doors on the wrong side.................

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, Arun Sharma said:

Today's letters' page in the Daily Telegraph has a letter making the point that a single vehicle bridge strike cut all rail services to Cornwall. It makes [again] a case for a diversionary route and strongly suggests restitution of the Bere Alston to Tavistock to Okehampton line. It also makes the point that as much of the trackbed still exists it would be cheaper than a completely new line using a new route.

Until they replace the seating in the new stock with something that doesn’t resemble a park bench no amount of extra routes in Cornwall will get us back into a long distance train, we used to love the HST seats and stayed comfy for the four hours or more of the journey to London, but the new stuff gets painful before reaching Exeter!

 

Makes the M5/M4 look inviting……that’s bad 

Edited September 11, 2021 by boxbrownie

[kevinlms]

13 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

 Nope - wrong.

 

It's a 12 tonner at least - not phyically big, even small refrigerated trucks like these have a payload of (IIRC) around 6 tonnes so that rules out 7.5 tonners & white van man.

 

By all means knock delivery drivers from "white van man" (80 - 90 drops a day man) right through to the trunking drivers with 44 tonners - just remember where the problem really lies - the "must have it tomorrow & don't want to pay shipping" mentallity. Anyone who is a prolific user of the major mail order outfits is part of the problem that has been created over recent years.

 

So, can we please stop knocking the drivers who are only trying to earn a living (albeit with the odd mistake here & there) - we can always start having a pop at train drivers who have the odd SPAD or open the doors on the wrong side.................

While I agree with your sentiments about the price and the speed people expect their deliveries, I don't see how that is an excuse for drivers to be careless about bridges.

Fact is, for many drivers it can be a career changing mistake*, possibly losing their job, licence and maybe injuring a 3rd party. I'm sure most drivers don't want that on their conscience, let alone the fact that their insurance might not cover it.

I say the last point, because in Australia at least, rental trucks are specifically excluded from 'overhead damage' by insurers.

 

* Change that word to one of your choosing, depending how you feel about the issue.

[SamThomas]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

While I agree with your sentiments about the price and the speed people expect their deliveries, I don't see how that is an excuse for drivers to be careless about bridges.

Fact is, for many drivers it can be a career changing mistake*, possibly losing their job, licence and maybe injuring a 3rd party. I'm sure most drivers don't want that on their conscience, let alone the fact that their insurance might not cover it.

I say the last point, because in Australia at least, rental trucks are specifically excluded from 'overhead damage' by insurers.

 

* Change that word to one of your choosing, depending how you feel about the issue.

I never said that "price & speed" was an excuse for "drivers to be careless about bidges".

 

I stated already stated a number of times that the wages/conditions of a great many HGV drivers is a contributing factor.

 

If the industry paid drivers a decent rate & better working conditions thjey would attract drivers with more professionalism & weed out the ones that cause the problems.

[Arun Sharma]

7 hours ago, Hobby said:

And still a damned sight more expensive than the odd bridge strike where any costs will often be covered by the vehicles insurers.... 

An interesting point. I don't pretend to understand the laws relating to who may claim under insurance, but if everybody in Cornwall waiting for, or on a train who had been delayed or inconvenienced by that truck driver put in a claim on that driver's [or his/her company's] insurance, I am sure there would be some movement either on the bridge rebuilding or the diversionary line.

As an aside, it follows that the identity of the driver and the relevant insurance company should immediately be made public so that 'ambulance-chasing' lawyers can get involved as quickly as possible.

Indeed, the same principle might even apply every time one gets stuck in a tailback because someone in front has had a 'road traffic incident/collision'. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Arun Sharma
humour intended

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, SamThomas said:

I never said that "price & speed" was an excuse for "drivers to be careless about bidges".

 

I stated already stated a number of times that the wages/conditions of a great many HGV drivers is a contributing factor.

 

If the industry paid drivers a decent rate & better working conditions thjey would attract drivers with more professionalism & weed out the ones that cause the problems.

Road users of ALL KINDS, need to be mindful exactly where they are heading and make themselves aware, IN ADVANCE of any potential hazards.

 

<weed out the ones that cause the problems.>

 

Not sure how you will weed out anyone by paying higher wages. Don't you need to improve the standards that drivers must meet, then they will fall by the wayside?

 

Based on your comments, I will now add this.

 

Any driver who thinks that the wages/conditions are a contributing factor, to not caring whether their vehicle fits or not, should be looking for a new job. Anything but HGV driving, don't you agree?

 

Any higher wages should go to drivers that have a good and proven HGV record, not just to attract someone who wants to earn more cash, than their previous job.

 

You end up with 'cowboys', by doing 2 things.

1/ Paying low wages and only being able to obtain AND KEEP drivers who will work for low pay, because they can't get anything else.

2/ You pay higher wages to inexperienced drivers, because they see the carrot of easy money. They MAY take a bit of time to get up to the required standard, but may never be any good.

 

However it appears that Britain has relied for too long on 'cheap' foreign drivers, who it seems fall into the former category.

[kevinlms]

46 minutes ago, Arun Sharma said:

An interesting point. I don't pretend to understand the laws relating to who may claim under insurance, but if everybody in Cornwall waiting for, or on a train who had been delayed or inconvenienced by that truck driver put in a claim on that driver's [or his/her company's] insurance, I am sure there would be some movement either on the bridge rebuilding or the diversionary line.

As an aside, it follows that the identity of the driver and the relevant insurance company should immediately be made public so that 'ambulance-chasing' lawyers can get involved as quickly as possible.

Indeed, the same principle might even apply every time one gets stuck in a tailback because someone in front has had a 'road traffic incident/collision'. 

But then the risk of driving would be 'too great'. What if someone gets a screw through their tyre and they discover that the new spare tyre in the boot is faulty, should hundreds of people sue?

 

The cost of insurance for everyone would go through the roof. Ah, but the fault is with the tyre seller! So if 500 people sued the tyre seller 50 pounds each, the price of new tyres would stay the same?

 

It would be great if everything worked perfectly and everyone got a dream run home, but we live in the real world and not everything is fixed by legal pursuit.

[SamThomas]

Whilst agreeing to a number of points Kevin makes it will take time to resiolve the issue (actually, quite a bit of time).

 

Increasing the wages/conditions of HGV drivers alone will not be the only solution - there needs to be a set of solutions, all working together. If we put aside the finger pointing for a momentlets consider some of the solutions.

1) Increase the wages - that will encourage new blood into the driver pool.

2) Improve drivers conditions.

Both of these solutions will also help to retain good experienced drivers &maybe tempt some of the same out of retirement.

3) Better ongoing eduction for existing drivers (the CPC does absolutly nothing in this respect).

4) Better management - drivers need to be treated with respect & as human beings. Also, there needs to be regular checks/inspections of company owned equipment, how drivers are leaving their cabs, how drivers are engaging with customers & so on.

5) Well equiped trucks with working CCTV, A/C, HGV specific SatNags & a decent radio (most trucks have telematics but these are more for the bean counters to look at things like fuel consumption, hard braking & periods of engine idling).

6) ASAP start to weed out the bad drivers - if education does not work then the disapplinery system should be used).

7) Instigate a programe of smartly turned out trucks & smartly turned out drivers giving the who industry a clean professional image.

8) Better roadside facilities for drivers.

9) Anything else you can think of ?

 

As an aside I know that there are a fair amount of drivers who don't keep their cabs clean, look like they sleep in the nearest hedge, bath as frequently as Queen Victoria & never appear to laundry their workwear - they deserve to be with their opposite number empler wise.

 

IMHO it will take a minimum of five years, probably nearer to ten.

[Derekl]

48 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

But then the risk of driving would be 'too great'. What if someone gets a screw through their tyre and they discover that the new spare tyre in the boot is faulty, should hundreds of people sue?

 

The cost of insurance for everyone would go through the roof. Ah, but the fault is with the tyre seller! So if 500 people sued the tyre seller 50 pounds each, the price of new tyres would stay the same?

 

This sort of damage is known to the law as "economic loss" and is likely to be "too remote" and thus unrecoverable. There is a long line of case law on the subject. While the direct cost of the damage caused by a bridge strike is clearly recoverable (from insurers, directly if the miscreant individual or company goes bankrupt) the knock on costs of train delay and the like could be more problematic, being "economic loss", but the Court of Appeal usefully found for Network Rail on these costs and the method of calculation in one of the cases a contributor cited a few pages back. 

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Arun Sharma said:

An interesting point. I don't pretend to understand the laws relating to who may claim under insurance, but if everybody in Cornwall waiting for, or on a train who had been delayed or inconvenienced by that truck driver put in a claim on that driver's [or his/her

 

In a roundabout way they do!

 

If your journey is delayed then you can claim back some or all of the cost of your ticket. That money is in turn claimed off Network rail by the TOCs under 'Schedule 8' payments.

 

They in turn claim back said schedule 8 costs (plus the inspection / repair bill including materials and wages) from the lorry owners insurance - something the High Court has explicitly said can happen despite much complaining from Lorry firms and their insurers.

 

However, much as with Dawlish's weather related woes, the basic fact is that the loss revenue is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of rebuilding the LSWR route - and thats before we get to the point that under DfT rules diversionary capability MUST NOT form part of the BCR calculations for railway schemes.

[rab]

8 hours ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

Although I agree with most of your post, I think that the residents of Cornwall might

be a little upset with you comparing the whole of their county, with a medium sized 

coastal town in Wales!

Especially as some see Cornwall as a country,

on a par with Scotland and Wales.

[boxbrownie]

35 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

despite much complaining from Lorry firms and their insurers.

There is a surprise……

[boxbrownie]

27 minutes ago, rab said:

Especially as some see Cornwall as a country,

on a par with Scotland and Wales.

There speaks somebody who wishes they had travelled just a few miles more 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by boxbrownie