Bridge bashing

[Michael Hodgson]

20 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Yes, the bridge on the Greatbridge Road at Romsey has large "roll bars" installed on either side of the bridge structure, tied into very solid concrete bases at each side. They do a very good job of crushing and rolling any vehicle that would otherwise hit the main bridge structure. Does not avoid the hours of closure while they retrieve the offending vehicle.

 

Yours, Mike.

We've got this much-bashed bridge carrying the 4 track ECML and an Up Siding - https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2339285

At least a Slow line was likely to stop you before you hit the Fast.  The Slow lines too are now protected by beams and supporting brickwork that were added a good many years ago.  Height measuring gauges on the approach roads and prominent "Overheight Vehicle Divert" signs with flashing yellow lights seem to reduced the incidence, but definitely not eliminated it.

 

Removing bent lorries is not really the problem - they don't usually get stuck, and just get dragged out backwards.  Seems to be more of a problem at skew bridges where there's more tendency to overturn.  Road closure on ours tends to be due to inadequacy of its drainage to cope with heavy rain as the road forms a sump.

[johnofwessex]

What happens though if a lorry overturns onto another vehicle or worse still a pedestrian or cyclist?

[Fat Controller]

There was 'bridge bash' with more severe consequences than usual on the Stour Valley line between New St and Wolverhampton this week. Two cars and a van collided under the bridge, then caught fire. The fire caused damage to signalling cables.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

The safety responsibility doesn't lie solely with lorry drivers knowing what to do.  The railway industry has identified the need to protect their more vulnerable bridges by installing beams for them to hit instead (or at least before hitting the waybeams)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/tses/attachments/19b2054b-9bb5-4883-96c0-5c02c1e20e32&ved=2ahUKEwjZ667D45eJAxUua0EAHfbYDu0QFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3FNWD-x6gahmzge4iOcB9b

 

It is noteworthy that these are described as reducing the risk rather than eliminating it, that they reduce slightly the clearance vs the unprotected low bridge and that there is a legal problem with erecting them as stand-alone protection, which in some circumstances might be a safer option.

No one in their right minds would authorise a train to travel over a bridge at normal speed, until it has been checked by a qualified engineer. At least on would hope so!

[37114]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

The safety responsibility doesn't lie solely with lorry drivers knowing what to do.  The railway industry has identified the need to protect their more vulnerable bridges by installing beams for them to hit instead (or at least before hitting the waybeams)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/tses/attachments/19b2054b-9bb5-4883-96c0-5c02c1e20e32&ved=2ahUKEwjZ667D45eJAxUua0EAHfbYDu0QFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3FNWD-x6gahmzge4iOcB9b

 

It is noteworthy that these are described as reducing the risk rather than eliminating it, that they reduce slightly the clearance vs the unprotected low bridge and that there is a legal problem with erecting them as stand-alone protection, which in some circumstances might be a safer option.

VOSA is also ramping up the pressure on operators to do more to prevent bridge strikes, there is a lot more onus on the vehicle operator to prove they have done all they can to avoid a strike e.g. ensuring use of route planning tools/sat nav that avoid low bridges, regular training and refresher training etc.

[Hobby]

54 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

No one in their right minds would authorise a train to travel over a bridge at normal speed, until it has been checked by a qualified engineer. At least on would hope so!

 

I suppose the issue is stopping the trains before they cross, chances are on a mainline several could have crossed before the signals are put to red depending on how quickly the lorry driver reacts which is i suppose where that earlier post about educating them comes from?

[GrumpyPenguin]

3 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The safety responsibility doesn't lie solely with lorry drivers knowing what to do.

Clearly you don't hold a LGV or PCV licence (or anything else that is reguarded as a "vocational") or you would know that currently and legally the driver carries the ultimate responsibility. He/she may have mitigating circumstances which could bring other people into the equasion such as the company he/she works for.

[GrumpyPenguin]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

When I was working in teh West Country we had one particular bridge that was a regular for being hit by HGVs (various) as it crossed the A350 which was quite a busy road for HGV movement.  Most bridge strikes seemed to be in the early/middle part of the week and the biggest nuisance was lorries from the nearby cement works which were repeat offenders - maybe their drivers never spoke to each other?

 

On one occasion the steel bridge was very slightly, but fortunately not dangerously, moved by a an HGV strike - so that can happen

With respect the figures I quoted were national whereas yours were more localised. As the cement trucks were part of the construction industry they would have been busier tpwards the begining of the week.

[Michael Hodgson]

37 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

I suppose the issue is stopping the trains before they cross, chances are on a mainline several could have crossed before the signals are put to red depending on how quickly the lorry driver reacts which is i suppose where that earlier post about educating them comes from?

On the 4 tracks of the ECML the service is pretty frquent (or it wouldn't justify 4 tracks), the line speed is 125, and a train can travel a good distance even when signals are thrown back.  But even slowing the train significantlly is likely to reduce casualties.  An emergency radio call would give marginally faster response than red signals.  There is now a sign on all bridges (at least those round here) giving an emergency telephone number for reporting bridge strikes.

However it's not especiallly conspicuous, it may not even be visible behind a damaged lorry, and the public are not aware of the risk - witnesses would probably rush to the aid of the driver if injured, they might dial 999, but the risk to trains won't even cross their mind.

 

It would make far more sense to use 999 as the reporting number, and ensure the telphone operators are appropriately instructed.

[GrumpyPenguin]

3 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Yes, the bridge on the Greatbridge Road at Romsey has large "roll bars" installed on either side of the bridge structure, tied into very solid concrete bases at each side. They do a very good job of crushing and rolling any vehicle that would otherwise hit the main bridge structure. Does not avoid the hours of closure while they retrieve the offending vehicle.

 

Yours, Mike.

Installing sacraficial barriers are fine, but with many of the examples shown to us the road layouts made it impractical to install them.

[GrumpyPenguin]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Removing bent lorries is not really the problem - they don't usually get stuck, and just get dragged out backwards.

A sweeping statement for the sake of commenting.

 

With the exception of curtainsiders ( the bodies of these are just to keep the rain off, they are not structural) errant trucks are not "just get dragged out backwards".

Take a truck with a high sided scrap trailer or a flatbed carrying heavy plant that has moved the bridge structure, part of the bridge weight may bebeing supported on the truck) the bridge has to be examined by a suitably qualified person before any attempt is made to "drag it out backwards". Doing so could easily result in further &/or damage

[GrumpyPenguin]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 Height measuring gauges on the approach roads and prominent "Overheight Vehicle Divert" signs with flashing yellow lights seem to reduced the incidence, but definitely not eliminated it.

They are only as good as the calibration - one of those on the South Circular Road has them - the bridge is 13' 6" and the trucks I used at the time were 12' 8" unladen - a 10" descrepancy, so, human nature being what it is the warning signs were ignored.

I reported it a number of times to the local authority, TfL, Network Rail & the Police - all said "not our responsibility" but made no attempt to pass on the information to whoever had the responsibility.

[GrumpyPenguin]

3 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

What happens though if a lorry overturns onto another vehicle or worse still a pedestrian or cyclist?

Very different priority in that case - any casualty then becomes the priority.

Edited Friday at 15:54 by GrumpyPenguin

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, 37114 said:

VOSA is also ramping up the pressure on operators to do more to prevent bridge strikes, there is a lot more onus on the vehicle operator to prove they have done all they can to avoid a strike e.g. ensuring use of route planning tools/sat nav that avoid low bridges, regular training and refresher training etc.

And yet at one time we were allowed to do so under very strictly specified circumstances and depending on what evidence there was of visible damage to the bridge.  That authority went during the mid-late 1970s. I think after someone decided he was as clever as a Bridge Examiner.  The authority we had to permit trains to passover broken rails - again carefully spelt out with a minimum gap between the rail ends specified - lasted much longer.

[GrumpyPenguin]

3 hours ago, 37114 said:

VOSA is also ramping up the pressure on operators to do more to prevent bridge strikes, there is a lot more onus on the vehicle operator to prove they have done all they can to avoid a strike e.g. ensuring use of route planning tools/sat nav that avoid low bridges, regular training and refresher training etc.

VOSA as a single entity ceased to exist quite a few years ago - their remit was more "advise first, enforce second". VOSA effectivly merged with DSA and became DVSA whose remit is nforcement as they are, to a certain extent self funding.

And yes, they are upping the game and beginning to move towards enforcement action being shared between drivers and operators.

[RJS1977]

On 18/10/2024 at 16:08, GrumpyPenguin said:

They are only as good as the calibration - one of those on the South Circular Road has them - the bridge is 13' 6" and the trucks I used at the time were 12' 8" unladen - a 10" descrepancy, so, human nature being what it is the warning signs were ignored.

I reported it a number of times to the local authority, TfL, Network Rail & the Police - all said "not our responsibility" but made no attempt to pass on the information to whoever had the responsibility.

 

I think CloggyDog and I (plus two layouts) went under that bridge on the way to the Beckenham show yesterday.

[RJS1977]

I was just reading a discussion on the IRSE Facebook group about Scunthorpe PSB.

 

Apparently the panel in the box is the second one, as the first was irreparably damaged en route from Chippenham owing to striking a low bridge!