Bridge Strike - Glasgow Cook Street 14 Dec 2024

[alxndr]

Could that still be the case as there seems to have been very little disruption to train services on the day.

It is still the case.

 

[6Gman]

That's a poor approach to safety. Happens once, you can maybe consider it. Happens multiple times, and I remember this bridge being struck by buses more than once back in the 1970s, and doubtless since, and it points to the need for an engineering solution. One hopes there isn't some turf war between the railway and Glasgow council over who might pay for it.

An advance frame with bells hanging down to height, or similar, that makes a considerable noise, is surely needed here. There are a range of such around. This simplistic one hung from a convenient overhead sign guards lane 2 of the road Blackwall Tunnel:

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Frames with bells were a feature in the electrified parts of East Anglia* in the early 1960s (I remember my parents pointing them out to me) - why were they dropped?



* As in the railway being electrfied; this is not a joke about Norfolk only gaining electricity in the 60s.

 

[Acfb]

Frames with bells were a feature in the electrified parts of East Anglia* in the early 1960s (I remember my parents pointing them out to me) - why were they dropped?



* As in the railway being electrfied; this is not a joke about Norfolk only gaining electricity in the 60s.

They have bus height warning bells on the guided busway at Addenbrookes. I saw it on a youtube video about the Cambridge busways a few years ago.

They already closed off West Street at the Ayrshire lines overbridge which was an alternative route, and Cook Street is needed for access to Scotland Street & Kingston Bridge (Clyde Expressway only) - it would be better to raise the headroom than lose the road!

Fair enough, only other thing I can think of is having a no left turn into Cook Street so cars could still get there the long way round but bus drivers would hopefully no longer confuse it with turning into Nelson St.

 

[alxndr]

Fair enough, only other thing I can think of is having a no left turn into Cook Street so cars could still get there the long way round but bus drivers would hopefully no longer confuse it with turning into Nelson St.

If someone is inattentive enough to miss all the height and width restriction signage and the fact they're at a junction with a different road layout, and aren't looking at the landmark of the Laurieston then I'm not sure a "no left turn" sign is going to make much difference.

I've got lost around that area plenty of times, but that's one junction I've never got mixed up as they're so different.

 

[Buzby]

I’m surprised you don’t find them similar!

It’s still a left turn off Eglinton Street, it’s still a ’cross’ road - Bedford St on the right, Cook St on the left (comparable to Norfolk Street / Nelson Street). After a turn you’ll be aware of the railway bridge(s) just a few yards ahead in both cases, but rarely that the difference in height between them is so significant, especially as the first bridge is higher than the second.

There’s times when I’ve turned too early when heading for a Tradeston Cash & Carry, but at least my vehicle wasn’t a high one.

In Scotland I’m only aware of one other similar design - to get to Monifieth seafront (at Monifieth Rly station) although the height differences are more dramatic (Union Street 1.8m & 3.2). Pick the wrong one and it can be a headache, like Cook Street, it’s a left turn and minimal time to react.

 

[Peter0124]

-Deleted-

 

[GLC]

Closing the left turn onto Cook street doesn’t seem to me to be outwith the realm of possibility. I would say it’s 50/50 already as to whether traffic from the south looking to get onto Cook Street go via Salkeld Street instead to try skip the lights. Which gives me great pleasure to go down Eington street to see if I can beat them as the Give Way at the top of Salkeld Street means they have to yield if you can beat them there

 

[700720]

They have bus height warning bells on the guided busway at Addenbrookes. I saw it on a youtube video about the Cambridge busways a few years ago.

These were replaced with signs around 2-3 years ago IIRC. A few years ago a double decker Busway bus that was meant to use Hills Road accidentally took the Busway and got deroofed at Hills Road Bridge.

 

[DunsBus]

They have bus height warning bells on the guided busway at Addenbrookes. I saw it on a youtube video about the Cambridge busways a few years ago.

Fair enough, only other thing I can think of is having a no left turn into Cook Street so cars could still get there the long way round but bus drivers would hopefully no longer confuse it with turning into Nelson St.

West Street was closed at the Ayrshire lines overbridge a few years after a Clydeside 2000 double-decker ran into it, sadly with fatalities.

The overbridge is a pair of bridges, one at 13' 6" when approaching from the south with another immediately behind it at 10' 6". The bus got under the first bridge but then hit the second one.

That was a very tragic set of circumstances, as the bus was carrying Girl Guides home to Drumchapel from an outing to Ayr and the driver was unsure of the route. He was following a car driven by one of the Girl Guide leaders at the time.

 

[Towers]

Although stage carriage drivers do tend to stick to one route, I’d hope they would be reasonably alert to height/width restrictions, more so if they deviate from their planned route, but all it takes is a change of vehicle and…

There is a tale from my local operator dating back to when Leyland Olympians replaced Bristol VRs: the first driver due on a route refused to take the new bus as it wouldn’t fit under a bridge. The Traffic Manager (who didn’t have a PSV) insisted it would. Other drivers insisted it wouldn’t, but the TM wouldn’t back down, so driver and Olympian went off, and it later became one of the first open topped buses through the lakes…

Regretfully, it’d still be the driver losing his licence and job!

 

[Statto]

I see that section of Cook Street under the railway is one way Westbound, would it help if they changed that section to make it one way Eastbound instead, or would that not make any difference?

 

[Buzby]

make it one way Eastbound instead, or would that not make any difference?

The main flows are north on Eglinton Street, and Cook Street is required to reach the Kingston Bridge on-ramp and Scotland Street. Reversing the one-way would stop this important access and with West Street shut at its overbridge the alternative options are considerably longer.

This could be slightly addressed by closing off Cook Street at the turn and using Salkeld Street as the diversion (turning left into Cook Street) but you’d still have the lower of the two bridges to contend with and no effective escape route.

Considering NR already replaced Shields Road bridge (which was a road over rly), in view of the unusually low clearances, raising Cook Street bridges should be a consideration too.

 

[alxndr]

Considering NR already replaced Shields Road bridge (which was a road over rly), in view of the unusually low clearances, raising Cook Street bridges should be a consideration too.

Was Shields Road not replaced because it was knackered and therefore subject to weight restrictions?

Raising the Cook Street bridge would be difficult as you’d soon run into the ironwork in Central. I think lowering the road would be the only option to improve clearances and I’m not sure that would be possible there either.

Another option could be to use the land adjacent to Eglinton Street to extend the left turn lane. This might make it feel more different to the Nelson Street junction (if other people find them similar like you do). Width restrictions could then be added earlier and visible from Eglinton Street with wider vehicles requiring Salkeld Street needing to access via Kilbirnie Street instead.

 

[Buzby]

Was Shields Road not replaced because it was knackered

Not just weight restrictions but reductions in the width of the carriageways too. It took a long time for NR to divvy up and pay for the replacement - the bridge was also the access point for the station below (Shields Road) now long gone.

As for reducing the road height, the attendant issues of disposing rainwater etc with pumps wouldn’t inspire confidence - and I’m almost positive this is also within the Glasgow Subway curtilage which isn’t particularly deep as it crosses under Eglinton Street between Bridge Street and West Street on a diagonal.

Don’t forget, Nelson Street (closer to Central) has a reasonable headroom for buses - I would have expected Cook Street to have the same minimums but it doesn’t - it looks as though this was a cost-saving measure for the Ayrshire lines to keep the viaduct costings down as it swings west to Scotland Street.

 

[Taunton]

I believe the Glasgow Underground tunnel passes physically beneath this bridge and street on its diagonal between Bridge Street and West Street stations. Most of the Underground is very shallow, and my guess is that reducing the road level is not possible. The street is a direct straight link between the main A77 road into Glasgow, and the Kingston Bridge over the river.

The accidents seem wholly to be with vehicles turning left from Eglinton Street, and the creation of a segregated traffic lane with a proper height restrictor that bounces off bus roofs is certainly not beyond a designer to come up with. Normally such a continuing accident location, which has included fatalities, would have been engineered out long ago.

 

[alxndr]

As for reducing the road height, the attendant issues of disposing rainwater etc with pumps wouldn’t inspire confidence - and I’m almost positive this is also within the Glasgow Subway curtilage which isn’t particularly deep as it crosses under Eglinton Street between Bridge Street and West Street on a diagonal.

I hadn't realised that the subway passes underneath right at the point of the bridge but on further investigation it does, and based on old drawings only appears to be around 11ft below the surface at that point.

Don’t forget, Nelson Street (closer to Central) has a reasonable headroom for buses - I would have expected Cook Street to have the same minimums but it doesn’t - it looks as though this was a cost-saving measure for the Ayrshire lines to keep the viaduct costings down as it swings west to Scotland Street.

In terms of the railway height, Nelson Street is actually at somewhat of a low point. The gradient is either falling or level from the Clyde until reaching Nelson Street, where it then rises until Cook Street, before falling again down to Shields Junction which is approximately at a level with the railway at Nelson Street.


[Image shows a diagram showing the gradients rising and falling as described above]

From memory the ground itself rises as you head south on Eglinton Street, although I can't find a good source for how much.

 

[Buzby]

Thanks for that @alxndr it’s a most illuminating diagram - and not what I expected. It is unusual the gradient falls to cross a bridge that is OK for a DDB, yet rises to Cook Street to one that doesn’t! The other variable is of course the architecture and design of the bridge construction.

Could it be all it needs is a redesign and replacement of the lowest bridge to restore the (much needed) headroom?

 

[Carntyne]

"all in needs"?

That's tens of millions of pounds of railway investment you're talking about, to prevent so-called professional drivers from driving up the wrong street. Address the problem at source.

 

[Statto]

"all in needs"?

That's tens of millions of pounds of railway investment you're talking about, to prevent so-called professional drivers from driving up the wrong street. Address the problem at source.

Which brings the question, why are professional drivers turning down the wrong street, which is why i suggested maybe altering the direction of the traffic flow.

Looking on Google Maps, if you close that section of Cook Street to Westbound traffic, traffic can still enter the ramp to the M8 by going down Eglinton Street, then Nelson Street, & Tradeston Street to Cook Street, or reverse the traffic flow of both Wallace Street & Cook Street, just a suggestion.

 

[Buzby]

Address the problem at source.

Quite agree. Cook Street was in existence before the railway arrived. When it did, they built viaducts that weren’t high enough for a DDB. We can blame the city fathers for a lot, but not for two railway lines that cross at different heights (probably for cost reasons). NR have also been making money from the businesses that pay rental for the arches that span from the Clyde southwards - (I don’t think there’s even an empty one despite the rental rises). I’d be more interested in why the Ayrshire lines bridge has a lower headroom when the gradient is increasing.

As for a ‘professional’ driver making a mistake - we’re not all perfect, and a split second inattentiveness or spatial confusion continues to cause these issues. Let’s fix the problem, not look for ways to reinforce restrictions that shouldn’t really be there in the first place.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Quite agree. Cook Street was in existence before the railway arrived. When it did, they built viaducts that weren’t high enough for a DDB. We can blame the city fathers for a lot, but not for two railway lines that cross at different heights (probably for cost reasons). NR have also been making money from the businesses that pay rental for the arches that span from the Clyde southwards - (I don’t think there’s even an empty one despite the rental rises). I’d be more interested in why the Ayrshire lines bridge has a lower headroom when the gradient is increasing.

As for a ‘professional’ driver making a mistake - we’re not all perfect, and a split second inattentiveness or spatial confusion continues to cause these issues. Let’s fix the problem, not look for ways to reinforce restrictions that shouldn’t really be there in the first place.

My bold; that would have required a great deal of prescience as double deck buses were a 20th century invention

 

[MadMac]

My bold; that would have required a great deal of prescience as double deck buses were a 20th century invention

I was wondering about that…..

 

[Meole]

The railway created the problem by building the bridge and should reasonably take responsibility for a solution perhaps utilising alternatives and removing the bridge difficult though that will be.

 

[Buzby]

My bold; that would have required a great deal of prescience

Not as much as you would think. Glasgow had horse-drawn carriages that sported a (open) top deck before the omnibus’s so the fact that passengers would be conveyed at an upper level meant that a low bridge would be a restriction. However, the fact it is a railway with two different heights just yards apart shows someone was skimping at the planning stage!

 

[Railsigns]

The railway created the problem by building the bridge and should reasonably take responsibility for a solution perhaps utilising alternatives and removing the bridge difficult though that will be.

Arguably it was the introduction of double decker buses that created the problem, and therefore the onus should be on the companies that operate them to re-assess the risks.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The railway created the problem by building the bridge and should reasonably take responsibility for a solution perhaps utilising alternatives and removing the bridge difficult though that will be.

Surely (horse-drawn) double-decker omnibuses have been a thing since Victorian times? And wasn't there once (briefly) a triple-decker bus operating somewhere?

 

[stuving]

Since there is an overheight vehicle detector system and warning signs, surely the key question is why drivers have not been effectively warned. I'm sure the warnings could be made harder to ignore - the detectors are far enough upstream to allow something quite eye-catching to be set off.

One detector is before the first bridge, over 50 m away, but the sign is less than 40 m after it and to the side. The one in Salkeld Street is almost 80 m from the sign on the corner. Even bigger, brasher, better sited, signs would be worth considering, though you could go further.

For example, wig-wags and a barrier to stop all traffic until the problem is sorted out might work, or a just very bright flashing lights all round the bridge portal. Perhaps a ten-foot pointing hand on an arm that swings down to point at the driver, full of flashing purple lights, with blaring sirens, would be a bit too far - some people would like to set it off just to see the fun!

Or else an extra - loud - warning in the cab, linked to the overheight detectors, might be better if the issue is thought to be specific to the buses. Obviously there are a lot of buses equip, some of which might not live in Glasgow. But there a lot of options worth looking at that cost orders of magnitude less than rebuilding the bridge!

 

[Carntyne]

There is an in cab warning system on the bus involved. It was just ignored, as were the multiple signs and VMS boards as well. Sometimes it isn't everyone else' fault that the driver was careless.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Surely (horse-drawn) double-decker omnibuses have been a thing since Victorian times? And wasn't there once (briefly) a triple-decker bus operating somewhere?

There were but not, I think, until the 1870s and I think all were open top - even the early open top double deck motorbuses around here went under bridges too low for fixed-top ones. .
Remember also that buses really came about as competition to the market (for mass transport) that the railways had created so inevitably became used after railways were built.

Since there is an overheight vehicle detector system and warning signs, surely the key question is why drivers have not been effectively warned. I'm sure the warnings could be made harder to ignore - the detectors are far enough upstream to allow something quite eye-catching to be set off.

One detector is before the first bridge, over 50 m away, but the sign is less than 40 m after it and to the side. The one in Salkeld Street is almost 80 m from the sign on the corner. Even bigger, brasher, better sited, signs would be worth considering, though you could go further.

For example, wig-wags and a barrier to stop all traffic until the problem is sorted out might work, or a just very bright flashing lights all round the bridge portal. Perhaps a ten-foot pointing hand on an arm that swings down to point at the driver, full of flashing purple lights, with blaring sirens, would be a bit too far - some people would like to set it off just to see the fun!

Or else an extra - loud - warning in the cab, linked to the overheight detectors, might be better if the issue is thought to be specific to the buses. Obviously there are a lot of buses equip, some of which might not live in Glasgow. But there a lot of options worth looking at that cost orders of magnitude less than rebuilding the bridge!

Considering the number of warning signs and alarms (with a width restriction as well as a height one) that the Glasgow driver ignored I'm not sure that another one would be any more effective than all the others..

The Kilmarnock mishap involved an arch bridge that was 8' 3" high near the centre of the arch and obviously lower each side. The top of the arch would therefore have been only just above the driver's level line of sight, and the sides would be below. Not noticing something directly in front of you as you drive towards it suggests that more subtle (by comparison) warnings might not produce a response either.

 

[Purple Train]

The Kilmarnock mishap involved an arch bridge that was 8' 3" high near the centre of the arch and obviously lower each side. The top of the arch would therefore have been only just above the driver's level line of sight, and the sides would be below. Not noticing something directly in front of you as you drive towards it suggests that more subtle (by comparison) warnings might not produce a response either.

My local station has a bridge around that height next to it, and I came home this evening to find the back half of a box van underneath it. No idea where the rest of the van was. It has a large flashing sign triggered when there is an overheight vehicle approaching, multiple side streets for drivers of such vehicles to pull into, a large warning sign above the bridge itself, and massive bridge protection beams picked out in yellow and black. This is the second bash in three months (there could, of course, have been more - bridge bashes don't make news around here, and these are two that I've personally witnessed the aftermath of). Thank goodness for the beams, so that the entire Great Western Main Line isn't brought to a standstill, but it does suggest that there is very little that can overcome simple human fallibility in such examples as yours. The issue at Cook Street reminds me of the issue on the railway with raised pantographs hitting buildings at Blackfriars - there are all manner of warnings and safety systems, but it is still very much liable to catch people out. Sadly, bridge bashes are far more serious than a flattened pantograph - I hope those injured in these two incidents make a full recovery.