cjohnson
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 597
...and Tulse Hill gets bashed again. Must be averaging once a week....?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Bridge Strikes
- Thread starter jopsuk
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It feels like it, but it's more like once a month.
cjohnson
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 597
Hmm, let's compromise at once every other week then. A quick check through TL's Twitter suggests strikes on:
4 Nov
28 Oct
8 Oct
30 Sep
9 Sep
2 Sep
22 Jul
7 Jul
29 May
7 May
NR reckon almost once a fortnight too. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3563.aspx
Far too many surely!
4 Nov
28 Oct
8 Oct
30 Sep
9 Sep
2 Sep
22 Jul
7 Jul
29 May
7 May
NR reckon almost once a fortnight too. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/3563.aspx
Far too many surely!
Chris M
Member
From that link there are people described as "bridge strike champions", which must be one of the best job titles Network Rail have to offer!
EbbwJunction1
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 1,568
Well, judging by the figures, there weren't any bridge strikes in my area (Newport, South Wales) in 2013 / 2014.
I didn't realise that the drivers around here were so good - or is it lucky?!
I didn't realise that the drivers around here were so good - or is it lucky?!
How many "low" bridges do you have ? How much lorry traffic do you get ?
The Tulse Hill bridge is a well worn route.
Tulse Hill is on the South Circular which must be a contributory factor.
That was obviously the bridge strike that delayed Thameslink services yesterday:cry:
Yeah, it's kinda hard to see how they could improve on the signage, and astounding that "professional" drivers still hit it regularly. I'm quite surprised that they have not yet fitted big crash beams either side of it, so the railway can just point and laugh at the idiots that hit it, without needing to suspend services.
They have also repainted it since early september - the rest of the bridge that wasn't yellow and black (the pillars etc.) is now yellow and black too and "Low Bridge" is now painted on the bridge in addition to the "Low Bridge" banners on the railings.
I don't know what the official policy is, but it seems to me that most signs are dual imperial and metric these days, changing over from imperial only whenever they come up for renewal of the signs or during a big maintenance project. You shouldn't rely on what you see on Street View, as it can be a few years out of date at times. The Tulse Hill bridge certainly does have the dual format signs on Street View for me.
The signs have been replaced since street view photos - they had a few scrathces and dents!
Ah so you're obviously one of these people who never makes mistakes?:roll:
I'm surprised that crash beams haven't been fitted there already given the accident rate
I make mistakes, but when I'm driving something larger than a car, I pay extra attention to the size of the vehicle. To me, someone who is driving a large vehicle professionally should never find themselves making such a basic criminal mistake (when it's a round circle, it's a criminal offence). They simply don't deserve to call themselves professional in cases such as the Tulse Hill bridge, where it's so clearly and obviously marked, and do deserve to lose their cat C and C1 entitlements. In decades of driving (up to C1+E), the worst I've ever done with a larger vehicle is clip a kerb with a trailer wheel.
Bridge bashing endangers both other road users, and has the potential to cause a derailment and large scale loss of life on the railway. Professional drivers really should be looking at bridge bashes as a potential manslaughter charge (if they give the wrong bridge the right bash at the wrong moment, that will be the result).
I've driven buses and lorries and never hit a low bridge but I can't say categorically that I never will, can you?
peterinsurrey
Member
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 28
I think Tulse Hill Bridge needs big electronic signs with words to the effect: STOP YOU IDIOT, or perhaps some other 'french' phrases.
Obviously the new reflective wrap doesn't work, it's not like my car headlights make it glow when I stop at the traffic lights down the hill. Completely invisible to all motorists.....
A crash beam that reduces the height would be even better - make it 4m, and enforce it with the beams. They can't afford to dig down the roadway or lift the bridge. If they don't want to put a crash beam, I suggest a width restriction. Might make the traffic flow better too.
Obviously the new reflective wrap doesn't work, it's not like my car headlights make it glow when I stop at the traffic lights down the hill. Completely invisible to all motorists.....
A crash beam that reduces the height would be even better - make it 4m, and enforce it with the beams. They can't afford to dig down the roadway or lift the bridge. If they don't want to put a crash beam, I suggest a width restriction. Might make the traffic flow better too.
A width restriction would prevent lorries that weren't overheight from using that section of road
A width restriction isn't going to happen on the South Circular! (and bus route)
The current sides of the bridge were added later and are effectively semi- cosmetic and partially acts as a crash beam.
The problems at Tulse Hill come from the underside of the bridge being scraped or the pillars (and the cross bracing) being hit as was the case in one incident earlier this year.
If the bridge deck were replaced the pillars could be removed and the road lowered - the foundations of the pillars will prevent the carriageway being lowered at present.
Crash beams a few metres in advance of this and other problematic bridges. Along with prosecution of drivers who do hit the beams for cost of renewal, if necessary. You'll still have the disruption to traffic from lorries stuck under the beams and shed loads, of course
Yes, but that risk is identical to the risk from hitting the bridge structure itself. The key thing with crash beams is that they should make the bridge structure basically immune to displacement and/or structural damage from the impact. Those 2 factors are the reason that traffic generally has to be stopped and/or given a severe speed restriction, until the structure and track alignment can be inspected. They also should more or less eliminate the risk of a mass casualty derailment if a severe bash occurs and trains pass before traffic can be stopped.
Overall, separate extreme duty crash beams should vastly reduce or eliminate some of the key risk elements, make rail disruption far less likely, and not make the situation any worse for road users.
I'd rate it as extremely unlikely that LGV driving will be automated anywhere close to 10 years into the future. Even if it does happen, some ingenious fool will manage to configure a 4.2m truck as a 2.4m truck and send it on its merry way to the nearest low bridge.
Ten years? It won't happen in my lifetime, probably not in my grandchildrens either
We'll have to wait and see, obviously, but the technology is already there in cars driving themselves around California, Nevada and some other places including parts of the UK. In fact, autonomous lorries are also being tried out and so far have proven pretty capable though more work is certainly needed. Once it's fully proven, I think the economic draws for commercial driving will be huge: not only no drivers' wages but no drivers' hours limits, reduced maintenance costs and fuel consumption due to smoother driving, lower insurance premiums from increased safety and possibly even higher weight limits and sizes as regulations are altered to reflect the greater processing capacities of these vehicles. And it will be here quicker than you think and will take off rapidly after that. Think of how other technologies like mobile phones and the internet have gone from curiousity to normality within a decade. It's not just Google and Amazon building these things, established auto manufacturers are beginning to show an interest too.
As for miscalibration, it won't apply. There will be no calibration, the vehicle will measure its own trailer, just as it measures everything else around it (line of sight not needed).
As for miscalibration, it won't apply. There will be no calibration, the vehicle will measure its own trailer, just as it measures everything else around it (line of sight not needed).
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Not if they're programmed by "professionals" who tell them they'll fit under anything because the signs are probably wrong...
*examines coat rack*
Yes, they will do know if the sign is wrong. So if the sign says 4.1m but clearance is actually 4.0m, it won't try to take a 4.05m vehicle under that bridge. But because it also reads the signs (I'd imagine learning various fonts will be one of the trickiest development processes) and is programmed to obey, it will not go under the 4.1m-signed bridge though it knows the clearance is actually 4.2m. Similarly, of course, with width and weight.
A new bridge is the answer at Tulse Hill. Concrete span with no separate cast iron supports. Anything that hits that will lose, and it can be declared an 'amber' bridge such that traffic does not need to be stopped if it is hit. It can be made wide enough for longer platforms at the same time.
- Status