Tractor low loader crash

[richy_B]

I was working on a site a few years ago. It was in zone 3 near Ealing Broadway and there was large scaffolding at the rear of the buildings. There was standard debris netting running up all 7 storeys. In strong wind the netting ripped away and partially landed on the embankment directly behind the building. The embankment was on the District tube line and the netting was tangled in trees a few metres from the tracks. Loads of bods appeared from TFL and they conclusion was if the rest of the netting came down they would close the line for several hours to clear it (around 4pm in the afternoon on a weekday).  They suggested the fine would be £5-8 million for closing a major London tube line during the day! 

  

[aspenarb]

I think a bridge inspection/survey is now north of 100k, all this aside I would wonder if his insurers will cough up if he is not running compliant. Not saying he isnt but all to often they are not running by the rules, a local builder was done recently for running a tractor/lowloader to move his digger about.

 

Bob

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

22 minutes ago, richy_B said:

I was working on a site a few years ago. It was in zone 3 near Ealing Broadway and there was large scaffolding at the rear of the buildings. There was standard debris netting running up all 7 storeys. In strong wind the netting ripped away and partially landed on the embankment directly behind the building. The embankment was on the District tube line and the netting was tangled in trees a few metres from the tracks. Loads of bods appeared from TFL and they conclusion was if the rest of the netting came down they would close the line for several hours to clear it (around 4pm in the afternoon on a weekday).  They suggested the fine would be £5-8 million for closing a major London tube line during the day! 

  

I once had a NR bod on site to look at some big trees on adjacent land I was surveying. I just wanted his “view” of whether NR would consider them a “risk” to the line in support of a TPO submission for crown reduction. It was a mistake I won’t make again  just talking / meeting him. For months after he was hassling ME over potential liability. He just couldn’t understand that liability for the trees rests with the land owner (or possibly the LA if consent refused) not the tree surveyor (I know there are variables in that statement, but in this instance, my recommendations were clear, the liability existed where the LA refused consent to the land owner. )

 

In his mind, because I’d raised the query, I had to cut the limbs immediately or face costs for train delays. 

 

Never met a more corporate bunkered mindset mindset in all my tender years!

[benedmonds]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I once had a NR bod on site to look at some big trees on adjacent land I was surveying. I just wanted his “view” of whether NR would consider them a “risk” to the line in support of a TPO submission for crown reduction. It was a mistake I won’t make again  just talking / meeting him. For months after he was hassling ME over potential liability. He just couldn’t understand that liability for the trees rests with the land owner (or possibly the LA if consent refused) not the tree surveyor (I know there are variables in that statement, but in this instance, my recommendations were clear, the liability existed where the LA refused consent to the land owner. )

 

In his mind, because I’d raised the query, I had to cut the limbs immediately or face costs for train delays. 

 

Never met a more corporate bunkered mindset mindset in all my tender years!

To be fair to network rail you would be upset if some numpty dropped a tree on the tracks. But they make it so difficult and expensive to work near the railway stuff gets left or done by folk who don't know better and shouldn't be doing it..

We recently had a job stopped as there was a theoretical possibility that if the crane failed it could reach the tracks.  Just.. They needed a ground survey for the crane parked 20m from the tracks on a car park and the works at night..

 

a little further down the same line a client had a small syc right next to the tracks they wanted taken down.. Simple job but the required paperwork and potential additional costs meant that my price was not going to be close to the dodgy firm who didn't think to tell network rail...

[Steve Bullman]

Drive by a tractor which probably means it was a relatively local company/driver, who should have been fully aware of the bridge, makes it even more of a cock up

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 minutes ago, benedmonds said:

To be fair to network rail you would be upset if some numpty dropped a tree on the tracks. But they make it so difficult and expensive to work near the railway stuff gets left or done by folk who don't know better and shouldn't be doing it..

We recently had a job stopped as there was a theoretical possibility that if the crane failed it could reach the tracks.  Just.. They needed a ground survey for the crane parked 20m from the tracks on a car park and the works at night..

 

a little further down the same line a client had a small syc right next to the tracks they wanted taken down.. Simple job but the required paperwork and potential additional costs meant that my price was not going to be close to the dodgy firm who didn't think to tell network rail...

Totally agree, it wasn't so much the engagement of NR that troubled me (it was me that called them in for an opinion which I had hoped would add weight to the justification for the reduction which the LA were resisting) but it was the chummies insistence that, since it was my name on the enquiry form it was me that would forever be liable for any failure which affected the network that I simply couldn't get through to him.  

 

I think he said £500/day just for a NR safety bod to be on site so I totally understand how the land owner is tempted to take the cheaper route and avoid having the additional expense of a pro do the job.  It's almost like the law of unintended consequences - NR have potentially increased the likelihood of an accident by imposing (what might be considered) unrealistic additional costs leading to chop it and run scenarios.

 

[scbk]

5 hours ago, Alycidon said:

More recently a local farmer had cattle stray onto the line,  2am they get hit by a freight train, line closed for the carcases etc to be removed,   his insurer the NFU settled a claim at around £1 million for that plus the cost of the dead cattle.

 

It's funny, it happened the other way round up here, it was network rails fault for not maintaining railway fences!!

 

https://www.whfp.com/2017/07/12/crofter-compensated-for-cow-struck-on-train-tracks-near-plockton/

 

 

 

Back to the original story, in the article the it goes:

"He said: “About 20 yards on the other side of the bridge came a tractor with a big digger on its back and I saw it’s boom was upright."

 

 

I wonder if the digger boom had raised during transport?

Is there not something about the vibrations causing hydraulic cylinders to move?

[Matthew Storrs]

2 hours ago, scbk said:

 

It's funny, it happened the other way round up here, it was network rails fault for not maintaining railway fences!!

 

https://www.whfp.com/2017/07/12/crofter-compensated-for-cow-struck-on-train-tracks-near-plockton/

 

 

 

Back to the original story, in the article the it goes:

"He said: “About 20 yards on the other side of the bridge came a tractor with a big digger on its back and I saw it’s boom was upright."

 

 

I wonder if the digger boom had raised during transport?

Is there not something about the vibrations causing hydraulic cylinders to move?

Digger bucket should have been tied down anyway so can’t see it raising on its own.

 

just seen the digger has split from its undercarriage- blimey!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, scbk said:

 

It's funny, it happened the other way round up here, it was network rails fault for not maintaining railway fences!!

 

https://www.whfp.com/2017/07/12/crofter-compensated-for-cow-struck-on-train-tracks-near-plockton/

 

 

 

Back to the original story, in the article the it goes:

"He said: “About 20 yards on the other side of the bridge came a tractor with a big digger on its back and I saw it’s boom was upright."

 

 

I wonder if the digger boom had raised during transport?

Is there not something about the vibrations causing hydraulic cylinders to move?

Total "de-rail" (?) is the requirement for the owner of animals to fence against them breaking out different for common land?  Surely the boundary of the common grazing area should be fenced to prevent animals leaving the common land?  Or might this example have historic implications where the railway placed a line through an area of existing common land and accepted a liability to fence?

 

It seems odd since my understanding of the 'norm' (if such a thing exists) would be that the owner of the animal is responsible to prevent it breaking out of the area in which it is kept??

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

16 minutes ago, Matthew Storrs said:

Digger bucket should have been tied down anyway so can’t see it raising on its own.

 

just seen the digger has split from its undercarriage- blimey!

Looks like the driver had a fair lick of speed on....