Report of Partial Bridge Collapse WCML 11/6

[SCDR_WMR]

Network Rail have reported that there is a partial bridge collapse near Bedworth, a few miles south of Nuneaton station.

All traffic to be routed via West Midlands until further examination completed.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Image shows collapsed bridge

 

[Ploughman]

Is that due to a structural problem or a bridge strike?

 

[The Planner]

Is that due to a structural problem or a bridge strike?

Bridge strike.

 

[christopher]

Someone's going to have a nice insurance bill

 

[Noseygit]

I saw another picture online of that bridge collapsed with a lorry in it but the lorry seems to have disappeared , that will be a long repair job

 

[sturmey_archer]

That's Marston Lane. It's a low bridge (3.6m / 12ft) although the signage seems to have gone missing, maybe dropped out of view. Must have been a big hit to carve that substantial fresh gouge out of the concrete over the centre of the road. Maybe a crane knuckle?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

From RTT, the first diversion off the Trent Valley route appears to be at about 1600 (at Rugby, Stafford or Stone).
Several earlier trains appear to be stuck elsewhere on the Trent Valley section.

Marston Lane appears to be a minor road, so it's unlikely for the bridge to have been hit at speed.
The railway is 3-track at that point (just south of where it becomes 4-track at Attleborough).
From the SA, all 3 lines are reversibly signalled, so there is some flexibility if any of the tracks are usable.

 

[Russel]

Bridge strike.

The structure must have already been compromised though to fail like that from being hit by a lorry surly?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The structure must have already been compromised though to fail like that from being hit by a lorry surly?

How many strikes has it had, and when? That would be my first thought for a gradual increase in damage.

 

[dmncf]

The structure must have already been compromised though to fail like that from being hit by a lorry surly?

Perhaps the structure was designed with plenty of strength to support vertical loads, but wasn't designed to have much strength when pushed horizontally.

 

[The Planner]

The structure must have already been compromised though to fail like that from being hit by a lorry surly?

Depends how hard and how quick it was hit presumably? Force = mass x acceleration etc...

Say it was 40mph and 10tonnes, that is 140,000 Newtons.

 

[Russel]

Depends how hard and how quick it was hit presumably? Force = mass x acceleration etc...

Say it was 40mph and 10tonnes, that is 140,000 Newtons.

Maybe.

It still amazes me that we don't have something as simple as a sacrificial girder before low bridges to take the brunt of the hit, especially when the bridge carries multiple trains an hour doing 125mph.

 

[thenorthern]

I assume that the West Coast Main Line will face disruption for several weeks due to this?

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe.

It still amazes me that we don't have something as simple as a sacrificial girder before low bridges to take the brunt of the hit, especially when the bridge carries multiple trains an hour doing 125mph.

We do have them, but only on a small minority of bridges.

 

[james60059]

Post and subsequent photo from Bedworth Community Forum suggests a hit and run.

 

[rmHawk765]

If I understand correctly that the part of the bridge that was hit actually has a track over it, we're lucky there wasn't a train passing at the same time... though if it is a hit and run I guess this was planned.

 

[SuspectUsual]

That's Marston Lane. It's a low bridge (3.6m / 12ft) although the signage seems to have gone missing, maybe dropped out of view

I think the signage is on the chunk of bridge that's directly on the road surface, so hidden from view now

 

[The exile]

Depends how hard and how quick it was hit presumably? Force = mass x acceleration etc...

Say it was 40mph and 10tonnes, that is 140,000 Newtons.

Or some very substantial road vehicle only just too tall that effectively lifted it up and shifted it sideways?

 

[The Planner]

If I understand correctly that the part of the bridge that was hit actually has a track over it, we're lucky there wasn't a train passing at the same time... though if it is a hit and run I guess this was planned.

What was planned? to hit the bridge? behave.

 

[sh24]

If I understand correctly that the part of the bridge that was hit actually has a track over it, we're lucky there wasn't a train passing at the same time... though if it is a hit and run I guess this was planned.

Hit and run means someone has run from an accident. not a planned hit.

Truck looks potentially like a flatbed with a crane mounted (a hiab) hence the large scrape mark from the crane knuckle.

 

[The Planner]

I assume that the West Coast Main Line will face disruption for several weeks due to this?

Its bidi along there, depends if they can run on the other two lines furthest away.

 

[dk1]

Post and subsequent photo from Bedworth Community Forum suggests a hit and run.

Hopefully the damaged vehicle will get reported by someone or the perpetrator will have injuries or say something to a third party who will inform the relevant authorities.

 

[TheoBald]

Depends how hard and how quick it was hit presumably? Force = mass x acceleration etc...

Say it was 40mph and 10tonnes, that is 140,000 Newtons.

No, your 40mph is a speed not acceleration.
Impulse = change in momentum: Ft = mv - mu
If the lorry is brought to rest uniformly in 1 second, taking your 40mph as 17.9 m/s
Force x 1 = 10,000 x 17.9 - 0
179,000 N
edit to improve my sums!

And if the lorry was brought to uniform rest in 0.5s, the force would be doubled.

 

[Russel]

We do have them, but only on a small minority of bridges.

I know, but to not have them to protect known low bridges on one of Europe's busiest main lines seems is rather inexcusable.

 

[The Planner]

No, your 40mph is a speed not acceleration.
Impulse = change in momentum: Ft = mv - mu
If the lorry is brought to rest uniformly in 1 second, taking your 40mph as 17.9 m/s
Force x 1 = 10,000 x 17.9 - 0
17,900 N

And if the lorry was brought to uniform rest in 0.5s, the force would be doubled.

That's why I didn't do A Level maths then.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2026 ==

I know, but to not have them to protect known low bridges on one of Europe's busiest main lines seems is rather inexcusable.

If its not a high risk site, then they aren't going to get put on.

 

[james60059]

Maybe.

It still amazes me that we don't have something as simple as a sacrificial girder before low bridges to take the brunt of the hit, especially when the bridge carries multiple trains an hour doing 125mph.

Surprises me that Marston Lane doesn't have this. Considering that the A5 at Hinckley has girders either side for a line which isn't as busy (I think the line speed is 80mph over it). Also, I believe the company that the lorry is from has been identified too.

 

[swt_passenger]

I know, but to not have them to protect known low bridges on one of Europe's busiest main lines seems is rather inexcusable.

Previous threads have suggested there’s a marked reluctance to fit them because of some strange reasoning that they are some sort of a hazard to road users.

 

[The Planner]

Surprises me that Marston Lane doesn't have this. Considering that the A5 at Hinckley has girders either side for a line which isn't as busy (I think the line speed is 80mph over it).

Think about the traffic using the A5, versus a country lane. There is logic in it!

 

[Russel]

its not a high risk site, then they aren't going to get put on.

False economy, a simple metal girder will cost far less than just the repair to this bridge alone, before you start to take into consideration the cost of disruption.