Report of Partial Bridge Collapse WCML 11/6

[AndrewE]

Am I being over-critical or are the Beeb being exceptionally inept here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39y0pj1j92o - when most passengers would have been going on a third route yesterday - and today will have been back on their booked routes!

 

[alanbur]

There's a National Highways document for bridge collision protection beams:

CD 366 Design criteria for collision protection beams

In particular it says:

3.1 The collision protection beam (CPB) and its supports must form an integral part of the existing structure in accordance with the Highways Act 1980 [Ref 5.N].
NOTE A CPB on free-standing supports in advance of a bridge or tunnel can be considered as an obstruction to the highway contrary to Section 178 of the Highways Act 1980 [Ref 5.N].
3.1.1 The CPB should be positioned so that it is considered to be a part of the protected structure.
3.1.2 The CPB should lie parallel to the protected structure rather than askew.
3.2 CPBs for the protection of existing railway bridges, over the highway, must be in accordance with Sections 16 and 46 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act Railways Act 1845 [Ref 9.N].

So lobbing up a beam in front of a bridge isn't allowed, it needs to be attached to the bridge. There's some examples at the end of the doc, and I know of one near me, on the Hope Valley line at New Smithy. It's substantial, and its seen some action:

 

[JKF]

That's just delay repay though, now add in all of the other costs associated with this one...

Not saying adding preventative measures such as metal beams will pay for themselves straight away, but long term thinking is key, you also need to factor in the risk reduction to the railway.

By the time such a program was completed, vehicle technology would have largely solved the problem at no expense to the railway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2026 ==

I should not laugh but I have been watching that channel - 11 foot 8 - for years when I was in the USA and there truly are some idiots and hilarious truck, caravan etc damage.

It’s not just a problem for road vehicles in the US:

 

[Harpo]

I indicated an increased frequency.

Roughly the same annual average number of bridge strikes now as in the year 2000 at around 1600 via a couple of spikes in excess of 2000 hits and a fall back to current levels.

Even if SatNav is taking drivers towards low bridges, unless the system knows both heights and warns the driver and the driver stops, its back to knowing your height and reading signs. Presumably though, a smarter sat nav needs the height to be input by someone who knows it in the first place?

I’ve attached a link below to an article that shows NR’s data as a graph. It also says:

Research conducted by Network Railfound that 32% of drivers admitted to setting off while not being aware of the height of their vehicle

The True Cost of Bridge Strikes | Blog

An analysis on bridge strikes, the areas in the UK in which they are most frequent, and how drivers can ensure they avoid them.

go2stream.com

 

[RJ]

Sat Navs are fine if used responsibly. I use them - but I meticulously plot the route in some time before the journey starts, with as many waypoints as necessary added to force the correct route. This avoids any height restrictions.

They're a very dangerous aide for drivers who don't take the necessary precautions to ensure they are on a safe route. I keep a close eye on what drivers are up to - unfortunately some use a satnav to plot their own route instead of following the one they are given. These people are at very high risk of hitting a bridge and if they do it after being remind of the policy on routes, I don't permit them to drive my vehicles any more.

 

[ac6000cw]

This is statistical data on bridge strikes from the ORR covering the period from 2002-03 to 2020-21 (the ORR stopped publishing the statistics after that year) - https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1442/5240-bridge-strikes.ods

What it shows is that bridge strikes reduced over that period by around 25% (which I suspect might be down to a combination of 'raising awareness' campaigns, improved signage and more use of height-aware Sat Navs etc.).

Note that the vast majority (typically 98-99%) of bridge strikes are listed in the 'Not serious' category.

I'd also comment that the quoted £23 million annual cost of the consequences of bridge strikes, in relation to the roughly £25 billion annual turnover of the UK rail system, is pretty insignificant (less than 0.1% of turnover). Even in relation to NR's annual expenditure of around £14.5 billion (in 2024-2025) it's very small.

On the basis of those numbers, I doubt you could generate much of a business case to invest money in serious physical bridge protection measures, other than for a small number of of very high risk locations.

 

[JKF]

Roughly the same annual average number of bridge strikes now as in the year 2000 at around 1600 via a couple of spikes in excess of 2000 hits and a fall back to current levels.

Even if SatNav is taking drivers towards low bridges, unless the system knows both heights and warns the driver and the driver stops, its back to knowing your height and reading signs. Presumably though, a smarter sat nav needs the height to be input by someone who knows it in the first place?

I’ve attached a link below to an article that shows NR’s data as a graph. It also says:

The True Cost of Bridge Strikes | Blog

An analysis on bridge strikes, the areas in the UK in which they are most frequent, and how drivers can ensure they avoid them.

go2stream.com

Strange that the article states that costs are passed on to the UK taxpayer, surely the driver’s insurance has to meet the cost? Or is the 12 million/year based on costs that couldn’t be recovered e.g. drivers doing a runner or being uninsured?

It’s also worth considering that many bridge strikes will go unreported or even unnoticed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2026 ==

Sat Navs are fine if used responsibly. I use them - but I meticulously plot the route in some time before the journey starts, with as many waypoints as necessary added to force the correct route. This avoids any height restrictions.

They're a very dangerous aide for drivers who don't take the necessary precautions to ensure they are on a safe route. I keep a close eye on what drivers are up to - unfortunately some use a satnav to plot their own route instead of following the one they are given. These people are at very high risk of hitting a bridge and if they do it after being remind of the policy on routes, I don't permit them to drive my vehicles any more.

I’ve had it before where I’ve chosen a route on Google Maps, not the ‘fastest’ one they recommended, but then deviated slightly from that route (in one case because my car was parked facing the opposite direction to what they assumed). When Google ‘recalculated’ the route to account for this deviation it has then set the route back to the ‘recommended’ route and sent me the fastest way again. I can see how this would be an issue if used by an HGV driver having selected a route to avoid a low bridge. Sometimes it will recalculate the route just because a bit of GPS drift makes it think you’ve deviated.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I wasn't aware National Rail ran trains.

National Rail is the umbrella name for Network Rail (whose signallers were responsible for stopping the trains) as well as the TOCs who actually operate them.
So yes, it does.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2026 ==

While I agree entirely with your point, I suspect that that [Ixshott] driver was fortunate that his truck landed on an almost empty train and caused no serious injuries. Had it landed on, or immediately in front of, a well loaded train, he might well have faced manslaughter charges.

It was also reported that the bridge parapwt itself, or the protection it had, was faulty, which meant the culpability was shared with the hifhway authority.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2026 ==

My bold.

There seems to be legislation that requires the overall height (i.e. including the load) to be displayed in the cab of lorries and buses..

Thats all very well, but trying to measure the overall height of the vehicle you have just loaded, possibly in the dark and pouring rain, and on an uneven surface, when it is much taller than you are, is not easy. People WILL cut corners, even thoufh they risk prosecurion for getting it wrong.

 

[Straus]

There's a National Highways document for bridge collision protection beams:

CD 366 Design criteria for collision protection beams

In particular it says:

So lobbing up a beam in front of a bridge isn't allowed, it needs to be attached to the bridge. There's some examples at the end of the doc, and I know of one near me, on the Hope Valley line at New Smithy. It's substantial, and its seen some action:

View attachment 205872
View attachment 205874

There's a similarly substantial installation at Kirkby Stephen on the SAC



So substantial in fact that it appears to be damaging the bridge structure



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2026 ==

National Rail is the umbrella name for Network Rail (whose signallers were responsible for stopping the trains) as well as the TOCs who actually operate them.
So yes, it does.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2026 ==

Who's told you that?

 

[RJ]

I’ve had it before where I’ve chosen a route on Google Maps, not the ‘fastest’ one they recommended, but then deviated slightly from that route (in one case because my car was parked facing the opposite direction to what they assumed). When Google ‘recalculated’ the route to account for this deviation it has then set the route back to the ‘recommended’ route and sent me the fastest way again. I can see how this would be an issue if used by an HGV driver having selected a route to avoid a low bridge. Sometimes it will recalculate the route just because a bit of GPS drift makes it think you’ve deviated.

That's normal for Google Maps which is why extra stops have to be put in as waypoints to stop it rerouting via the quickest route.

PSV and HGV operators should not let drivers to plot their own routes from scratch - somebody should be tasked with route planning and providing the driver with the route to follow for every single trip, and also train them on how to use navigation software if they permit it to be used. That would prevent a lot of bridge strikes. I know a lot of things don't always go to plan with road blockages and closures which is why there should also be a procedure for a driver to call for help if stuck.

If the driver then does the dangerous thing of blindly following a satnav which picks changeable routes on their behalf and also does not observe hazards, warning signs or know the height of their vehicle, it is really on them. That's a lot of things to neglect for someone who drives as profession. Doing that to a bridge then making off is also a curious course of action.

 

[ac6000cw]

National Rail is the umbrella name for Network Rail (whose signallers were responsible for stopping the trains) as well as the TOCs who actually operate them.

Who's told you that?

AFAIK National Rail is a brand/public face of RDG (Rail Delivery Group), which is the industry trade body for the TOCs - see https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/about-us.html

Amongst other things, RDG runs the National Rail website and the phone apps - which effectively makes it the online public face of the railway (beyond the individual TOC websites and apps).

 

[Wyrleybart]

There's a National Highways document for bridge collision protection beams:

CD 366 Design criteria for collision protection beams

In particular it says:

So lobbing up a beam in front of a bridge isn't allowed, it needs to be attached to the bridge. There's some examples at the end of the doc, and I know of one near me, on the Hope Valley line at New Smithy. It's substantial, and its seen some action:

That is interesting. I am sure there used to be separate beams in fromt of a bridge over the A5 near Hinckley. Perhaps they have been removed.

EDIT just googled this bridge and it appears they have skinned the steel beams with bricks. Obviously the A5 "Watling Street" is a totally different classification to the bridge that has been damaged.

www.google.com/maps/@52.5304111,-1.4022726,3a,15y,305.79h,92.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sex9KWlmvzIHrLTyb9ZbMjw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.818583668212014%26panoid%3Dex9KWlmvzIHrLTyb9ZbMjw%26yaw%3D305.7939255803259!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDYxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

 

[blimmo]

There's a National Highways document for bridge collision protection beams:

CD 366 Design criteria for collision protection beams

In particular it says:

So lobbing up a beam in front of a bridge isn't allowed, it needs to be attached to the bridge. There's some examples at the end of the doc, and I know of one near me, on the Hope Valley line at New Smithy. It's substantial, and its seen some action:

View attachment 205872
View attachment 205874

This is what I object to.

Firstly I think it is misrepresenting the Highways Act.

178 Restriction on placing rails, beams etc. over highways.

(1)No person shall fix or place any overhead beam, rail, pipe, cable, wire or other similar apparatus over, along or across a highway without the consent of the highway authority for the highway, and the highway authority may attach to their consent such reasonable terms and conditions as they think fit.

This isn't a prohibition on separate bridge protection beams, merely a requirement for permission.

Secondly there are a number of exceptions in subsection 5 for certain classes of people (civil aviation officers etc.). It would be a very simple law change to include the railway here.

Separate bridge protection beams shouldn't be discouraged by internal policy because of legal issues, they should be standard.

 

[Straus]

AFAIK National Rail is a brand/public face of RDG (Rail Delivery Group), which is the industry trade body for the TOCs - see https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/about-us.html

Amongst other things, RDG runs the National Rail website and the phone apps - which effectively makes it the online public face of the railway (beyond the individual TOC websites and apps).

All of that is true, National Rail is not however an umbrella term for Network Rail (whatever that means)

 

[dosxuk]

I suspect the most likely reason for National Rail appearing in that Police statement is that it was internally referred to as "NR" (meaning Network Rail), and whoever wrote out the statement didn't know the difference between the two. It's not like it materially affects the meaning of the statement.

 

[cats_five]

<snip>
Presumably though, a smarter sat nav needs the height to be input by someone who knows it in the first place?
<snip>

There are Sat Navs specifically for HGV. The dimensions of the truck have to be entered at set up. Possibly the details of several vehicles can be entered and stored as different profiles.

However one has to hope the trucker isn't distracted by their sat nav. The taxi driver the other day was clearly distracted at times.

 

[ac6000cw]

All of that is true, National Rail is not however an umbrella term for Network Rail (whatever that means)

You are correct, but norbitonflyer did refer to both Network Rail and the TOCs, not just Network Rail.

An umbrella term refers to a broad category or group of things ('blanket term' is an alternative) - see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/umbrella_term

 

[DelW]

It was also reported that the bridge parapet itself, or the protection it had, was faulty, which meant the culpability was shared with the highway authority.

The Wikipedia article that I linked previously says that that attempt by the insurer failed, and liability remained with the driver:

In October 2003, Fortis was a party in a legal case in the High Court, to try to recover some of the funds it had paid out. They alleged that the safety barrier was too short, and in a statement said that if it had been longer, the crash would not have happened. On 30 October 2003, the judge ruled that negligence on behalf of the Highways Agency had not been established, and that Hart was the precipitating cause of the accident.

Presumably the equivalent in this case would be "The highway authority should have provided a barrier to prevent my client driving his truck into the bridge". I would hope that any such attempt would similarly fail.

 

[alanbur]

This isn't a prohibition on separate bridge protection beams, merely a requirement for permission.

That's a National Highways document, not a railways one. The segment of the Highways Act you quoted says:

(1)No person shall fix or place any overhead beam, rail, pipe, cable, wire or other similar apparatus over, along or across a highway without the consent of the highway authority for the highway, and the highway authority may attach to their consent such reasonable terms and conditions as they think fit.

National Highways are usually the highway authority for major roads and the terms of their consent is that bridge strike protection has to be attached to the bridge. So yes, it is a prohibition. I think it's unlikely that any other highway authority would have different rules to those of the national HA.

 

[D1537]

See post #210:

To be high risk, this bridge would have to be being bashed on a regular basis.

I used to live near there, and never heard of that particular bridge getting hit, certainly to a level this serious.

There are some that were regulars; the bridge carrying the mainline WCML over Crick Road just south of Rugby used to get a smack on a regular basis.

 

[QueensCurve]

The nearest crossovers southbound from TV Slow (at Attleborough North) to TV Fast and back to TV Slow (at Newbold approaching Rugby) are about 10.5 miles apart, so that capacity will be lost until repairs are carried out.
That's going to complicate pathing on the Up TV Fast, particularly for freight.
These appear to be 50mph crossovers which is good for keeping speeds up.

I don't think there were ever 4 tracks between Shilton and Attleborough.
WCRM reinstated the 4th track between Rugby TV Jn and Shilton further south (but reversed the designations with the Down Slow on the inside and new Down Fast on the outside).

During the gauge-cracking meltdown in 2000, the Fast lines were reduced to 20mph, but the Up Slow stayed at 75mph so most trains were routed over it.

I thought there were 4 tracks reduced to 3 by BR in the mid 1980s. When the Trent Valley 4-tracking was done 20 years later I believe the 4th was not reinstated there because an M42 bridge built meanwhile had insufficient clearance.

 

[Oxfordblues]

1S78 lost 41 minutes between High Oaks and Attleborough just now, with a long queue of trains behind. I wonder if this is related?

 

[peter.owen]

1S78 lost 41 minutes between High Oaks and Attleborough just now, with a long queue of trains behind. I wonder if this is related?

There's a broken rail between Rugby and Nuneaton.

Incident: Rugby | National Rail

Disruption between Rugby and Nuneaton expected until 19:00. Find details of all current incidents on National Rail Enquiries.

www.nationalrail.co.uk

 

[DelW]

I thought there were 4 tracks reduced to 3 by BR in the mid 1980s. When the Trent Valley 4-tracking was done 20 years later I believe the 4th was not reinstated there because an M42 bridge built meanwhile had insufficient clearance.

Joints in the abutment brickwork suggest that the original bridge was widened by the addition of one additional track on the east side. The current three tracks seem to be symmetrical on the deck, and there's no sign of the abutments ever having been longer.

The 1892 - 1914 OS 25" map on the NLS site shows 3 tracks, with no additional width either at the bridge or on the adjacent embankments, as does the 1944 - 1975 25" map on the same site (link here). So while that's not 100% conclusive, it seems unlikely that there have ever been more than three tracks there.

 

[ac6000cw]

I thought there were 4 tracks reduced to 3 by BR in the mid 1980s. When the Trent Valley 4-tracking was done 20 years later I believe the 4th was not reinstated there because an M42 bridge built meanwhile had insufficient clearance.

This is a quote from the 'WarwickshireRailways.com' page about Brinklow station:

The station was originally built with two platforms but with the increase in traffic, particularly coal from the North Warwickshire Coalfields, a third line was installed - the up slow line - which resulted in an island platform being provided servicing both up lines.

This third line ran between Bulkington and Rugby and was opened on 14th August 1871. Initially this third line was purely used for goods traffic but was later upgraded as a 'slow line' in June 1876. The last twenty years of the 19th century saw an ever increasing amount of traffic resulting in the LNWR applying for permission to widen 13 miles, 4 furlongs, 2 chains of the Trent Valley line between Rugby and Nuneaton. However, other than the sections between Rugby and Brinklow, and Attleborough Sidings and Nuneaton, this was not carried out. More powerful locomotives and increased capacity elsewhere reduced the need for continuous quadruple track.

Also from the 'Trent Valley' page on that site (in the 'Widening of the route from two to up to four lines' section):

Brinklow - Attleborough (Nuneaton) only ever had three lines; no Down Slow - due to the proximity of the Oxford Canal.

 

[The Planner]

I thought there were 4 tracks reduced to 3 by BR in the mid 1980s. When the Trent Valley 4-tracking was done 20 years later I believe the 4th was not reinstated there because an M42 bridge built meanwhile had insufficient clearance.

The M42 crosses the Trent Valley at Tamworth, its 4 tracks there. Its 3 tracks where the M69 crosses it which opened in 1977. Its never been 4 tracks along there.

 

[Edders23]

The lorry concerned belonged to a coventry based skip hire service which was incorporated in 2001 so I assume they have plenty of local knowledge of the area. I can only think that they perhaps had a new driver although, apparently he was in his 60's or just had never had a booking in that area. Skip lorry drivers should be well aware of the height of their vehicle as they tend to get all over the place.

I suspect this incident will result in a court case and the truth will come out then. It will be interesting to see if bridge repairs can be accomplished with live tracks crossing the bridge.

 

[Unobrow]

PSV and HGV operators should not let drivers to plot their own routes from scratch - somebody should be tasked with route planning and providing the driver with the route to follow for every single trip, and also train them on how to use navigation software if they permit it to be used. That would prevent a lot of bridge strikes. I know a lot of things don't always go to plan with road blockages and closures which is why there should also be a procedure for a driver to call for help if stuck.

As an ex-HGV driver of nearly 3 decades, I find that suggestion both insulting and laughable to the true professional drivers. Probably quite unworkable too in the real world of today’s traffic issues. Part of being a professional is knowing your height, length, restrictions with ADR etc. It’s down to poor training and changing attitudes that make all classes of driver so bad now.

 

[jfollows]

The M42 crosses the Trent Valley at Tamworth, its 4 tracks there. Its 3 tracks where the M69 crosses it which opened in 1977. Its never been 4 tracks along there.

The major change, dating back to 1980 or so, was to introduce reversible signalling on the up fast, so that any one out of the three lines could be closed but allowing a two track railway to continue. Prior to the change, there was only one line signalled in the down direction. Before the change, the layout was as shown in the attachment here.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There are Sat Navs specifically for HGV. The dimensions of the truck have to be entered at set up. Possibly the details of several vehicles can be entered and stored as different profiles.

However one has to hope the trucker isn't distracted by their sat nav. The taxi driver the other day was clearly distracted at times.

One difference would be that HGVs are 24v and car type satnavs are 12v.
However, looking at the vehicle size and taking into account the age of the driver, it's probably a 7 1/2 tonne which can be driven on a car licence by drivers who passed their car test before a certain date (???1997) and I guess most 7 1/2 tonnes are 12v

My theory about the damage is that the upper arm of the lorry went underneath the bridge in a trailing movement, i.e. forward movement pressed it down against the hydraulic pressure.. When the driver tried to reverse that arm dug into the beam and pushed out upwards. Bit like trying to get a wasp sting out.