Report of Partial Bridge Collapse WCML 11/6

[blimmo]

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



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.

I disagree. The document says:

The collision protection beam (CPB) and its supports must form an integral part of the existing structure in accordance with the Highways Act 1980

This is a misrepresentation of the law. It suggests that any CPB which was not an integral part of the existing structure would be illegal under the Highways Act 1980. The Act does not make such a structure illegal if the highway authority consented to it. Not saying so in my opinion misrepresents the law and is an attempt to avoid responsibility.

Additionally that section outlines an appeals process against the highways authority. Suggesting that such a CPB is illegal without qualification looks to me like an attempt to prevent anyone from requesting permission and forcing the highways authority to justify their refusal at appeal.

 

[Merle Haggard]

/snip/

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.

Most of the impacts with bridges seem to be by box van semi-trailers. Many seem to have their height thoughtfully painted on them. Accept that 5th wheel height might vary but it is a fixed amount that should be available to the driver. Double deck buses easy, too.

I accept that your explaining and not defending, but doing a brake continuity test on a maximum length freight train in the dark and pouring rain is similarly difficult, but I expect that if the staff involved didn't bother because it was a bit difficult there might well be repercussions. Same with moving check on free wheel rotation/ brakes release. Difference between road and other forma of transport, some operators in the former chance it & regard penalties as just a cost of operation.

 

[cats_five]

One difference would be that HGVs are 24v and car type satnavs are 12v.

Yes their electric systems are 24v, but I suspect the 'cigarette lighter' socket used for power output is 12v. I found a 12v lead as an accessory for a Garmin truck sat nav.

 

[Spaceship323]

There's 2 batteries on a 7 1/2 tonne truck, so they must have 24v systems, dropped to 12v for radio and cigar lighter socket

 

[stuving]

If you look up its registration, it's a 32T rigid. With a single central arm it won't be a skip carrier, most likely it's a tipper with a grab.

 

[hwl]

If you look up its registration, it's a 32T rigid. With a single central arm it won't be a skip carrier, most likely it's a tipper with a grab.

It is a ro-ro skip lorry with cental high level grab hook.

 

[QueensCurve]

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.

I could have sworn I remember travelling shortly after a track was removed. Maybe I never noticed the absence of the 4th track and made an assumption when the bidirectional facility was introduced.

 

[The Planner]

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.

That down fast/slow arrangement left something to be desired!

 

[alanbur]

I disagree.

Good for you. But I should point out that I'm not a highways authority, so disagreeing with me doesn’t make any difference. The rules are set by Highways England, and they are clear.

This is a misrepresentation of the law. It suggests that any CPB which was not an integral part of the existing structure would be illegal under the Highways Act 1980. The Act does not make such a structure illegal if the highway authority consented to it. Not saying so in my opinion misrepresents the law and is an attempt to avoid responsibility.

The Act says:

the highway authority may attach to their consent such reasonable terms and conditions as they think fit

The Highways Authority have stated their terms and conditions are that the protection is attached to the bridge. There's no attempt here to misrepresent the law or avoid responsibility, the law says they are allowed to specify terms, which they have, and those terms are that it has to be attached to the bridge.

Additionally that section outlines an appeals process against the highways authority. Suggesting that such a CPB is illegal without qualification looks to me like an attempt to prevent anyone from requesting permission and forcing the highways authority to justify their refusal at appeal.

Appeal to who on the basis of what, exactly? It certainly couldn't be on a legal basis because them specifying requirements is in accordance with the law. If it's a practical matter, I suggest you reference Section 4 of the document which makes it obvious why the CPB has to be attached rather than freestanding.

4. Design
4.1 A CPB installation shall comprise:
1) the CPB itself and any fixings, which is to be replaceable following impact damage; and
2) the supporting structure, which is to be designed to survive an impact on the CPB in an undamaged state.
4.2 The CPB shall not be weakened by an impact up to the design load, so that it can remain in place and effective after impact without requiring structural repairs.
4.3 On impact, the CPB shall not fragment or collapse onto the road below.

 

[blimmo]

Appeal to who on the basis of what, exactly?

The Act says:

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person aggrieved by the refusal of a consent under subsection (1) above, or by any terms or conditions attached to such a consent, may appeal to a magistrates’ court

I have no idea what the basis for such an appeal would be tbh, the law doesn't seem to say.

If it's a practical matter, I suggest you reference Section 4 of the document which makes it obvious why the CPB has to be attached rather than freestanding.

That is certainly the Highways authority's opinion on how all CPBs must be. I could certainly see the argument that such requirements don't maximise the safety of everyone, maybe the magistrate would agree.

Anyway there's already a bunch of exceptions for various service providers in subsection (5), it would be a trivial amendment to add the railway authority to that list.

 

[Signal Head]

Good for you. But I should point out that I'm not a highways authority, so disagreeing with me doesn’t make any difference. The rules are set by Highways England, and they are clear.

The Act says:

The Highways Authority have stated their terms and conditions are that the protection is attached to the bridge. There's no attempt here to misrepresent the law or avoid responsibility, the law says they are allowed to specify terms, which they have, and those terms are that it has to be attached to the bridge.

Appeal to who on the basis of what, exactly? It certainly couldn't be on a legal basis because them specifying requirements is in accordance with the law. If it's a practical matter, I suggest you reference Section 4 of the document which makes it obvious why the CPB has to be attached rather than freestandingf the bridge itself isn't capable of with

Good for you. But I should point out that I'm not a highways authority, so disagreeing with me doesn’t make any difference. The rules are set by Highways England, and they are clear.

The Act says:

The Highways Authority have stated their terms and conditions are that the protection is attached to the bridge. There's no attempt here to misrepresent the law or avoid responsibility, the law says they are allowed to specify terms, which they have, and those terms are that it has to be attached to the bridge.

Appeal to who on the basis of what, exactly? It certainly couldn't be on a legal basis because them specifying requirements is in accordance with the law. If it's a practical matter, I suggest you reference Section 4 of the document which makes it obvious why the CPB has to be attached rather than freestanding.

So put the CPB on its own legs, close to the bridge, then brace it against the abutments - not the deck.
Requiring a CPB in all cases to be attached and supported by the bridge alone is a nonsense, the installation needs to take account of the bridge's construction.

If the bridge isn't capable of resisting the force of a direct collision without sustaining damage which could make it unsafe, then simply attaching a CPB which transfers the whole of the collision force to it isn't going to achieve much.

As examples, a substantial brick arch bridge isn't likely to move bodily when struck, but is at risk from repeated gouging damage to the underside. In that case a CPB attached to the face of the bridge will provide protection.
For a steel deck on abutments which can be forced out of alignment if struck by something heavy/fast enough, attaching a CPB to the deck won't do any good apart from stopping the paint from being scratched.

 

[alanbur]

For a steel deck on abutments which can be forced out of alignment if struck by something heavy/fast enough, attaching a CPB to the deck won't do any good apart from stopping the paint from being scratched.

Read the document.

 

[Signal Head]

Read the document.

I have.
It states free standing structures are considered an obstruction and that the CPB must form part of the existing structure.

Elsewhere it states "CPBs should be designed as bridge-type structures", and since a bridge in its simplest form consists of upright supports and a horizontal beam, that would appear to permit a CPB on its own vertical supports, but also. "The supporting structure connects the CPB to the existing structure", so the supporting structure just needs to connect to the existing structure, as I wrote, which can be achieved by bracing the 'bridge-type structure' to the existing bridge at suitable points, then the resulting combination complies with the document.

 

[alanbur]

I have

All of Section 4, not just cherry picked bits. I quoted it earlier.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The rules are set by Highways England

National Highways

/pedant

 

[alanbur]

/pedant

No, just not right

 

[MrJeeves]

No, just not right

Highways England doesn't exist anymore, so it is National Highways.

Just like all the bridges which still say to call Railtrack if you hit them, that doesn't mean they're still managed by Railtrack because that's now Network Rail.

If you had said the rules were set by Highways England, the pedantry would be unjustified.

 

[alanbur]

If you had said the rules were set by Highways England, the pedantry would be unjustified.

 

[Dave61]

if you’re 50m from the bridge you might as well string a thin wire across (or a laser) and if it’s broken a standard traffic light in front of the bridge changes to red, with an accompanying illuminated sign saying vehicle overheight. Using a regular traffic light will be something a driver would react to almost automatically by habit.

Seen that in action and the lorry driver just kept on going, seen from behind it was hard to tell how far away it was but it looked very close. I guess they did that route a lot and knew what they could get away with - until they don't

 

[SuspectUsual]

No, just not right

Highways England became National Highways in summer 2021. One of my kids works for them

 

[Spartacus]

So put the CPB on its own legs, close to the bridge, then brace it against the abutments - not the deck.
Requiring a CPB in all cases to be attached and supported by the bridge alone is a nonsense, the installation needs to take account of the bridge's construction.

If the bridge isn't capable of resisting the force of a direct collision without sustaining damage which could make it unsafe, then simply attaching a CPB which transfers the whole of the collision force to it isn't going to achieve much.

As examples, a substantial brick arch bridge isn't likely to move bodily when struck, but is at risk from repeated gouging damage to the underside. In that case a CPB attached to the face of the bridge will provide protection.
For a steel deck on abutments which can be forced out of alignment if struck by something heavy/fast enough, attaching a CPB to the deck won't do any good apart from stopping the paint from being scratched.

If you're bracing it againt the bridge you'll be in exactly the same position as now.

 

[AndrewE]

If you're bracing it against the bridge you'll be in exactly the same position as now.

maybe not if it is mounted off the very solid abutments rather than the deck... (as @Signal Head said.)

 

[Spartacus]

maybe not if it is mounted off the very solid abutments rather than the deck... (as @Signal Head said.)

They usually are mounted on the abutments, A5 Watling Street at Hinckley, a common strike location, has huge ones mounted on extended abutments, but you still need to check things if there's a strike. The problems comes where you've an arched bridge and no abutments to begin with.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there any news about repair timescales, or any sign of preparatory work at the site?

 

[Russel]

Is there any news about repair timescales, or any sign of preparatory work at the site?

I'm curious to hear what timescale there is for repairs also, Marston Lane is a handy short cut for me so would be nice for it not to be closed indefinitely while the powers that be argue over what shade of grey the new concrete should be...

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm curious to hear what timescale there is for repairs also, Marston Lane is a handy short cut for me so would be nice for it not to be closed indefinitely while the powers that be argue over what shade of grey the new concrete should be...

Just had a look at opentraintimes maps and the up slow over the bridge seems to be in use again? It’s all gone a bit quiet on this problem, but is that a full repair or just temporary?

 

[Russel]

Just had a look at opentraintimes maps and the up slow over the bridge seems to be in use again? It’s all gone a bit quiet on this problem, but is that a full repair or just temporary?

Good question, I've not been that way since the incident so not sure if the road has reopened or not, I'd be interested to know what the situation is.

 

[Vexed]

Good question, I've not been that way since the incident so not sure if the road has reopened or not, I'd be interested to know what the situation is.

It's still shown as closed on one.network but I don't know how quick this would be updated. It says closed until August.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just had a look at opentraintimes maps and the up slow over the bridge seems to be in use again? It’s all gone a bit quiet on this problem, but is that a full repair or just temporary?

It reopened on Tuesday last week. I understood a temporary repair was being considered, and assume that is what was done, unless there was some sharp work with some precast segments off the shelf.

 

[Russel]

It reopened on Tuesday last week. I understood a temporary repair was being considered, and assume that is what was done, unless there was some sharp work with some precast segments off the shelf.

What would a temporary repair look like on something like this?