Trainman40083
Established Member
These skip lorries sure cause some damage at speed.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Report of Partial Bridge Collapse WCML 11/6
- Thread starter SCDR_WMR
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Nottingham59
Established Member
Part of the signage is visible in post #2, where the yellow L and O of the LOW BRIDGE warning panel can be seen almost edge on, lying on the ground before the main structural beam with the yellow chevron markings.
Exactly, even the cost of inspection and disruption from a bridge strike that causes no damage probably outweighs the cost of said preventative measure...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That would suggest the laws preventing such measures aren't really fit for purpose.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,634
I personally think that one was overkill, around bridges etc yes, middle of nowhere? Not so sure.
Except that, even where there are bridge protection beams, any reported strike still requires the same response as the site has to be inspected to be sure it is just the protection beam damaged, and not the structure itself. Which causes disruption, obviously.
Last edited:
Suppose it also helps prevent cable theft.
What happens when/if the driver doesn't stop?
If you agree to add cameras, & increase the penalties for the associated offences, then it might work.
But those penalties would have to be extremely severe, we're talking loss of driving licence for life & custodial sentences.
Fair enough.
Nottingham59
Established Member
Tbey have overheight detection and warning signs with flashing lights on the A606 bridge at Tollerton, just outside Nottingham, and it still gets hit regularly.
I have no idea of exactly what happened here, but if the driver of the offending vehicle has driven off without reporting it, with the damage as it is, I think he (or she) will be lucky to avoid a spell at His Majesty’s pleasure. It would be a special kind of stupid to leave a decent chunk of what is obviously railway on the ground and drive off without telling anyone. Now of course he (of she) may well have reported it and been advised by the authorities to head off. I guess the police investigation will ascertain the facts.
Unobrow
Member
I agree, and I suspect the traffic commissioner may well be having their licence entitlement away (assuming they have one) for quite a while.
If the beam is free standing a distance from the bridge then surely no inspection would be necessary. I appreciate that's apparently not currently legal, but imo changing that would be worth it for the reduction in disruption.
Only for the company to reappear under a different name and the O Licence held by someone else...
It will be chaos today. Starting the day’s service (tomorrow) already in a contingency for plan is considerably easier. Of course stock displacement may be an issue.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
That has to be the worst consequences of a bridge bash to ever grace the pages of this forum.
If the rest of the bridge beams haven't been disturbed looks like they should be able to get two tracks back as long as no damge to the signalling cables that are hanging in the air.
If the rest of the bridge beams haven't been disturbed looks like they should be able to get two tracks back as long as no damge to the signalling cables that are hanging in the air.
An inspection will always be necessary. Granted, if the beam is some distance from the railway the the disruption would be limited to the road itself.
Having said that, the lack of clarity of reports received for bridge bashes means that even a protection beam ‘bash’ some distance from the railway would be likely to cause disruption to the railway. A not-insignificant proportion of reported bridge bashes are reported at the wrong bridge.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Concrete is a ceramic. No way in hell is it going to be reused.
Yep, two track (with restrictions) tomorrow, subject to overnight tests, would be my half educated guess.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Yes even a 20 mph TSR would not be vastly restrictive.
Yep, but I suspect that won’t be necessary.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
If as indicated the vehicle got trapped and then dislodged the bridge beam by reversing back the rest of the beams should be secure.However, if that is what happened i find it somewhat surprising skip lorry can exert sufficent force to dislodge a beam.
Class15
Established Member
Far earlier than that, 4L17 was sent down the T.V. from Stafford and is electrically hauled so can’t go via Leicester.
yes I saw that but didn’t know what was on the front, so held fire pending a potential divert left or right at Nuneaton. But as it’s electric, I agree it’s very likely to go straight on.
thenorthern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 May 2013
- Messages
- 4,710
In regards trucks most trucks now have sat navs which warn drivers if they are using a bridge that is too low for the truck to fit under. These sat navs are normally very accurate in warning drivers that they can't go down certain routes.
I and no one on this forum knows the full facts of the incident and it's a matter for the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and Warwickshire Police to decide the outcome of the incident.
I and no one on this forum knows the full facts of the incident and it's a matter for the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and Warwickshire Police to decide the outcome of the incident.