33011
Member
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 300
Yet another bridge bash on the Lymington Branch this is roughly the tenth this year on the branch
-
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!
Bridge Bash Lymington Branch
- Thread starter 33011
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
33011
Member
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 300
That was the first chance I had to post it. I work at Lymington Town and was just pointing out that we are averaging 1 a month.
33011
Member
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 300
No not the same bridge every time there are four low bridges I think. I heard it was Ampress bridge today and I think that one tends to get clobbered more than the others being on the main road. I wonder how many are due to sat navs? Do they make a HGV/PCV version? If not someone should invent one
Yes, but many of these mickey mouse firms won't pay for it. No-one is going to force them to act responsibly, and the costs of their blunders are not passed on to those responsible, so it will keep happening. :-x
GearJammer
Member
Was it an HGV that hit the bridge? Nice to see were getting the blame again, i seen a picture this week of a tractor and trailer that hit a rail bridge, ive also seen numerous pictures of buses hitting bridges.
Maybe the signage needs to be improved as most signs don't state the truth anyway, as proved by the fact that only yesterday i took my 14'6 truck under a 14'3 bridge, and earlier in the week i took it under a 14'0 bridge..... so whos at fault?
Maybe the signage needs to be improved as most signs don't state the truth anyway, as proved by the fact that only yesterday i took my 14'6 truck under a 14'3 bridge, and earlier in the week i took it under a 14'0 bridge..... so whos at fault?
Gulp! :cry:
Signs are meant to be at 0", 3", 6" or 9", so you will not get a precise height.
It is also a clearance, not the physical height.
They are also designed to under-read; a bridge with 14'5 gap will be signed as 14'3 at the most, so a 14'4 lorry will fit under.
Of course, you have the two sets of signs as well, the triangular warning: "Warning! This bridge has a 14'3 clearance! Taller vehicles may have a problem here!" and the circular mandatory sign: "This bridge has a clearance of 14'3. Taller vehicles MUST NOT pass this point."
Other than the hopefully extremely rare case where a sign erroneously indicates a higher clearance than actually available or is missing, it is pretty much always 100% the driver's fault (there might be some other rare cases, but I can't think what they will be right now).
Some thoughts for you to ponder:
Will your 14'6" truck fit under that same 14'0" bridge when it's empty, as well as when it's loaded?
If you've got air suspension, what about if there's a fault in the system that causes it to ride a little higher than normal?
What about just after a service where the suspension was worked on?
What if you are driving a different vehicle which is also marked 14'6"?
What about a bridge where the road dips down as it goes under the bridge? On a longer wheelbase truck than the one you drove last time?
Are you prepared to bet your license, insurance, career, etc on it?
The one thing which seems guaranteed to happen if you routinely treat these signs with casual contempt, is that YOU WILL CAUSE AN INCIDENT, sooner or later!
33011
Member
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 300
Last edited:
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
GearJammer:1570560 said:
Got to wonder then how many 'bashess have been caused by truckers (or indeed drivers of other large vehicles) assuming that the plates were wrong and going tanking straight at the bridge?! Can't be a particularly good tactic.
My £100 TomTom has a HGV setting where you input dimensions of your HGV when you select HGV mode
Darren R
Established Member
Now there's a glimpse inside the mind of a trucker...now I understand why bridge strikes are so common. :roll: I always wonder what part of 'low bridge' it is that drivers don't understand - it turns out they think the signs are telling porkies!
Last edited:
PermitToTravel
Established Member
This is precisely what causes bridge bashes.
No! A vehicle 14'6" will fit under a 14'0" Bridge.
See section 4 to the traffic signs manual, para 7.7.
According to that link a 14'6 will not fit,
this suggests that a 14'5 is the tallest that should fit under a 14'0. This article implies take the height knock off 3 inches and round down to the nearest 3inches. 14'6 knock off 3' will be 14'3 rounded to the nearest 3' will leave 14'3.
There was an incident about 12 months ago where a truck driver had been driving his truck under a bridge every day for several years so knew it fitted. One day he hit the bridge and couldn't understand why. Investigation found that the road was resurfaced and the surface was several inches higher leaving less clearance and the council were deemed responsible for the incident for not updating the signs.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
richw:1572166 said:
But crucially, was the bridge plated to allow the lorry through or not? I can't imagine a council being blamed for somebody driving a lorry straight into a bridge which carried a sign stating that it was too low for the vehicle - regardless of how many times they had done it in the past!
Even as a PCV licence holder I had genuinely never even considered that a bridge bash could occur for any reason other than catastrophic inattention at the crucial moment. However, I'm honestly wondering how many of them have been down to a driver totally ignoring the warning signs because they thought they knew better!?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
I know people laugh at me when I suggest things like this.....
But if I ever did see an argument for a rollout of a new railway network based around high speed trains..... this is a good one.
I doubt HS1 has any low bridges....
But if I ever did see an argument for a rollout of a new railway network based around high speed trains..... this is a good one.
I doubt HS1 has any low bridges....
Some of them have been the driver being caught out, as they only ever drive under a certain bridge on passenger service in a double decker.
They do a special service (school bus, for example) and terminate happily.
Running ECS back to the depot (with no defined route for the move), they know the shortest route is to go that way, so off they go.
*splat*
OuterDistant
Member
How about this: in the event of a bridge bash, the lorry's owner is fined £10,000 for every inch the lorry's height is over the height on the sign.
Gwenllian2001
Member
Most, if not all, bridge bashes could be prevented by a bar spanning the road a few yards in advance of the bridge itself.
High Dyke
Established Member
Living in a location with two of the most bashed bridges in the country i agree it would be a good suggestion. It was suggested where i live only for the local council / civic society to disagree - citing they would look unsightly, amongst the reasons for not wanting them.
An incident on one of the out-of-town bridges was avoided recently. The German lorry driver feigning to have poor English language skills when stopped, before he attempted to drive his overheight vehicle under a bridge; he soon changed his attitude when he was addressed in his native tongue.
I too hold a PSV licence (yes i know it's now a PCV licence). One of my former employers always complained at me because i refused to take a double-deck bus under the railwy bridge adjacent to their depot. The bridge has the circular signs stating the height - all of their buses were taller than the height shown on the bridge - even though two of the vehicles would actually go under the bridge. The company found out the hard way one day...
Last edited:
How's about the railway authority be instructed to increase all bridges to the national height of 16'6" to prevent them all?
Llanigraham
On Moderation
And how do you suggest they do that?
The bridge that took the Newquay Branch over the A30 (before the road was massively rebuilt to a new alignment) use to have everything short of a steel bar over the road- it had over height detection some way up the road that triggered multiple flashing signs and sirens.
Which were routinely ignored.
Which were routinely ignored.
GearJammer
Member
Thats a brilliant idea! :grin:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Dig the road out and improve the foundations to the bridge! Or increase the height of the railway..... or both!
Whose going to pay for it?
Buttsy
Established Member
I would suggest the opposite in that the Highways Agency are required to pay for all the bridges to be raised to 16' 6", as the railway bridge was there before the tall lorry was built. Putting the onus on councils/highways agency would no doubt improve signage etc and all the 'delay minutes' caused by the bridge strike, recoverable from those parties, rather than Network Rail.
I personally cannot see why road bridges over/under railways are not the responsibility of the Highways Agency, all other bridges appear to the their responsibility (or the local council's).
It appears to be, as in most level crossing incidents, it is the railway's responsibility to deal with the mess ignorant/inattentive drivers cause by striking bridges.
- Status