Railway bridges struck by road vehicles - merged topic, ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[LiskeardRich]

Beat me to it! I just spotted a BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) story about the same thing.

I maybe mistaken but I'm sure that's a 4.1m high trailer, which "should" fit under the bridge which is signed as 4.2m. (There should be a tolerance as well, to prevent a 4.2m high vehicle scraping along)

[TonyK]

I maybe mistaken but I'm sure that's a 4.1m high trailer, which "should" fit under the bridge which is signed as 4.2m. (There should be a tolerance as well, to prevent a 4.2m high vehicle scraping along)

Well it didn't! As my grandmother told me long ago: "So long as what you're putting it in is bigger that what you're putting into it, you'll be fine".

Sage words which have got me through life thus far.

[JayMac]

Much chatter locally that the height plates for that bridge in Taunton are as much as 3" out. Bridge should be showing as 13' 6" (with tolerance) following a resurfacing of the road.

More vehicles that were marginal in the past for clearance are now being damaged. Even the local bus operator has been caught out with double deckers that previous cleared the bridge no longer safe to do so. There's a good chance that today's incident would have been avoided had the curtain side been fully laden. That's how marginal the clearance, based on what may be an incorrectly signed height, is.

Whilst the old road surface was scraped away the last time it was resurfaced there is a belief locally that a thicker composite and asphalt top was used. With no one bothering to check the minimum clearance after.

[stuving]

...
Whilst the old road surface was scraped away the last time it was resurfaced there is a belief locally that a thicker composite and asphalt top was used. With no one bothering to check the minimum clearance after.

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s "Prevention of Strikes on Bridges over Highways ^ a Protocol for Highway Managers & Bridge Owners" is pretty explicit (Appendix A):

A.1 Highway repairs under bridges
A.1.1 No surfacing works including full depth reconstruction, plane off and inlay, surface dressing or overlay should be undertaken in the vicinity of any bridge without the proposal and its implications being discussed with the Highway Authority^s Bridge Engineer and the bridge owner, if different, and their agreements to the proposal obtained. This is due to the potential for uncontrolled reductions in headroom under the bridge to occur leading to an increase in incidences of bridge strikes.

This applies to all bridges, whether a bridge with a maintained headroom less than the standard minimum maintained headroom of 16^ (5.03m), below which all bridges should be signed, or a bridge with an actual minimum headroom greater than this limit.

The maintained headroom as specified in TD 2711 Chapter 6 must not be reduced at any time. The difference between the minimum measured headroom with the maintained headroom will determine, along with other local issues, the possibility of overlaying.

A.1.2 Obligations to consult and serve notice under the New Roads and Street Works Act16 must also be followed for such works.

A.1.3 In any such situation, there must always be a presumption against raising surfacing levels and so reducing headroom. Occasions when this might be allowed are strictly limited and must be controlled by the Highway Authority^s Bridge Engineer and agreed with the Rail Authority or other bridge owner.

Rail Authorities do, at certain sites, have a legal obligation to provide a minimum clearance and this must not be compromised by any proposal without formal agreement from all involved parties.

A.1.4 There are potentially very serious implications arising from possible changes in headroom as a result of surfacing work. Checking the available clearance under the bridge must therefore be carried out both before and after surfacing, the latter being before traffic is allowed back on the carriageway, to confirm compliance with the agreed design. If an unsanctioned, unprotected reduction in clearance has occurred, immediate corrective action must be taken before allowing traffic access.

A.1.5 If there is a change in headroom agreed by both parties, especially one which reduces available headroom on signed bridges, the responsibility for changing all related signs at, on and in advance of the bridge, and also on related directional signs to indicate the new signed height for the bridge before traffic is allowed access is vested with the Highway Authority. Signs to diagram 7014.1 (see Figure 2) should be provided at the site for a maximum of six months to advise drivers of the change.

A.1.6 Reductions in clearance under unsigned bridges must at no time reduce the available minimum headroom below that for the maintained headroom for the type of bridge involved.

A.1.7 If work has been undertaken which results in increased headroom, signing must be amended or removed, as appropriate, as soon as possible and again the Highway Authority is responsible for the changing or removing the signs.

That document may only describe itself as guidance, but I'd have thought a lawyer could find enough to get a case going.

[TonyK]

That document may only describe itself as guidance, but I'd have thought a lawyer could find enough to get a case going.

And so would I. Were I the vehicle operator or his insurer, I would have a surveyor measuring that bridge to the absolute millimetre, before someone comes to rejig the road surface or change the height warning sign, and a stiff letter to the Highways Agency and Somerset County Council taking shape on the computer. That picture suggests that, whilst not the sort of total wipeout you see in many of the other pictures in this thread, it is more than just a glancing blow. It looks expensive, too. Of course, if the height under the bridge is as advertised and the height of the trailer is greater, I would keep schtum and hope no-one remembers.

If it does turn out that the road surface was raised during the works bignosemac mentioned (and I remember seeing them myself), I would expect settlement of the matter without litigation. Guidance is, as stuving says, only guidance. With such guidance, however, you should look not just at what is being said but also who is saying it, and why they think it necessary to say it. The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) is the policy-making body for all matters transport in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), in tandem with the EU^» (European Union - about) for national routes (at least at present). Like the international protocols on altitudes and flight levels in aviation, the purpose is to introduce and fix one standard for the whole country so that a 4.3 metre gap under a bridge in Auchtermuchty is the same as a 4.3 metre gap under a bridge in Nempnet Thrubwell (were there bridges in either place). The avoidance of anarchy in road works is a noble aim, and anyone resurfacing a road ignores guidance at their peril.

[Bmblbzzz]

Taunton station railway bridge claimed a victim this morning, Tone FM got excited and have a large collection of videos and photos on their Facebook and website

http://tonefm.co.uk/news/rush-hour-gridlock-lorry-gets-stuck-taunton-station-bridge/

Commuters have been at the centre of traffic chaos this morning as a HGV underestimated the height of a Taunton bridge.

A SPARKS lorry wedged itself underneath the Taunton Train Station Bridge on Station Road at around 8:15am today.

These images show the extend of damage to the goods vehicle and the traffic congestion caused by the incident.

My bold. Firstly, it overestimated the height rather than underestimating it. More importantly, did the HGV do this all on its own or did the driver have a hand in this?

[Chris from Nailsea]

... under a bridge in Nempnet Thrubwell (were there bridges in either place).

It's actually Nempnett Thrubwell (a small village in North Somerset, for the benefit of the uninitiated), and I can confirm that there are no bridges there (I'm becoming an expert on roads in that area). 

[Bmblbzzz]

Definitely no railways near Nempnett Thrubwell but I'll testify to some awfully steep, though mercifully short, hills.

[JayMac]

On the old A30 near Roche, Cornwall. Cornish Times - http://bit.ly/1P4hwJ9

[Chris from Nailsea]

The combined area of that yellow and black warning signage must be more than the size of the lorry itself: how did the driver apparently not see that?? 

[Bmblbzzz]

Wasn't aware of the height of his vehicle? The lorry's position does highlight that much of the danger of bridge strikes is to other road users.

[chrisr_75]

Another fairly spectacular one in London this time:

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) News:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939

[Bmblbzzz]

Surely a bridge being hit twice a month merits some serious preventative action being taken? Perhaps rebuilding the bridge or lowering the road, or installing girders a hundred yards ahead of the bridge so that they get hit instead.

[ellendune]

Surely a bridge being hit twice a month merits some serious preventative action being taken? Perhaps rebuilding the bridge or lowering the road, or installing girders a hundred yards ahead of the bridge so that they get hit instead.

The article says that

It has also installed a large steel protection beam, the large "low bridge" banner and CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision).

Installing girders ahead of the bridge is not always practical because of neighbouring properties.  Lowering the road may be possible, but you would need to be careful not to created a flood spot. Rebuilding the bridge at a higher level is likely to be very expensive as it is a very large bridge (both span and width) and it would also mean raising the platform levels through the adjacent Tulse Hill station and possibly rebuilding the footbridge there.

[LiskeardRich]

Installing CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) is going to do what to prevent a truck driver crashing into it?