Jump to content

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Regarding vehicle heights; why do scrap dealers' tipper lorries have such high bodies above the chassis? 

Do you mean the ones with a rectangular body? If so, it's because there are two longitudinal girders under the body, and two above the vehicle chassis, allowing the body to be rolled off and left on site or at the yard. It's similar in concept to the DROPS system used by the military.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Regarding vehicle heights; why do scrap dealers' tipper lorries have such high bodies above the chassis? 

Because the load is of low density. Rather like coke rails fitted to a coal wagon.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

bridge bash.jpg

 

I hope there's a height restriction sign at the roadside, as it's difficult to read the one on the bridge, due to the skew of it. I do like the banner attached to the safety railings, that's a big hint if ever there was one.

 

I have just googled Archbold Logistics and they are in Heywood in Lancashire, so probably another car type satnav is being used.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Car transporters are not allowed on the former A45 through Kimbolton.  It's not because of low bridges, they kept banging high walls and buildings with the overhanging bits that project over the cab at a tight 90 degree corner.  Other long vehicles don't seem to have this problem.

I recall reading that some modern high capacity car transporters are cleverly designed to extend as they go around corners. To meet the rules they have to be within a set length when on the public road in a straight line. To achieve this whilst maximising capacity/profits they make the tractor and trailer units sit very close together so they can get an extra car or two on the load. When they go around a corner the drawbar automatically extends enough to prevent the two ends touching, making the vehicle longer. Add in the often considerable front and rear overhangs that seem to dangle cars off, and it is surprising they don't hit more stuff!

 

EBOfIxFK4a7IjJcyQ=

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

I recall reading that some modern high capacity car transporters are cleverly designed to extend as they go around corners. To meet the rules they have to be within a set length when on the public road in a straight line. To achieve this whilst maximising capacity/profits they make the tractor and trailer units sit very close together so they can get an extra car or two on the load. When they go around a corner the drawbar automatically extends enough to prevent the two ends touching, making the vehicle longer. Add in the often considerable front and rear overhangs that seem to dangle cars off, and it is surprising they don't hit more stuff!

 

EBOfIxFK4a7IjJcyQ=

Years ago I saw a truck like that. Sadly for the driver the front car hadn't been secured and had fallen off in front of the cab, presumably under hard breaking. Bent like a banana!

At least it was only a brand new Nissan or similar and not something more expensive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Years ago I saw a truck like that. Sadly for the driver the front car hadn't been secured and had fallen off in front of the cab, presumably under hard breaking. Bent like a banana!

At least it was only a brand new Nissan or similar and not something more expensive.

They go looking for a low bridge instead.

image.png.dfe9221502db85b3b1ad11c345176576.png

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SHMD said:

 

"Why bridge strikes happen so often" is just proving that the Drivers: -

 

A/ Are not paying attention,

B/ Are driving with their brains having engaged "automatic",

C/ Having the wrong information,

D/ something has changed since their last passage under the bridge.

 

I think that B/ with a dose of A/ is mainly responsible.

 

 

As for "autonomous, driverless machines". They will (currently) still hit the bridges because the on-board systems are busy looking at "white lines" and camera images to avoid Toddlers running out in front of them. Whilst the bigger 'strategy', of the journey, is only as good as the map data that is fed into it. (Which, at best, lags reality.)

 

 

Kev.

There is another one

 

E\ They know they are over height, think they will get under it and chance it and fail. I know of at least 2 incidents where this was the case.

 

Having worked over 25 years in road haulage both driving but mostly office based I would agree A and B are the most common causes. I would also say the drivers who ... shall we say... have the most bumps aren't always the ones who hit bridges, sometimes I have known "good" drivers hit a bridge. There are more than a few in my experience where poor attention is a major factor but that there are a number of contributory circumstances that meant the driver missed signs or in one case struck an arch bridge due to the poor driving of car driver coming in the opposite direction and he had to take avoiding action. 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This report also highlights the appalling standard of written english in newspapers ,the lorry collided with the steel sides of the bridge.It should said it hit the bridge deck .But given the education standards nowadays people dont worry about reporting correctly our local newspaper is appalling and is vitually impossible to read.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

The only excuse I can see for transporter drivers is that different loads will be different heights. Today you have a load of Minis, tomorrow a load of vans. And that height will almost certainly not be on a sign in the cab.

Jonathan

But a (present day) Mini is huge!

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

I hope there's a height restriction sign at the roadside, as it's difficult to read the one on the bridge, due to the skew of it. I do like the banner attached to the safety railings, that's a big hint if ever there was one.

 

I have just googled Archbold Logistics and they are in Heywood in Lancashire, so probably another car type satnav is being used.

 

 

That's a novel way of getting through a low bridge - skid through on its side!

  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

The only excuse I can see for transporter drivers is that different loads will be different heights. Today you have a load of Minis, tomorrow a load of vans. And that height will almost certainly not be on a sign in the cab.

Jonathan

 

Even without knowing the height with whatever vehicle's loaded at the time (which he's responsible for anyway) it should be blindingly obvious that with any vehicle on the back there's no way he's going to get under a 6'6" bridge.

I doubt he would have even got through there empty

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, stewartingram said:

That's a novel way of getting through a low bridge - skid through on its side!

 

Just didn't have enough speed... ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Those steel girders would have to be properly designed by the road authorities. You can't have road vehicles hitting them and dislodging them to fall onto other vehicles.

The 'cure' would be worse than the problem.

 

Collision protection beams are the legal responsibility of the bridge owner NOT the highways department to install / maintain. Making sure the structures cannot become a danger to other road users is thus covered by planning rules which will insist that the potential of things like protection beams being dislodged is addressed at the design stage.

 

Organisations like Network Rail are well able to cope with this responsibility  - Heritage railways, particularly the smaller ones are not!

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Collision protection beams are the legal responsibility of the bridge owner NOT the highways department to install / maintain. Making sure the structures cannot become a danger to other road users is thus covered by planning rules which will insist that the potential of things like protection beams being dislodged is addressed at the design stage.

 

Organisations like Network Rail are well able to cope with this responsibility  - Heritage railways, particularly the smaller ones are not!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe the GWSR have installed one at Broadway as the bridge continues to get hit despite extra warning signs. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When Stonea was closed for the repair, a separate crash bar was mentioned (in our local rag maybe?). It was stated that it couldn't be provided as it had to be part of the bridge structure to be safer. I think the comment came from NR.

 

Stewart.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Collision protection beams are the legal responsibility of the bridge owner NOT the highways department to install / maintain. Making sure the structures cannot become a danger to other road users is thus covered by planning rules which will insist that the potential of things like protection beams being dislodged is addressed at the design stage.

 

Organisations like Network Rail are well able to cope with this responsibility  - Heritage railways, particularly the smaller ones are not!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but it won't happen without negotiation with the road owners.

 

Certainly VicRoads were heavily involved in barriers etc for the notorious Montaque Street bridge and electronic signage.

 

Still gets hit!

 

https://www.timelapse.com.au/portfolio/vicroads-montague-street-bridge-gantry-installation-south-melbourne-vic/

Edited by kevinlms
More info
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, 37114 said:

I believe the GWSR have installed one at Broadway as the bridge continues to get hit despite extra warning signs. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.