Bridge bashing

[Michael Hodgson]

51 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

Just to add to the excitement(!), the haulier may be Scandinavian not German. "Bred load" is used on Scandinavian abloads, where as the traditional "Convoi exceptionnel" is used in Germany, and the trailer numberplate appears to lack the circular seals on German plates, various Scandinavian ones being white background and characters only.

 

The Swedish for wide load is "Bred Last" which is clearly seen on that video clip.

Swedish number plates are generally three letters followed by either 3 digits or 2 digits and another letter; black characters on white.

When my parents lived in Kiruna, the (British) number plate on their Saab was LYX ..., which the Swedes loved as it means "Luxury"

[Reorte]

I hesitate to wade in to the language discussion, but I can't help myself...

 

I've heard people use the phrase "The proof of the pudding..." rather than "is in the", leaving the rest out. Saying part of a well-known phrase and leaving the rest hanging is fairly commonplace.

[GrumpyPenguin]

4 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Amuses me when people jump to conclusions without considering the possiblity that their opinion based upon zero evidence may be wrong.

 

I have spent quite a bit of time around LGV's, mostly inspecting them and their drivers as well as working on safety initiatives to reduce LGV related fatalities. Time working at multi-agency enforcement and compliance stop sites gives me something of an insight to the issues, and the presence of satnavs is by no means universal nor does it guarantee things don't get hit as my experience of attending incidents has shown me. I could fill several pages of all the things I have had to deal with with LGV drivers, and various bridges around London that continue to get hit by lorries despite the magical satnavs.....

 

Here's what NR say based upon actual evidence:

 

Most of the vehicles that hit railway bridges are Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and buses, at a cost of around £13,000 per strike –costing the UK taxpayer around £23m in a year.

 

Our research has shown 43 per cent of lorry drivers admit to not measuring their vehicle before heading out on the road, and 52 per cent admit to not taking low bridges into account.

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/railway-safety-campaigns/wise-up-size-up/

 

So the idea that was originally put out in response to my post was that no one gets in their truck without doing their homework properly and everyone has a super-duper satnav is simply not true as trucks still hit bridges and other things, or get wedged in viaducts.

 

Worth repeating those stats 43% of drivers don't check the vehicle height and 52% don't take low bridges into account. I think the keyboard warriors are the ones in denial of reality that a significant proportion of LGV drivers are not as professional as they should be.

 

The proof is in the pudding......🤣 and the data.

We have now entered another drift - no matter how "HGV specific" a SatNag is, it's as much use as a choclate iron if the vehcile statistics are not logged into it.

All the HGV's I ever drove had the cab height indicators set at the maximum height the vehicle could be in an unloaded condition & the suspention set to normal.

Some interesting points in your post, however, I do feel that figures from "multi-agency enforcement" can make the issues seem to be worse than they are overall. You don't see many vehicles from the likes of supermarkets being pulled. The DVSA/VOSA Officers I have spoken to are of the opinion that there is no point pulling vehicles from certain big fleets because they always run legally, smaller fleets that "look tidy" (i.e. curtain straps tucked in) are also less likely to be pulled.

[Michael Hodgson]

49 minutes ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

The DVSA/VOSA Officers I have spoken to are of the opinion that there is no point pulling vehicles from certain big fleets because they always run legally, smaller fleets that "look tidy" (i.e. curtain straps tucked in) are also less likely to be pulled.

Probably also helps to have a white face.

During the IRA attacks on the City when the "Ring of Steel" was routinely being manned, I noticed that the vehicles stopped on London Bridge tended not to have shamrocks on the side, but were more likely to be white vans from sarf of the river driven by black men.  They were also usually emitting blue smoke though!

[F-UnitMad]

6 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

So the idea that was originally put out in response to my post was that no one gets in their truck without doing their homework properly and everyone has a super-duper satnav is simply not true

I referred especially to Special Types, actually, not 'every one'.

I never had a 'super duper' satnav as an HGV driver as they were only just coming out by the time I got out of the industry, after 25 years.

As for NR, isn't it slightly stating the screamingly obvious that "Most of the vehicles that hit railway bridges are Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and buses,"...???? 

I suppose if I'd had a job where I had to inspect drivers, especially ones who got in to trouble, I'd have a rather jaundiced view and tar all of them with the same brush too.

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

During my long career as an electrical engineer I've done a fair amont of HGV driving, mostly for agencies so I met a huge variety of HGV drivers, virtually all of them had HGV/LGV SatNags.

 

It always amuses me when people that have probably never sat in an HGV cab let alone driven one start spounting nosesence about a subject they know nothing about.

I suppose that's a bit like ;people coming on the 'net who are instant experts on railway operation despite the fact that their only acquaintance with them might have been a day trip to Clacton (other resorts are available) ...

[Compound2632]

27 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I suppose that's a bit like ;people coming on the 'net who are instant experts on railway operation despite the fact that their only acquaintance with them might have been a day trip to Clacton (other resorts are available) ...

 

As you well know, the internet is a place where all opinions are equally valid, irrespective of facts.

[Wickham Green too]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

As you well know, the internet is a place where all opinions are equally valid, irrespective of facts.

.... though there are probably people on it who'd disagree with that. 🤪

[JZ]

I know nothing more.

[ruggedpeak]

8 minutes ago, JZ said:

I know nothing more.

"My satnav said it would fit...."🤣

[SHMD]

8 minutes ago, JZ said:

I know nothing more.

 

weren't me either. I wos nowhere near there, just ask anyone

 

 

Kev.

 

[ruggedpeak]

2 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I referred especially to Special Types, actually, not 'every one'.

I never had a 'super duper' satnav as an HGV driver as they were only just coming out by the time I got out of the industry, after 25 years.

As for NR, isn't it slightly stating the screamingly obvious that "Most of the vehicles that hit railway bridges are Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and buses,"...???? 

I suppose if I'd had a job where I had to inspect drivers, especially ones who got in to trouble, I'd have a rather jaundiced view and tar all of them with the same brush too.

Whatever, the only tarring with the same brush is your rant.

 

Plenty of professional competent drivers, unfortunately a sizeable minority who are not. Amazing the range of commerical vehicles that get seized for no licence or no insurance - 4 axle tippers, artics, mobile cranes.....

[Mol_PMB]

In an attempt to change the subject slightly, may I offer the Knutsford Road swingbridge? As seen here in the centre of this view:

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/EPW021587

 

This is a road swingbridge over the Manchester Ship Canal. The MSC railway ran along the canal bank, and at this location it ran under the tail end of the swingbridge. The bridge clearance above the rails was only a couple of feet so the bridge had to be swung for trains as well as for ships. The location was particularly unpopular with the lengthman responsible for maintaining the track on this section as it could only be properly inspected when a ship was passing. It gave an unusual opportunity of a train having a major 'bridge bash' although I don't believe this ever happened here.

 

The canal and the swingbridge are still in use but the MSC railway is long gone.

However, the curvaceous route of the railway crossing on the skew bridge in the middle distance is pencilled in for the 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' high speed line. Will it ever happen? That's a discussion for another thread too...

 

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

Whatever, the only tarring with the same brush is your rant.

Says the guy who posted this...

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

"My satnav said it would fit...."🤣

...yet again.

 

As you say, whatever. 

[corneliuslundie]

Can we moved on please?

Jonathan

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

In an attempt to change the subject slightly, may I offer the Knutsford Road swingbridge? As seen here in the centre of this view:

https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/EPW021587

 

 

The canal and the swingbridge are still in use but the MSC railway is long gone.

However, the curvaceous route of the railway crossing on the skew bridge in the middle distance is pencilled in for the 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' high speed line. Will it ever happen? That's a discussion for another thread too...

 

I remember the withdrawal of passenger services over Latchford Viaduct as I went to school nearby. 

The MSC track was still in situ at the time, though I never saw anything on it even though trains would have been visible from my primary school classroom.

The LNWR line later closed altogether, and to be honest I'm surprised to learn it's still standing, as there's a lot of metal there to recover.

Latchford Locks can be seen in the background beyond the viaduct.

 

Keeping this on topic, I also remember reports in the Warrington Guardian of a bridge strike on Latchford High Level Bridge (the next bridge along, just out of view in the foreground).  It was struck by a ship apparently because there was slightly higher water than usual in the canal at that point (although in retrospect it seems more likely that the vessel was riding higher than usual in the water).  Damage to the vessel was minor - radar aerial or similar, and the road bridge was OK.

 

[BR60103]

When we had a motorhome (sold one year ago) I had labels on the rear view mirror giving the height of the rig in feet and metres.  70 mph is no time for doing tricky arithmetic in your head. 

(The mirror showed through a back window a view that was only about 1/3 of the mirror.)

Luckily, the height of it never changed.

 

[37114]

8 hours ago, JZ said:

I know nothing more.

"Joanna was really excited when she found out her new Range Rover sport was actually a previously unannounced open top model..."

[uax6]

16 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Its not just lorries though.  In this part of the country there's a lot of level crossings, some of which have (or used to have) an avoiding bridge nearby that's so low that even ordinary traffic has to be careful.  Not unkown for drivers or small vans 4x4s or even cars to forget they've got a roof box or something on a roof rack. 

 

http://ukrailways1970tilltoday.me.uk/Littleport-signal-box.html

 

The lowest I've come across is Bishton on the S Wales main line - so low I had to duck to go under it on foot!

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/9u6zfu/bishton_level_crossing_in_newport_wales_at_56_17m/

 

 

Network rail has a league table of low brides

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54871244

 

As you've mentioned my signalbox, the funniest bridge bash I've witnessed on that underpass was a driver in an Audi estate. He came hoofing around the corner (in a 30mph limit) and saw the gates were over, so quickly turned to go under the bridge. He successfully completed the move, but unfortunately he had forgotten that he had his bike on the roof rack. This struck the bridge and was forced into the boot of the car, via the rear windscreen. There was quite a lot of damage to the tailgate, and also to the roof, where the roof rails (which had the rack attached) were pushed down into the roof. I'm guessing that the car was probably a write-off. Sadly I couldn't do anything but laugh when I saw it.... At least it caused no issues for me, as the bridge has a light vehicle dispensation, so I only had to report it to control who were also laughing....

 

I've also witnessed builders transit pickups going under, and them loosing the heads of brushes that were stored in a tube tied to the headboard, on many occasions. One blue one sticks in the mind as the passenger was killing himself laughing as they drove out. 

 

Andy G

Edited May 8 by uax6

[SHMD]

13 hours ago, JZ said:

I know nothing more.

 

That's an interesting one because not only is the vehicle height not fixed, the top deck height is adjustable, but also the load on the top deck is variable!

 

I guess there must be (should be?) a "good" height gauge - at the loading depot - to give this information accurately.

 

Of course, this won't help if you are "picking up" vehicles whilst you are out-and-about!

 

 

Kev.

 

[Michael Hodgson]

5 hours ago, uax6 said:

 

As you've mentioned my signalbox, the funniest bridge bash I've witnessed on that underpass was a driver in an Audi estate. He came hoofing around the corner (in a 30mph limit) and saw the gates were over, so quickly turned to go under the bridge.

 

We use the vets who used to be opposite the box, he relocated there from Cambourne.  I'm not looking forward to a trip to Littleport this afternoon, as one of our dogs was diagnosed with a kidney disorder last week but the vet now thinks she may have additional problems. 

[Michael Hodgson]

11 minutes ago, SHMD said:

 

That's an interesting one because not only is the vehicle height not fixed, the top deck height is adjustable, but also the load on the top deck is variable!

 

 

 

Yes, the height of the load has been reduced !

[APOLLO]

8 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I remember the withdrawal of passenger services over Latchford Viaduct as I went to school nearby. 

The MSC track was still in situ at the time, though I never saw anything on it even though trains would have been visible from my primary school classroom.

The LNWR line later closed altogether, and to be honest I'm surprised to learn it's still standing, as there's a lot of metal there to recover.

 

 

I worked in Warrington for 20 years for British Gas up to 1992. There is (or was, long time ago) a high pressure gas pipeline crossing Latchford Viaduct. I attended a meeting with British Rail early eighties regarding this. They shut the line due to structural defects in the steelwork of this bridge so I remember. I also think it's a listed structure.

 

The pipeline can be seen here

 

http://www.forgottenrelics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/image14-46.jpg

 

Empty ship = Tight fit !!

 

 

Brit15

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

 

They shut the line due to structural defects in the steelwork of this bridge so I remember. I also think it's a listed structure.

 

The pipeline can be seen here

 

http://www.forgottenrelics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/image14-46.jpg

 

Empty ship = Tight fit !!

 

 

Brit15

 

 

 

You're probably right about listing, it's a local landmark, though I don't see it as unusual or having any particular architectural merit.

 

It seems the road bridge is an even tighter fit.  Ships using the canal tended to be regulars so "know" they have clearance; that ship is clearly very high in the water - I suppose usual practice would have been to take on enough ballast to ensure you have clearance.  She wouldn't be at risk of grounding as the canal is 28' deep above Ince.

[37114]

2 hours ago, SHMD said:

 

That's an interesting one because not only is the vehicle height not fixed, the top deck height is adjustable, but also the load on the top deck is variable!

 

I guess there must be (should be?) a "good" height gauge - at the loading depot - to give this information accurately.

 

Of course, this won't help if you are "picking up" vehicles whilst you are out-and-about!

 

 

Kev.

 

You can get a collapsible tool which allows you to measure the height of vehicles to check before you set off, tend to be drivers carrying irregular loads who have them eg Low Loader drivers, recovery vehicles etc. Even if the driver had one, looking at the amount of damage to the Range Rover, the load was a good 12inches higher than the bridge so didn't correlate the height of the bridge with the load rather than a "It had new tyres fitted yesterday and the road was resurfaced last week, I only had 50% of a load and it was riding high so I just skimmed the bridge" type scenario...