Bridge bashing

[Nick C]

Our school buses (and this is going back 20+ years as well) were originally operated by a small local coach company (literally just round the corner from the school), which a mixture of decent coaches and a few secondhand double-deckers. Then they lost the contract to another firm that came in with cheaper vehicles (mostly knackered Leyland Nationals!), and the first company went bust as a result. one of our regular drivers had been the boss of the company, and he was a really nice guy, so I felt very sorry for him. I remember they had one really nice old coach that was clearly the depot pet, which we had very occasionally. 

 

The other regular driver, who continued on with the new company, was our geography teacher - he'd do the morning run, leave the bus in the layby outside the school for the day, then do the afternoon one. 

[62613]

2 hours ago, SamThomas said:

Nice thought but that would mean the cowboys would carry on the same & make a little more money.

 

Maybe, if the local authorities were not quite so penny pinching & were pro-active with vechicle inspections it would cease to be an issue.

Couple of things. If local authorities hadn't had their budgets slashed so heavily over the last 12 years, then perhaps they could; also, most schools aren't run by local authorities any more; they've been academised, or they are "Free" Schools. I don't know, but I would bet school bus hire is between the academy CEO and the bus company.

 

[JDW]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

I have always been under the impression that school coaches/vehicles have different standards to comply with than normal coaches, and expected them to be checked regularly……presumably this is incorrect?

 

As far as I remember there are no specific regulations just for school bus maintenance. The most common thing is that a school (or education authority, etc) will have a set of specific requirements, which could include things like what safety systems (ABS and so on) the coach must have, along with requirements for seatbelts, PSVAR (accessibility regulations), etc. But in terms of vehicle maintenance, all PSVs must be maintained to the same standard. All of ours went out on any job. All PSVs are subject to regular interval inspections, every 28 days is probably the most common for buses and coaches that are in normal service (though that can be varied, for example for vehicles which see limited use), and that inspection would be broadly similar to what's being looked at for an MOT in terms of making sure everything is safe and functioning correctly. 

[pH]

5 hours ago, Budgie said:

... and Canada is in North America. So all Canadians are Americans.

… and, by analogy, since the island of Ireland is one of the British Isles, all inhabitants of the Republic of Ireland are British. Good luck trying to sell that! 🤨

[RJS1977]

 

6 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

It is believed the fire has caused substantial damage to the bus - never mind the road surface !

 

"Ain't it fitted with a fire distinguisher?"

 

[SamThomas]

8 hours ago, 62613 said:

Couple of things. If local authorities hadn't had their budgets slashed so heavily over the last 12 years, then perhaps they could; also, most schools aren't run by local authorities any more; they've been academised, or they are "Free" Schools. I don't know, but I would bet school bus hire is between the academy CEO and the bus company.

 

Pehaps, if the local authorities paid some of their overpaid hjigher echelon dead wood less they could pay for some foot soldiers.

As you have brought up academisation the CEO has a duty of care when he deals with bus (& other companies) - if he/she does not have measures in place to safeguard the people under his care then it's down to them if/when it goes base over apex.

[Busmansholiday]

21 hours ago, SamThomas said:

Annual once you get to 70.

Actually it's every five years from 45 to 65 then it's annually after that.

 

[boxbrownie]

19 hours ago, JDW said:

 

As far as I remember there are no specific regulations just for school bus maintenance. The most common thing is that a school (or education authority, etc) will have a set of specific requirements, which could include things like what safety systems (ABS and so on) the coach must have, along with requirements for seatbelts, PSVAR (accessibility regulations), etc. But in terms of vehicle maintenance, all PSVs must be maintained to the same standard. All of ours went out on any job. All PSVs are subject to regular interval inspections, every 28 days is probably the most common for buses and coaches that are in normal service (though that can be varied, for example for vehicles which see limited use), and that inspection would be broadly similar to what's being looked at for an MOT in terms of making sure everything is safe and functioning correctly. 

Thanks, but I was thinking more along the lines of equipment fitted rather than maintenance, as I would hope all PSVs are maintained to a degree which makes them safe.

[kevinlms]

15 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Thanks, but I was thinking more along the lines of equipment fitted rather than maintenance, as I would hope all PSVs are maintained to a degree which makes them safe.

Never assume, as it makes an ass out of u and me. Probably won't work through the naughty word filter!

 

Oh, it did!

Edited May 13, 2022 by kevinlms

[boxbrownie]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Never assume, as it makes an ass out of u and me. Probably won't work through the naughty word filter!

 

Oh, it did!

I thought, didn’t assume 😉

[stewartingram]

On 12/05/2022 at 11:24, SamThomas said:

There is nothing wrong with using vehicles that are "getting on a bit", i.e. those that are no longer really suitable for long distance/high miles use, provided of course they are well maintained. Scholl buses cover relatively little miles, so unless we adopt the US system (& subsequent costs) we are stuck with it.

Unpractical for coach companies operating a "nice" fleet to get involved with school work as the vehicles operate in effect a "split shift" - 2/3 hours AM & PM with no possiblity of other work in between except for the odd time on rail replacement work which is not all the time.

You have to bear in mind that commercial vehciles are only earning their keep when moving.

 

A couple of semi-retired PCV drivers I know are of the opinion (based on experience & the state their vehicles are left in) that cattle wagons would be more suitable on some runs.

When I started my 1st job at Pye in Cambridge (1964), the rather large workforce was largely bussed in from surrounding villages - quite a distance in some cases. There were various operators involved, but by a margin the Premier Travel company ran most of them. PT had a reputation for being a good company, with usually an old fleet but well maintained. In fact the Pye buses (actually most were coaches) were nominally allocated to specific drivers, whose day job was in the factory - they took the vehicles home at night as transport for the workers. At weekends, they would often do extra shifts,  same vehicle, on long distance coach services.

Edited May 13, 2022 by stewartingram

[corneliuslundie]

Not the same company as Premier Albanian which was based in St Albans (not in Albania or Scotland). The boss of that company went to jail for stealing bus engines from one of the big companies.

Jonathan

[lmsforever]

Back in the fifties our school sent us to a local outside swimming pool for lessons , it was always freezing cold and the water the same ,We went by an  ex Southend double decker which rumbled and shook throughout the journey but the best bit was when we ascended Chingford Mount a steep hill on the way back to school .We always ran to the back of the upstairs and jumped up and down ,we thought we could stop it!  I remember that it was always clean but hills dropped speed and meant first gear  happy days.

[lmsforever]

Premier Travel ran a service to Aylesbury in the sixties the vehicles looked very old and run down but  we did not recieve newer vehicles until the seventies. 

[Wickham Green too]

Makes a change from a bus on the bridge anyway !

[Dagworth]

2022's bridge bashing top ten. Winner has 33 hits in 12 months!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-63636260

Edited November 16, 2022 by Dagworth

[kevinlms]

6 minutes ago, Dagworth said:

2022's bridge bashing top ten. Winner has 33 hits in 12 months!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-63636260

2.1 metres, perhaps it should be compulsory for drivers to walk through first?

[F-UnitMad]

4 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

2.1 metres, perhaps it should be compulsory for drivers to walk through first?

Or it should become a legal requirement to display the height of a vehicle in the cab if it is over 2 metres high? Currently in the UK the requirement starts at 3 metres, and as no further training or license other than a car license is needed to drive a van, height can be an issue some people don't even think about.

Of course an in-cab display doesn't help with people sticking tall things on trailers & not checking the height.

 

I have an idea - simply lynch any driver that hits a bridge, and leave the bodies hanging by the roadside ahead of the bridge - that should be an effective deterent, and satisfy the demands of the more outspoken opponents of road transport (who, of course, are absolutely perfect drivers themselves, who've never made any mistake ever, of even the smallest kind)...

🙄🙄🙄😁😁😁

[Michael Hodgson]

The lowest I've come across is Bishton, under the S Wales main line.  I had to duck going under it on foot!

Like a lot of other roads with low bridges there is an alternative crossing without a height restriction. 

Some, such as Littleport have been closed to vehicles.

 

 

[rab]

On 18/09/2022 at 15:19, Wickham Green too said:

Makes a change from a bus on the bridge anyway !

Was just thinking the same.

 

Will we now see lots of layouts with mangled vans/lorries sticking out from the bridges..

Edited November 19, 2022 by rab

[enz]

8 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I have an idea - simply lynch any driver that hits a bridge, and leave the bodies hanging by the roadside ahead of the bridge - that should be an effective deterent, and satisfy the demands of the more outspoken opponents of road transport (who, of course, are absolutely perfect drivers themselves, who've never made any mistake ever, of even the smallest kind)...

🙄🙄🙄😁😁😁

 

No,no - hanging in front of the bridge with the rope sized so the feet of the victim hang a couple of inches below the clearance. That way you can tell if your vehicle  will squeeze through. Even comes with a slogan to help remember - "if you get a kick you won't fit!"

[Ramblin Rich]

8 hours ago, Dagworth said:

2022's bridge bashing top ten. Winner has 33 hits in 12 months!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-63636260

Linked from that story is this, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63526476

which resulted in very extensive repairs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63548968

[kevinlms]

20 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Or it should become a legal requirement to display the height of a vehicle in the cab if it is over 2 metres high? Currently in the UK the requirement starts at 3 metres, and as no further training or license other than a car license is needed to drive a van, height can be an issue some people don't even think about.

Of course an in-cab display doesn't help with people sticking tall things on trailers & not checking the height.

 

I have an idea - simply lynch any driver that hits a bridge, and leave the bodies hanging by the roadside ahead of the bridge - that should be an effective deterent, and satisfy the demands of the more outspoken opponents of road transport (who, of course, are absolutely perfect drivers themselves, who've never made any mistake ever, of even the smallest kind)...

🙄🙄🙄😁😁😁

I believe I've said this before here. But obviously it needs explaining again, because you seem to think everyone is accusing professional drivers of being DH's.

 

I know a bloke who owns a car/truck rental business. Just down the road is a low bridge, where the 3 Ton trucks don't fit. Each time someone rents one of these, the staff are under strict instructions to point out to the renter, the notices saying that height damage is NOT covered by any insurance. Then they get taken out the front and pointed out the bridge and told that 'it doesn't fit'! So it's clear that the driver is going to be out of pocket severely, if they don't follow the recommendation - because that's all it can be!

 

So far none of his trucks have been damaged, but the previous owner of the business, I've found on the internet, complaining bitterly, 'that something needs to be done', because each time it happens, he loses the use of a vehicle and it's inconvenient, because he has to rearrange his bookings, or borrow one from somewhere else.

 

Yes, the same rules apply in Australia, those vehicles can be driven on a car licence, without any additional training. So the answer is EDUCATION and looking where you are going!

[F-UnitMad]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

because you seem to think everyone is accusing professional drivers of being DH's.

Not "everyone", no, but enough of a vocal minority who don't sugar coat their opinions.

 

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

So the answer is EDUCATION and looking where you are going!

Absolutely!! The first part of my post that was aimed at that - lowering the legal height over which a vehicle should carry warning signs, to make people who are not used to thinking about the height of their vehicle do so, since a lot of the 'top ten' in that list are bridges that an HGV wouldn't go near anyway.

[Nick C]

2.1m is incredibly low - I used to have a Land Rover Discovery that was pretty close to that - the roof bars only just cleared the height barrier on a local car park that was labelled as 2.0m