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

[whole diary]

[Bmblbzzz]

I'm not sure which is worse: if the driver is using the satnav as an excuse for his own stupidity/inattention/misreading/chancing, or if he really was relying on the satnav. I think on balance probably the latter is worse. I expect it's likely to be a mixture though; the height wasn't marked on the satnav, which led to him choosing that route initially and then when he got there he decided to try and squeeze through (or something).

[Chris from Nailsea]

... when he got there he decided to try and squeeze through (or something).

Sorry, I disagree: to have travelled that distance beyond the bridge, and have caused that much damage to the lorry, he must have gone through at some speed.

I know that road.  There are quite a few 'low bridge ahead' warning signs, well in advance, in both directions - giving alternative routes via Kemble, for example. 

[Bmblbzzz]

Good point, but I wasn't thinking so much about his speed. I was wondering whether he really did go through there because he put all his faith in the sat nav, perhaps to the extent of trusting it over official road signs, or if that was just a post-crash excuse; and deciding that while the excuse was bad, it would be even worse if it was true.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Another incident, in Plymouth, this week.  From devonlive:

Driver reported by police after lorry wedged under rail bridge

Police have revealed that the driver of a lorry which got stuck under a railway bridge has been reported for driving without due care and attention.

The Palmer and Harvey lorry with 30-tonnes of goods inside became struck under the bridge on Saltash Road, Plymouth, near the train station. The railway line and road were closed for several hours.

The bridge was damaged in the incident on Tuesday afternoon, but remains structurally sound.

Now police have revealed the 46-year-old Plymouth driver has been reported for driving without due care and attention.

A spokesperson for Devon and Cornwall Police said: "The HGV was freed from under the bridge at 7.20pm. It had to be towed as was not in a roadworthy condition as a result of the collision. The bridge was significantly damaged, but the road was fully re-opened at 8pm. The driver, a 46-year-old man from the Plymouth area, was reported for driving without due care and attention."



The lorry struck the bridge at about 5pm on Tuesday. Trains came to a standstill and the road was closed in both directions.

A spokesman for Network Rail said the bridge has been deemed structurally sound following the incident and lines are now back up and running.

"A lorry got stuck under Saltash Road bridge at Plymouth at around 5pm yesterday and staff were on the scene shortly after to examine the bridge," said the spokesman.



"Trains were initially stopped from crossing the bridge before a 5mph speed restriction was put in place. The lorry was recovered and usual line speed of trains returned to normal at 7.55pm."

Drivers and rail and bus users got caught up in huge delays as authorities sought to resolve the chaos off Pennycomequick Hill.

Palmer and Harvey has refused to comment.

[SandTEngineer]

I turned out of the station entrance at about 1630 and it was stuck under the bridge then so a bit earlier than the reported 5pm

[LiskeardRich]

I do wonder if the two recent strikes of this bridge in Plymouth relate to the recent resurfacing. I don't recall anything hitting it prior to the resurfacing, now we've had 3 in 3 months.

[chrisr_75]

I do wonder if the two recent strikes of this bridge in Plymouth relate to the recent resurfacing. I don't recall anything hitting it prior to the resurfacing, now we've had 3 in 3 months.

Did they really add that much extra thickness to the surface? I would expect a road like that would've been planed down and then a fresh top dressing added to return to the original surface height.

Estimating from the photos, it looks like a good 10-15cm overlap (which incidentally,is the difference between this bridge's clearance of 4.7m and the tallest HGV trailers currently in use in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) at 4.9m (I would guess that the trailer seen in today's photos is one of those as it looks very tall)

[ellendune]

I do wonder if the two recent strikes of this bridge in Plymouth relate to the recent resurfacing. I don't recall anything hitting it prior to the resurfacing, now we've had 3 in 3 months.

Did they really add that much extra thickness to the surface? I would expect a road like that would've been planed down and then a fresh top dressing added to return to the original surface height.

Estimating from the photos, it looks like a good 10-15cm overlap (which incidentally,is the difference between this bridge's clearance of 4.7m and the tallest HGV trailers currently in use in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) at 4.9m (I would guess that the trailer seen in today's photos is one of those as it looks very tall)

I agree, the photo shows that the carriageway levels are defined by kerbs.  Unless these were reset the road surface would be pretty much the same as before. 

[stuving]

Please, sir, why do the height signs for that bridge say 4.7m and 15'0"

The rules¹ (for sign designers) actually tell you to work out, and most importantly to round down, the metric and imperial marked heights separately, not one from the other. So you won't always see the same pairings of marked height values.

Imperial - measure in inches, subtract 3" and round down to a multiple of 3".
Metric - measure in cm, discard last (cm) digit and if it was 7 or less subtract 10 cm. (Mark in metres with one decimal place.)

According to those rules, 15'0" can correctly appear with 4.5 or 4.6 m, and 4.7 m with 15'3", 15'6" or 15'9". But not 15'0"! How long has it been like that with no-one noticing?

What they are meant to be doing² is this:

3.5 Remeasures should be taken by the highway authority:
(a) before and after any proposed surfacing work (see paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4).
(b) when a highway inspector or bridge owner reports evidence of a possible
change in surfacing or other circumstance having occurred which has not
been recorded/measured.
(c) where there is evidence of a reported impact on the bridge. In this regard it
is important the highway authority is formally notified by bridge owners of
any strikes on their bridges.
(d) following any replacement, reconstruction or significant work by Network
Rail or other bridge owner to the bridge superstructure or the provision of
collision protection beams.
(e) at the time of every principal bridge inspection (must be organised by those
undertaking the inspection).
(f) every six years for rail over road bridges (programmed and carried out by
the highway authority) to equate to Network Rail’s cycle of inspection.

It's bad enough to get something so simple wrong to start with, though having seen how well our local sign-makers cope with those rules I'm not exactly incredulous. But for no-one to notice, even after a number of high-profile strikes, and with Network rail involved, is really quite worrying.

[I have now removed my previous rectraction - but corrected the text above, which incorrectly said the height marked was 15'6".]

¹ Traffic Signs Manual; Chapter 4: Warning Signs  (2013)
² Prevention of Strikes on Bridges over Highways - A Protocol for Highway Managers and Bridge Owners (prepared by CSS^▸ (Cascading Style Sheets) (County Surveyors Society) on behalf of the Department for Transport’s (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)’s) Bridge Strike Prevention Group) (2007)

[chrisr_75]

I do wonder if the two recent strikes of this bridge in Plymouth relate to the recent resurfacing. I don't recall anything hitting it prior to the resurfacing, now we've had 3 in 3 months.

Did they really add that much extra thickness to the surface? I would expect a road like that would've been planed down and then a fresh top dressing added to return to the original surface height.

Estimating from the photos, it looks like a good 10-15cm overlap (which incidentally,is the difference between this bridge's clearance of 4.7m and the tallest HGV trailers currently in use in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) at 4.9m (I would guess that the trailer seen in today's photos is one of those as it looks very tall)

After stuvings post I had a look at google maps again. Coming from one direction there are no visible clearance signs on the structure of the bridge. From the other way (the direction that this latest unfortunate lorry approached from) the signs say 15'0" and 4.7m...

As the bridge clearly has a split level deck, could one be 15ft and the other part 4.7m and someone has made a bit of a boo-boo when making the sign...? I think someone needs an urgent trip out with a measuring stick!!

[stuving]

After stuvings post I had a look at google maps again. Coming from one direction there are no visible clearance signs on the structure of the bridge. From the other way (the direction that this latest unfortunate lorry approached from) the signs say 15'0" and 4.7m...

As the bridge clearly has a split level deck, could one be 15ft and the other part 4.7m and someone has made a bit of a boo-boo when making the sign...? I think someone needs an urgent trip out with a measuring stick!!

As noted on the other low bridge thread, the skew of the bridge (over 45^o) and the gradient on the road (about 1 in 15) are enough, combined with the width of the road, to give the downhill side more height. The carriageways are about 7.5 m wide, so the difference is roughly 0.5 m. That is enough on its own, but there are several other factors involved - railway gradient, bridge construction, ground slope across the road, and of course the uncertainty about which height is the right one. So that's a definite maybe.

The shape of the bridge is odd - with that "spine" of two girders that are a lot lower than the bridge to either side. That means the soffits are much higher above the road than the spine, which is tucked away under the bridge and so less visible. But do HGV drivers really rely on judging by eye whether to ignore the signs? Not if they want a long-term job, I'd have thought.

[LiskeardRich]

I do wonder if the two recent strikes of this bridge in Plymouth relate to the recent resurfacing. I don't recall anything hitting it prior to the resurfacing, now we've had 3 in 3 months.

Did they really add that much extra thickness to the surface? I would expect a road like that would've been planed down and then a fresh top dressing added to return to the original surface height.

Estimating from the photos, it looks like a good 10-15cm overlap (which incidentally,is the difference between this bridge's clearance of 4.7m and the tallest HGV trailers currently in use in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) at 4.9m (I would guess that the trailer seen in today's photos is one of those as it looks very tall)

After stuvings post I had a look at google maps again. Coming from one direction there are no visible clearance signs on the structure of the bridge. From the other way (the direction that this latest unfortunate lorry approached from) the signs say 15'0" and 4.7m...

As the bridge clearly has a split level deck, could one be 15ft and the other part 4.7m and someone has made a bit of a boo-boo when making the sign...? I think someone needs an urgent trip out with a measuring stick!!

The road is at an angle. The left lane heading into the city centre has considerably less clearance than the left lane outbound direction. There is even noticeable difference between the left and right lane inbound.
I was taking bus photos from the adjacent foot bridge on Monday. I will check when I'm on a better device than my phone if any show clearly the steep angle of the road.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Another incident, reported by ITV News:

Stuck truck delays rush hour commuters


The lorry became wedged under a railway bridge during rush hour.

The lorry driver, carrying a fork hoist, brought trains in Romiley, Stockport, to a standstill after he got it wedged under a railway bridge.

The ‘avoidable gaffe’ resulted rush-hour delays to motorists and train users as police and Network Rail officials were called to Compstall Road at around 8.55am today.

They were acting on reports of a vehicle stuck under the bridge at Romiley Station, and trains between Romiley and Manchester were immediately stopped as a Network Rail engineer rushed to the scene. Once he confirmed the bridge had not been damaged, trains were resumed at 9.30am.

The incident caused delays of 37 minutes, plus knock-on delays as the network recovered after the line was declared safe and reopened. Thankfully no one was injured.

A spokesman for Network Rail said: “This kind of avoidable gaffe delays motorists and train customers. There are also potentially very serious safety consequences. “We’d urge drivers of all high vehicles to know for sure, rather than to hope, that their lorry or truck can fit under our bridges. “Transporting a forklift is even more reason to check your height before you drive.”

[Red Squirrel]

Bridge strike aficionados may be entertained by http://11foot8.com/ - a website devoted to a bridge in the USA which...

...has earned a reputation for its unrelenting enforcement of the laws of physics

[Bmblbzzz]

And this one, which gets really interesting at 2:20.
https://youtu.be/V3-UugI0JoA