Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 08:55 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
- Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
07:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
08:46 Bedwyn to Newbury
09:00 Gatwick Airport to Reading
09:54 Bedwyn to Newbury
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
05:33 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:55 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
07:24 Exmouth to Paignton
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
08:41 Westbury to Bristol Temple Meads
09:45 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
Delayed
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 08:59:23 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[109] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[72] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[67] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[66] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[59] Return of the BRUTE?
[41] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Bridge Bash with a Difference - M20 in Kent, 27 Aug 2016  (Read 12394 times)
SandTEngineer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3485


View Profile
« on: August 27, 2016, 14:25:39 »

Well for a change not a railway one........ Tongue
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37204050
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10096


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2016, 17:44:03 »

Crickey!  Lucky not to have caused more injuries or deaths.  Bet there was absolute havoc on the roads as a result.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2016, 18:06:53 »

Except the Lorry in the picture is not the offender. That was a lorry carrying an excavator. That will be a very expensive insurance claim.  I think the driver may well have some explaining to do to Kent police as well. 
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2016, 19:54:34 »

Except the Lorry in the picture is not the offender. That was a lorry carrying an excavator. That will be a very expensive insurance claim.  I think the driver may well have some explaining to do to Kent police as well. 

The white lorry in lane 1 was innocent but the artic carrying an excavator, beside it in the hard shoulder (and visible in some shots in that report), looks pretty guilty. What is surprising is that it appears to have suffered very little shock damage to trailer or load in the collision. It's as if it stopped and let the bridge fall on it, having hit that hard enough to bring it down (the BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) overhead pictures show that.)

I guess the beam that fell is pretty light (at least for reinforced concrete). It was only a footbridge, and tapered in depth from the middle of the road to the edge, though only to visually match the deeper section of the other half. It was pushed off its bearing at the landward end, and as it fell it slipped off its other bearing on the tip of the cantilever from the other side. So it looks as if the concern that that standing cantilever might fall was rather overdone.

Given its taper and slope across the road, it's very hard to judge in Street View what the clearance might be have been. There's no sign of any sign warning of it. Curiously, the hard shoulder on the other side is not being used. Before that it's taken over to extend a slip road, which runs out just before the bridge and the hard shoulder resumes just after it. So that looks like just a coincidence.
Logged
LiskeardRich
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3457

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2016, 20:02:51 »

No warning signs of a height restriction that I can see on street view. Is it one of these smart motorways allowing hard shoulder running? The truck with excavator was in the hard shoulder.
Logged

All posts are my own personal believes, opinions and understandings!
johoare
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2818


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2016, 21:26:21 »

I drive down that stretch of the M20 a fair amount and there is no smart motorway system there so if someone was  on the hard shoulder they should have been treating it as such. It does look like it happened just before the M26 turn off but again no reason for someone to have been in the hard shoulder really unless they had an issue with their vehicle.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2016, 21:35:31 »

No warning signs of a height restriction that I can see on street view.


No warning sign is required if the height of the bridge is over (IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly)) 5.5m (16ft 6in).

I regret that bridge bashes from excavators in transit are a regular feature.  The reason is usually that the arm was not secured properly and moved during transit.  When in transit, the arm must be chained down. Failure to do this is the problem.  This is the driver's responsibility.  Given how close this came to a fatality I hope the authorities treat it with the severity it deserves.  Only then will hauliers take this matter seriously. 

I remember when I worked up North a footbridge on the M62 had only been restored a few weeks when is was bashed again.  The footbridge there was the first bridge after a major junction. 

The truck with excavator was in the hard shoulder.


It is not clear to me whether the excavator on the hard shoulder was the one in question or not. One photo appears to show it to have not passed under the bridge, but it is difficult to see.  The comentary says there were tow on the lorry so perhaps it was the one in question. 

Is it one of these smart motorways allowing hard shoulder running?


I drive down that stretch of the M20 a fair amount and there is no smart motorway system there so if someone was  on the hard shoulder they should have been treating it as such. It does look like it happened just before the M26 turn off but again no reason for someone to have been in the hard shoulder really unless they had an issue with their vehicle.

The heights regulations apply equally to the hard shoulder so it should have made no difference. 
« Last Edit: August 27, 2016, 21:41:29 by ellendune » Logged
LiskeardRich
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3457

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2016, 22:18:12 »

The bbc reported it was being driven on the hard shoulder.

Is it a fairly new foot bridge? looked to have construction fencing on it
Logged

All posts are my own personal believes, opinions and understandings!
johoare
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2818


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2016, 22:25:54 »

The bbc reported it was being driven on the hard shoulder.

Is it a fairly new foot bridge? looked to have construction fencing on it

I was also wondering about it being a new footbridge for the same reason but reading about it online they are/were working on it to make the barriers either side higher to stop people being able to throw things over onto the motorway.. So it can't be that new then
Logged
Billhere
Full Member
***
Posts: 80


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2016, 22:39:22 »

The BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) news showed the bucket of the digger pressing up against the side of the bridge, and the damaged trailer of the 'innocent' artic underneath it having been scalped by the bridge as it passed under.

Most shots showed the bridge from almost head on because it was obviously the most convenient, but the 6pm news had a shot from 3/4 rear which showed the digger bucket as described.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2016, 23:17:43 »

...
No warning sign is required if the height of the bridge is over (IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly)) 5.5m (16ft 6in).
...

There is (of course) more to it than that - and not just because 5.5 m isn't 16'6".

The quoted section was intended to give guidance on whether to allow a road surface under a bridge to be raised by resurfacing, but it says a lot obout minimum heights. It  is from "Prevention of Strikes on Bridges over Highways - A Protocol for Highway Managers and Bridge Owners", from DfT» (Department for Transport - about)/NR» (Network Rail - home page)/CSS (Cascading Style Sheets).
 
Quote
A.3 Unsigned bridges with 16’-6” (5.03m) or more headroom
A.3.1. Bridge deck is designed or has been assessed as able to resist vehicle impact forces,
current at the time of the surfacing works, as advised/agreed by the bridge owner:
(a) if existing headroom is 16’-6” (5.03m) or more allow reduction to 16’-9” if sought.
(b) if existing headroom is between 16’-9” (5.1m) and 16’-6” (5.03m) then no reduction
is allowed and efforts should be made to increase it to 16’-9”.
A.3.2 Lightweight structures not capable of resisting current impact forces as advised/
agreed by the bridge owner:
(a) if existing headroom is greater than 17’-9” (5.41m) allow reduction to 17’-9” if sought.
(b) if existing headroom is between 17’-9” (5.41m) and 16’-6” (5.03m) then no reduction
is allowed and efforts should be made to increase it to 17’-9” or as high as possible
and at least to 16’-9” if lower than this.
A.3.3 Relevance of different clearances:
A.3.3.1 Chapter 6 of TD 27/05* specifies headrooms, including additional provision for
sag curve compensation (S), for new construction and maintenance as follows:
  • 16'-6” (5.03m) + S is the standard minimum maintained headroom below which all
    bridges should be signed.
  • 17'-5” (5.30m) + S is the standard design headroom over the accessible highway
    for new bridges designed to resist current impact forces and for those built since
    the earlier version of TD 27 came into force in 1996.
  • 18'-9” (5.7m) + S is the standard design headroom over the accessible highway
    for new lightweight structures, ie, those not designed to resist impact forces, and
    for those built since the earlier version of TD 27 came into force in 1996.
  • 17'-9'’ (5.41m) + S is the equivalent minimum maintained headroom for new
    lightweight structures and those built since the earlier version of TD 27 came
    into force in 1996.
  • Design headroom is provided for structures at construction and allows for
    subsequent limited surfacing overlays for maintaining the highway beneath.
  • Maintained headroom is that minimum which must not be reduced at any time
    and which will consequently determine, along with other local issues, the
    possibility of overlaying.
A.3.3.2 The CSS suggests that highway authorities should over time aim to make 16'-9”
(5.10m) the minimum maintained headroom for all bridges prior to signing due to
confusion in drivers’ minds that 16’-6” (5.03m) represents the safe vehicle height for
unsigned bridges rather than the actual minimum headroom.

I can't see any difference in the rules for motorways. I would think this bridge counts among "lightweight structures, ie, those not designed to resist impact forces".

I'm pretty sure TD 27/05 is no longer in force, having been replaced by something or other, though I imagine its content is still valid.

*TD 27/05 is: ‘Cross Sections and Headrooms’ in DMRB Volume 6 ‘Road Geometry’, Section 1, Part 2, (February 2005) London: TSO (The Stationary Office (now OPSI)) for Highways Agency
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2016, 08:49:04 »

...
No warning sign is required if the height of the bridge is over (IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly)) 5.5m (16ft 6in).
...
- and not just because 5.5 m isn't 16'6".

Whoops  sorry.  I was going on memory from 35 years ago when I last did bridge engineering. 

I'm pretty sure TD 27/05 is no longer in force, having been replaced by something or other, though I imagine its content is still valid.

*TD 27/05 is: ‘Cross Sections and Headrooms’ in DMRB Volume 6 ‘Road Geometry’, Section 1, Part 2, (February 2005) London: TSO (The Stationary Office (now OPSI)) for Highways Agency


I can confirm that TD27/05 (DMRB Volume 6, Section 1, Part 2) is still in force. Though I have not read it. 
Logged
Gordon the Blue Engine
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 752


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2016, 10:04:56 »

This bridge appears to consist of 2 cantilevered sections which meet in the middle: from the pictures the intact section looks undamaged so presumably, from the structural point of view, could remain in place for the time being.  However, it may be distracting for motorists approaching it!

I’m surprised that the collapsed section failed so easily where it did.  The thickest and strongest section is above the vertical support where there is the maximum bending moment, and would have been designed accordingly.

The low loader with the digger on it was presumably travelling at quite low speed as it was on the hard shoulder, and the digger does not seem to have moved much on the trailer.  The impact was close to the strongest part of the bridge.  I’m just surprised that the bridge came of worst in this impact – I wonder whether the quality of construction may turn out to be an issue.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 11:01:02 by Gordon the Blue Engine » Logged
LiskeardRich
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3457

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2016, 10:15:58 »

I'm starting to have doubts it's actually hit.....

There is an overhead gantry at the same height a few yards earlier. Surely the excavator would have hit that first?

Also the breaks in the bridge look to be clean breaks, I would think being hit would give a broken area not clean.

Reported no arrests made, would this not be procedure for causing such an incident unless they thought the driver wasn't at fault.

this photo shows the details of a possible construction company carrying out work. Was there a known weakness in the bridge already to be undergoing work?


Logged

All posts are my own personal believes, opinions and understandings!
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2016, 11:29:19 »

I'm starting to have doubts it's actually hit.....

There is an overhead gantry at the same height a few yards earlier. Surely the excavator would have hit that first?

Also the breaks in the bridge look to be clean breaks, I would think being hit would give a broken area not clean.

Reported no arrests made, would this not be procedure for causing such an incident unless they thought the driver wasn't at fault.

this photo shows the details of a possible construction company carrying out work. Was there a known weakness in the bridge already to be undergoing work?

The piece that fell was a separately-made beam that was dropped in place on bearing ledges (at the "clean breaks" that were clearly visible e.g. on Street View). Thus (as noted earlier) it was just pushed off its ledge and fell.

The gantry is, presumably, at least the regulation height for such things over roads, and looks much more recent than the bridge. The bridge sloped across the road and may have been a little lower over the hard shoulder (though it's not supposed to be and probably wasn't when it was new either). But even if a roadful of structures are all supposed to be a single regulation height, you'll find one is the lowest and that's the one that gets hit first.

Currently the gantry and that footbridge would have higher minimum clearances than solid bridges, specifically to avoid the additional hazard of bits falling on the road. I'm not sure that was the case when the footbridge was designed.

From their signage, the contractors were working on the parapets, so presumably not the bridge itself.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 11:59:18 by stuving » Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page