Bridge hit - again "Freshford" = Limpley Stoke?

[whole diary]

[Mark A]

Really grateful for this. When I suggested that perhaps it was more profitable to deal with constant bridge strikes than to run a railway it was only partly tongue-in-cheek - it was LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about) who at one point said the quiet bit out loud, observing at I think a shareholders meeting that their profitability had deteriorated because, infrastructure maintenance related, given that the causes of various disruptive incidents, the train operating company were not receiving as much compensation from Network Rail.

The announcement perhaps showed that both organisations were in danger of losing sight of where the passenger was in all this.

Mark

[John D]

I had also reported to Network Rail, their vegetation overhanging the road, obscuring the warning signs, however if and when they choose to do anything remains to be seen.

[grahame]

From Winsley Parish Council on Facebook

The Parish Council and our Unitary Councillor Nigel White continue to be frustrated about the increase in overheight vehicles hitting the railway bridge. Over the past few months Nigel has been talking with Network Rail, Wiltshire Highways and National Highways about this issue. All are in support of introducing measures to reduce the likelihood of overheight vehicles attempting to drive under the bridge. Following recent meetings with these organisations, Nigel will provide a more detailed update by the end of this week.

"All are in support of introducing measures" - good.   Now will someone, please, actually do something rather than just supporting the idea?   Perhaps we should be patient and await Nigel's update over the next 48 hours - perhaps someone is actually going to do something?

[John D]

Drove under it yesterday, and the vegetation at the corner just before the bridge has been cut back completely.

But the approach warning signage from A36 still needs improving, it is easy to miss if not looking for it

[bobm]

More details on the authorities’ response to the strikes here - https://transwilts.org/2026/07/15/solving-the-problem-of-limpley-stoke/

Train services through Melksham are being increasingly disrupted by over height road vehicles hitting a rail bridge at Limpley Stoke.

Although the bridge is not on the TransWilts line, when the line over it has to close for an inspection services from Cardiff to Portsmouth have to divert over the route at the expense of the local service.

Faced with seven strikes since March this year Network Rail is working with the highway authorities to reduce the occurrences. It is thought the extension of the weight limit over the Cleveland bridge in Bath and the city’s Clean Air Zone has led to affected vehicles diverting along the B3108.

Among the measures being looked at are

• Upgraded road signage on approaches to the bridge
• Flashing over height vehicle detection lights, similar to those at White House Road bridge in Swindon
• Exploring funding for collision protection beams
• Updated briefing on the bridge’s structural condition, reinforcing why it remains safe despite its appearance
• Reviewing the late reported bridge strike process within Network Rail’s Route Control
• Updating local instructions and publications to reflect revised response requirements
• Briefing staff on the updated approach to ensure consistency on site
• Pursuing insurance claims when vehicle registration details are available.
In conjunction with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), Network Rail is also looking at contingency plans to use when the bridge is closed for inspections.

[grahame]

And from (Wiltshire) Councillor Nigel White in who's ward THAT bridge lies

https://www.winsley.org.uk/news/a-bridge-too-far-update-from-unitary-cllr-nigel-white

[snip]

Current Situation

It was time to get something done. The strikes continued, every one requiring Network Rail to hold trains until an inspection had been done.

The strike on the 23rd March had caused 38 full and 39 partial train cancellations; this was costing Network Rail serious money, Network Rail wanted something done too, and they were prepared to discuss funding risk mitigation measures.  One of the many things suggested by residents to me was some sort of sensor activated sign before Winsley roundabout warning high vehicles to turn around. This option was discussed positively by both parties. The estimated cost would be around £25k. which Network Rail would fund and Wiltshire Highway would install. Network Rail also proposed putting up a temporary electronic sign until a permanent solution was installed. This was sounding like something was going to get done, and it still may, however, new options have entered the discussion, which might produce better results, but they will take longer and cost more.  Please read the attached Meeting Notes and supporting slides for details.

Essentially, the main problem is that Network Rail engineers think that the correct height restriction should be 3.9m but Wiltshire Highways think that 4.1m is right.

If that sounds intractable, fear not, Network Rail need to get something done and I’m going to make it my mission to get something done, because residents need something to be done!
[snip]

Not only residents need something done - so do rail passengers passing through the area, and those who aren't even in the immediate area but are trying to catch trains that are cancelled or delayed as a result.

[ChrisB]

[snip]

Current Situation

essentially, the main problem is that Network Rail engineers think that the correct height restriction should be 3.9m but Wiltshire Highways think that 4.1m is right.
[snip]

So.....what vehicles would not be restricted by the council, but would be by Network Rail?
(I'm sorry, I don't know the heiht of commercial vehicles)

[chipbury]

It's worth scrolling to the bottom of the councillors update and clicking on the two links (meeting minutes / meeting slides), they give a good insight to the saga.

[Mark A]

It's worth scrolling to the bottom of the councillors update and clicking on the two links (meeting minutes / meeting slides), they give a good insight to the saga.

Thanks for that - really informative and well spotted.

Also, I'd not reallsed that bridge heights and the fit beneath them were approached in a way that reminds me of... did anyone when very small have that child's puzzle that consisted of a plastic drum with a lid with various shaped holes in it - and a set of plastic shapes that needed to be pushed rather firmly through their respective apertures?

With those minimum clearance tolerances it rather sounds as though a combination of a vehicle that just passes beneath a bridge and a piece of debris on the road could precipitate a bridge strike. Now reading the notes and slides again to see if it's really the case that the notes say the clearance as signed is more than the bridge provides.

Mark

[John D]

It's worth scrolling to the bottom of the councillors update and clicking on the two links (meeting minutes / meeting slides), they give a good insight to the saga.

Thanks for that - really informative and well spotted.

Also, I'd not reallsed that bridge heights and the fit beneath them were approached in a way that reminds me of... did anyone when very small have that child's puzzle that consisted of a plastic drum with a lid with various shaped holes in it - and a set of plastic shapes that needed to be pushed rather firmly through their respective apertures?

With those minimum clearance tolerances it rather sounds as though a combination of a vehicle that just passes beneath a bridge and a piece of debris on the road could precipitate a bridge strike. Now reading the notes and slides again to see if it's really the case that the notes say the clearance as signed is more than the bridge provides.

Mark

Yes appears it is 4289mm or 4297mm depending on how it is measured.   But this is spot clearance, and doesn't take into account road is higher beyond the bridge.

But to allow for suspension variation etc, traffic sign manual requires a minimum of 80mm and a round down to next 0.1m

However it seems because road is higher one end, should use 16m chord (basically length of HGV with 40foot container), and using this should be signed as 3.9m (or 12'9" as imperial rounds down in 3 inch increments), whereas some current signs show warning as 4.2m

Although Wiltshire seemed oblivious as to why more trucks were using it, they seem not to have noticed additional delays on A350 (they widen bits, but move problem delay along road, not remove it).  Sat Nav's will usually route via quickest route (so regularly avoid A350) regardless of suitability of the road.  Also Bath has also added weight restriction on the A36 bridge forcing big trucks to take alternative route.  Unclear to me why Wiltshire Highways can't work that out.