Bridge-Bash at Kew on the South Circular Road (22/02)

[Dr_Paul]

I've been sent this picture of a bridge-bash that's occurred this evening on the A205 South Circular Road at the bridge under the North London Line and District Line, just north of Kew Gardens station. The TFL website states that road traffic has been stopped both ways, but there's no mention of any disruption on the railway, so presumably there's no major damage to the bridge. One would expect a lorry driver to know the height of his vehicle.

 

[farci]

Apparently not!
An average of five bridge strikes per day, says Network Rail
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/bridge-strikes-when-and-where-they-occur/

 

[Ken H]

Apparently not!
An average of five bridge strikes per day, says Network Rail
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/bridge-strikes-when-and-where-they-occur/

this is concerning
one day someone will bash a bridge with something hard and dislodge it just as a fast train approaches.

This one looks like a trailer made out of flimsy lightweight stuff.

 

[PeterC]

Looks like a lot of people's internet purchases will be delivered late.

 

[eMeS]

It's surely reasonable for lorry drivers to expect that a major well signposted route like the South Circular can take modern style lorries...

 

[700007]

I already know the answer, but I will still ask anyway. Why is there no tough penalty on lorry drivers, who do this collectively 5 times daily?

 

[JN114]

this is concerning
one day someone will bash a bridge with something hard and dislodge it just as a fast train approaches.

This one looks like a trailer made out of flimsy lightweight stuff.

Bridges are exceptionally strong. Given the maximum permitted weights of conventional road vehicles on the roads in the UK, road vehicles simply wouldn’t hold enough momentum to do catastrophic damage to a Rail over road bridge.

Road over rail is a different story, and we’ve already seen from the likes of Heck, Oxshott in modern times the damage an errant vehicle can do. That is where the greatest risk lies and thus NR’s greatest allocation of funds for mitigation works.

 

[furnessvale]

It's surely reasonable for lorry drivers to expect that a major well signposted route like the South Circular can take modern style lorries...

As a rider to that, it would also be reasonable if the UK had a height limit for HGVs so that bridge builders knew that a bridge they build will not get struck by overheight HGVs!

 

[Bald Rick]

I already know the answer, but I will still ask anyway. Why is there no tough penalty on lorry drivers, who do this collectively 5 times daily?

That depends what you mean by tough.

this is concerning
one day someone will bash a bridge with something hard and dislodge it just as a fast train approaches.

This one looks like a trailer made out of flimsy lightweight stuff.

Most trailers are flimsy. However there was a bridge bash up near Norton Bridge last week (on an overbridge as it happens), which caused a large crack in an abutment. Put it this way, it wasn’t going to polish out. Parts of the WCML were shut as a result.

 

[yorksrob]

It's surely reasonable for lorry drivers to expect that a major well signposted route like the South Circular can take modern style lorries...

Why should we farepayers/taxpayers pay to heighten all our bridges just because logistics firms want to run oversized vehicles ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's surely reasonable for lorry drivers to expect that a major well signposted route like the South Circular can take modern style lorries...

Surely it's reasonsble to expect a professional driver will a) know how big his vehicle is and b) know how to read a bloody road sign.

The invoice for the damage should be sent to DPD.

 

[Dstock7080]

The TFL website states that road traffic has been stopped both ways, but there's no mention of any disruption on the railway, so presumably there's no major damage to the bridge.

District Line services were not suspended or reduced, if this incident occurred on Friday evening.

 

[Antman]

As a rider to that, it would also be reasonable if the UK had a height limit for HGVs so that bridge builders knew that a bridge they build will not get struck by overheight HGVs!

Not practical, the onus is on drivers not to hit low bridges.

 

[Antman]

this is concerning
one day someone will bash a bridge with something hard and dislodge it just as a fast train approaches.

This one looks like a trailer made out of flimsy lightweight stuff.

Highly unlikely to dislodge the bridge, most trailers are made of "flimsy lightweight stuff" which absorbs the impact otherwise there is a risk of the lorry overturning as has happened before with container lorries.

 

[evergreenadam]

A frequent occurrence at this location unfortunately. The South Circular is merely a designation, the road is one lane in each direction with a height restriction and totally unsuited for the heavy flows it is expected to cope with. In the 1980s there were plans for a road tunnel between Barnes and Chiswick Roundabout to avoid orbital traffic needing to use the congested Kew Bridge and this road.

 

[Jensen]

The proposition in post 14 that a bridge bash is highly unlikely to dislodge a bridge is fundamentally incorrect. I can recall at least two occurrences were bridge decks were dislodged as a result of impacts. One in Ireland led to fatalities and one in North Wales was spotted by first train in the morning with the driver noting a mis-alignment of the track.
A lot of locations have now benefited from the installation of crash protection beams and new build structures being designed for accidental uplift situations.

 

[Ken H]

The proposition in post 14 that a bridge bash is highly unlikely to dislodge a bridge is fundamentally incorrect. I can recall at least two occurrences were bridge decks were dislodged as a result of impacts. One in Ireland led to fatalities and one in North Wales was spotted by first train in the morning with the driver noting a mis-alignment of the track.
A lot of locations have now benefited from the installation of crash protection beams and new build structures being designed for accidental uplift situations.

I think a lowloader with an incorrectly loaded JCB that hit a bridge dislodged the structure enough to move the track out of alignment.
But these are classed as RTA'a and the rail safety lot seem to regard RTA's affecting the railway are the highways authorities problem. Great heck was regarded as an RTA.

RTA = Road traffic accident

 

[furnessvale]

Not practical, the onus is on drivers not to hit low bridges.

It is practical for the rest of Europe.

 

[furnessvale]

Highly unlikely to dislodge the bridge, most trailers are made of "flimsy lightweight stuff" which absorbs the impact otherwise there is a risk of the lorry overturning as has happened before with container lorries.

Trailers are made of flimsy lightweight stuff to minimise tare weight and maximise payload. That is the number one priority. Any thought of minimising damage to third parties is a very poor runner up.

 

[Highlandspring]

Bridges are exceptionally strong. Given the maximum permitted weights of conventional road vehicles on the roads in the UK, road vehicles simply wouldn’t hold enough momentum to do catastrophic damage to a Rail over road bridge.

Oyne, May 1978, bridge catastrophically damaged and train derailed resulting in 7 injuries.

Read all about it -
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Oyne1978.pdf

 

[Tomnick]

As a rider to that, it would also be reasonable if the UK had a height limit for HGVs so that bridge builders knew that a bridge they build will not get struck by overheight HGVs!

There is, surely? There’s a standard height (16’6”?) below which bridges have to carry signs to show the clearance, so it follows that there’s a maximum vehicle height, above which any movement has to be specially planned as an abnormal load.

 

[Elecman]

Bridges are exceptionally strong. Given the maximum permitted weights of conventional road vehicles on the roads in the UK, road vehicles simply wouldn’t hold enough momentum to do catastrophic damage to a Rail over road bridge.

This isn’t true, many rail overbridges have suffered sufficient damage to misalign the rails enough to derail a train.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is, surely? There’s a standard height (16’6”?) below which bridges have to carry signs to show the clearance, so it follows that there’s a maximum vehicle height, above which any movement has to be specially planned as an abnormal load.

Oddly enough, unlike the rest of Europe, there isn't a maximum height for road vehicles in the U.K. Above a certain height (3m IIRC) vehicles must display their height in the cab. And the design height of bridges on motorways etc is 5m, so obviously you wouldn’t get very far with anything above that height.

 

[JN114]

This isn’t true, many rail overbridges have suffered sufficient damage to misalign the rails enough to derail a train.

In the context of the quantity of bridge strikes, it’s a very very small proportion.

 

[furnessvale]

In the context of the quantity of bridge strikes, it’s a very very small proportion.

In the context of rail's safety record overall, it is totally unacceptable that errant road vehicles should transfer road levels of safety to the rail environment.

 

[DerekC]

In the context of rail's safety record overall, it is totally unacceptable that errant road vehicles should transfer road levels of safety to the rail environment.

A very worthy statement, but a tad unrealistic! It happens at every level crossing.

 

[Ken H]

A very worthy statement, but a tad unrealistic! It happens at every level crossing.

dont get me started on level crossings. Thats something else that should be removed from the rail system where ever possible.

 

[Antman]

The proposition in post 14 that a bridge bash is highly unlikely to dislodge a bridge is fundamentally incorrect. I can recall at least two occurrences were bridge decks were dislodged as a result of impacts. One in Ireland led to fatalities and one in North Wales was spotted by first train in the morning with the driver noting a mis-alignment of the track.
A lot of locations have now benefited from the installation of crash protection beams and new build structures being designed for accidental uplift situations.

I'll take your word for that but the fact is that the vast majority of bridge strikes, and they happen often enough, do not dislodge the bridge.

 

[Antman]

In the context of rail's safety record overall, it is totally unacceptable that errant road vehicles should transfer road levels of safety to the rail environment.

Easy saying that but do you have a solution?

 

[DarloRich]

Highly unlikely to dislodge the bridge, most trailers are made of "flimsy lightweight stuff" which absorbs the impact otherwise there is a risk of the lorry overturning as has happened before with container lorries.

I suspect you read the post by @Bald Rick - the situation he describes is not uncommon