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

[LAX54]

It is practical for the rest of Europe.

seen more than one well and truly stuck under bridges in Europe !

 

[AndyW33]

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.

The trouble with displaying the height in the cab is twofold. Firstly it is simply unworkable in the case of articulated lorries where the same tractor unit may haul several different trailers, of differing heights, during the course of the same day. Secondly, even with rigid vehicles with fixed bodies, the drivers don't always pay any attention. Buses have had the height marked in the cab for over 70 years, yet several double decker buses get de-roofed each year.

 

[jopsuk]

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?

5 times daily to railway bridges, at that.

there are many other over-road structures- wonder what the actual total is?

 

[jopsuk]

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

Road Traffic Collision is the preferred term these days. "Accident" has an air of a lack of responsibility, a lack of avoidability.

 

[Lockwood]

Official vocab guidelines...

Spoiler: Transcript

ANGEL and DANNY wave on the morning traffic past the crash site. JAMES REAPER leans out of his 4X4.

REAPER
What’s happened Danny?

DANNY
Car accident.

REAPER
Nasty way to go.

ANGEL
Constable, official vocab guidelines state we no longer refer to these incidents as "accidents", they are now "collisions"

DANNY
Right...

[Clip cuts ahead]

SKINNER pulls away fast. ANGEL watches his MG go and makes a note of the personalised numberplate ’SS1’. Behind AMANDA PAVER pulls up on her bicycle and talks to DANNY.

AMANDA PAVER
What happened, Danny?

DANNY
Traffic collision... Hey, why can’t we say "accident" again?

ANGEL
Because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.

 

[whhistle]

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

Because that's the price of progress?
That's why our roads are now too small. Look at the original mini compared with cars these days - they're tiny!

Plus, smaller vehicles means more of them.
Two lots of trucks, environmental blah blah, not to mention yet more slow trucks on the already congested roads.

 

[Antman]

Because that's the price of progress?
That's why our roads are now too small. Look at the original mini compared with cars these days - they're tiny!

Plus, smaller vehicles means more of them.
Two lots of trucks, environmental blah blah, not to mention yet more slow trucks on the already congested roads.

It's simply not possible to increase the clearance on many bridges, Shortlands for example.

 

[underbank]

5 times daily to railway bridges, at that.

there are many other over-road structures- wonder what the actual total is?

Probably double that with non-rail bridges. There is a foot/cycle bridge near me that gets hit a few times each year, by double decker buses, normal artic lorries and other vehicles such as large skip/portacabin carriers. There are road signs on the approach, good visibility and hazard chevrons on the bridge, but the drivers still plough into it!

 

[Stigy]

I don’t see how labelling cabs with vehicle heights helps, if a vehicle the size of this hits a bridge that is clearly too low to accommodate it, it’s down to a lapse in concentration by the HGV driver. It’s becoming such a problem now that some bridges that are problematic have gantries attaches meaning if a vehicle hits, it doesnt affect the bridge itself, meaning rail traffic can keep running normally. As far as I’m aware, drivers tend not to face prosecution when then hit bridges, or have to foot the bill for the often thousands of pounds worth of delay minutes incurred by the railway. Maybe this would be a deterrent?

 

[Lucan]

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

Because that's the price of progress?

If a bridge is too small for the railway then the railway should pay for its enlargement. If a bridge is too small for lorries then the lorry owners should pay for its enlargement. Doesn't matter if the railway/road goes over or under. Seems simple to me.
And I mean the lorry owners, not the car owners who subsidise them; the latter do not need the higher clearance.

Plus, smaller vehicles means more of them. Two lots of trucks, environmental blah blah.....

It is not as simple as that. Larger trucks mean more of them because it makes it more economical to carry goods further and to take freight from rail. You should be aware of Jevon's Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox which states that when you make something more efficient it gets used more - to an extent outweighing the reduction in useage that might have been simplistically expected from the efficiency gain.
From Wikipedia :-

Jevons observed that England's onsumption of coal soared after James Watt introduced the the Watt steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of the coal fired steam engine ..

 

[Antman]

I don’t see how labelling cabs with vehicle heights helps, if a vehicle the size of this hits a bridge that is clearly too low to accommodate it, it’s down to a lapse in concentration by the HGV driver. It’s becoming such a problem now that some bridges that are problematic have gantries attaches meaning if a vehicle hits, it doesnt affect the bridge itself, meaning rail traffic can keep running normally. As far as I’m aware, drivers tend not to face prosecution when then hit bridges, or have to foot the bill for the often thousands of pounds worth of delay minutes incurred by the railway. Maybe this would be a deterrent?

Obviously the height has to be displayed in the cab or the driver would just have to guess.

 

[A0wen]

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

You could make the same point about any infrastructure improvements such as platform lengthening on the railways to run longer trains.

It's about having appropriate capacity - and the South Circ is a major route, so it's reasonable to assume it shouldn't have height limitations.

Your problem is unless the solution runs on rails you don't see the point of it / don't like it.

As it happens an old Routemaster would only just have fitted under that bridge - those were 14' 4 1/2 " - so less than 5" clearance.

 

[hwl]

the South Circ is a major route, so it's reasonable to assume it shouldn't have height limitations.

The South Circ is a sheep in wolf's clothing and that is a very bad assumption as it has plenty! Three of the Six < 16'6" bridges on South Circular are regularly in the annual top 10 hit bridges.
It is a TfL controlled road and they won't seem to want to spend any money getting NR to replace the bridge decks to remove the clearance issues. (diversions for the 6 low bridges can add up to 5-6miles extra to a trip for some bridges)
Tulse Hill is a seriously expensive job when that comes up for renewal (station rebuild at the same time) so circa £60-70m.

The residents of Kew quite like restriction on HGVs.

 

[Antman]

The South Circ is a sheep in wolf's clothing and that is a very bad assumption as it has plenty! Three of the Six < 16'6" bridges on South Circular are regularly in the annual top 10 hit bridges.
It is a TfL controlled road and they won't seem to want to spend any money getting NR to replace the bridge decks to remove the clearance issues. (diversions for the 6 low bridges can add up to 5-6miles extra to a trip for some bridges)
Tulse Hill is a seriously expensive job when that comes up for renewal (station rebuild at the same time) so circa £60-70m.

The residents of Kew quite like restriction on HGVs.

Why should TfL be wasting money on things like that? There is a very easy diversion route around the Tulse Hill low bridge (Lancaster Avenue) and it's not exactly difficult to avoid the other low bridges on the South Circular.

 

[hwl]

Why should TfL be wasting money on things like that? There is a very easy diversion route around the Tulse Hill low bridge (Lancaster Avenue) and it's not exactly difficult to avoid the other low bridges on the South Circular.

That was sort of my point not that much reason to until the realise they should think about doing stuff for Air quality reasons.
Catford isn't that easy to avoid as all the bridges along the Hayes Line are low too.
Putney (East Putney tube) and Tulse Hill are easy to avoid but adds time on to journeys.

Mind you I've seen other (newer, stronger, tougher) Tulse Hill Bridge that is over 16'6" (on height warning on bridge) taken out by an HGV or more precisely the high cube transit on the top of a car transporter the total height would have been ~21'!

 

[Ken H]

These bridges were adequate for the road traffic before WW2. The fact that the haulage industry wants to run huge trucks but expects the government to pay for the infrastructure to fit them. Maybe if hauliers want bridges made higher so their stuff can go under they should cough up. Same as the railway had to pay to make big containers fit the existing railway.

 

[yorksrob]

Because that's the price of progress?
That's why our roads are now too small. Look at the original mini compared with cars these days - they're tiny!

Plus, smaller vehicles means more of them.
Two lots of trucks, environmental blah blah, not to mention yet more slow trucks on the already congested roads.

That's not really a comparison though. Even in the heyday of the Mini, there were still plenty of Rolls Royces, Hearses, delivery vans, green goddesses and other large vehicles that were built to fit around Britain's road network.

I'm not usually an advocate for the ordinary car driver, but they usually end up paying for the additional damage caused by the ever larger lorries.

 

[yorksrob]

You could make the same point about any infrastructure improvements such as platform lengthening on the railways to run longer trains.

It's about having appropriate capacity - and the South Circ is a major route, so it's reasonable to assume it shouldn't have height limitations.

Your problem is unless the solution runs on rails you don't see the point of it / don't like it.

As it happens an old Routemaster would only just have fitted under that bridge - those were 14' 4 1/2 " - so less than 5" clearance.

If the haulage industry wants higher bridges, let the haulage industry pay for it. Or if it does require taxpayer subsidy, it should come out of the budget set aside for road improvements. If this is so important, let them cancel the Little Piddling on the Wold's by-pass, not our platform extensions.

Ought to be the same with level crossing replacements frankly.

 

[A0wen]

If the haulage industry wants higher bridges, let the haulage industry pay for it. Or if it does require taxpayer subsidy, it should come out of the budget set aside for road improvements. If this is so important, let them cancel the Little Piddling on the Wold's by-pass, not our platform extensions.

Ought to be the same with level crossing replacements frankly.

Given the haulage industry pays FAR more in taxes currently than rail passengers, I'd suggest that ALOT more should be spent on the roads than currently is.

The haulage industry incurs, in no particular order, vehicle excise duty, fuel duty, corporation tax, NI. Given the haulage industry is a net contributor to the tax pot, whereas the rail industry is a net drain, I'd be very careful what you wish for.

As ever, you've just demonstrated you're anti-roads, even when the works would make complete sense and might actually benefit the rail industry. The problem with people like you is society would never have developed beyond caves, so intent are you on obstructing progress.

 

[yorksrob]

Given the haulage industry pays FAR more in taxes currently than rail passengers, I'd suggest that ALOT more should be spent on the roads than currently is.

The haulage industry incurs, in no particular order, vehicle excise duty, fuel duty, corporation tax, NI. Given the haulage industry is a net contributor to the tax pot, whereas the rail industry is a net drain, I'd be very careful what you wish for.

As others have pointed out, the haulage industry is effectively subsidised by ordinary motorists who have to pay for the damage caused by large vehicles.

Frankly any subsidy to the railway is worth it for them, just to keep us off of the roads.

 

[Antman]

These bridges were adequate for the road traffic before WW2. The fact that the haulage industry wants to run huge trucks but expects the government to pay for the infrastructure to fit them. Maybe if hauliers want bridges made higher so their stuff can go under they should cough up. Same as the railway had to pay to make big containers fit the existing railway.

Do hauliers want bridges made higher? For the vast majority of drivers low bridges aren't a problem, they avoid them. In many cases it's pie in the sky to suggest increasing bridge clearances just like removing level crossings.

 

[A0wen]

As others have pointed out, the haulage industry is effectively subsidised by ordinary motorists who have to pay for the damage caused by large vehicles.

Frankly any subsidy to the railway is worth it for them, just to keep us off of the roads.

So please explain to me how the railways - already at capacity - are going to deliver the goods to my local Tesco without incurring massive costs ?

The railways are fine for shipping large quantities of bulky products from one point to another. They are not in any way efficient at delivering smaller quantities or handling multiple drops. The kind of stuff in that DPD lorry is a case in point - almost certainly palletised, very possibly multi-drop i.e. picking up from one or two warehouses and dropping off at many others.

I actually understand the logistics business - you clearly don't.

 

[A0wen]

Do hauliers want bridges made higher? For the vast majority of drivers low bridges aren't a problem, they avoid them. In many cases it's pie in the sky to suggest increasing bridge clearances just like removing level crossings.

I suspect universally they don't - but there is a legitimate point where you have 'trunk' routes, of which the south-circular is one, where you might reasonably expect there to be no height limitations. Compare that with the North Circular for example which over the years has been improved and now is a fairly effective route from east to west London without major obstruction.

Nobody's suggesting replacing low bridges universally - but where they are on major trunk routes AND have major rail lines on top of them which are disrupted in the event of a bridge strike, there is more than a small amount of merit in addressing these.

 

[Lucan]

Given the haulage industry pays FAR more in taxes currently than rail passengers..... The haulage industry incurs, in no particular order, vehicle excise duty, fuel duty, corporation tax, NI.

Looking around a typical train-load of passengers I would guess that 75% of them own cars, so are paying tax on them even while they are not using them. My wife and myself are certainly subsidising HGVs as far as road usage is concerned. I estimate that I pay ten times as much VED per mile for my car as a typical HGV of the heaviest type, despite their causing orders of magnitude more road damage, pollution and road space occupancy.*

The basic problem with road pricing is that much or most of the users' cost is fixed (VED, insurance, depreciation of vehicle value) so there is no dis-incentive to use a vehicle to the full once you have it, and the distribution of that cost among users has acquired a Kafkaesque skew to it.

so intent are you on obstructing progress

That depends on what you consider to be progress. I would regard getting freight in particular onto rail as progress.

* Road damage by a vehicle is related to the fourth power of the axle load, multiplied by the number of axles.

 

[Antman]

I suspect universally they don't - but there is a legitimate point where you have 'trunk' routes, of which the south-circular is one, where you might reasonably expect there to be no height limitations. Compare that with the North Circular for example which over the years has been improved and now is a fairly effective route from east to west London without major obstruction.

Nobody's suggesting replacing low bridges universally - but where they are on major trunk routes AND have major rail lines on top of them which are disrupted in the event of a bridge strike, there is more than a small amount of merit in addressing these.

As you say the North Circular has been virtually rebuilt but it would be impossible to do the same with the South Circular without large scale demolition so we're pretty much stuck with what we've got.

 

[A0wen]

Looking around a typical train-load of passengers I would guess that 75% of them own cars, so are paying tax on them even while they are not using them. My wife and myself are certainly subsidising HGVs as far as road usage is concerned. I estimate that I pay ten times as much VED per mile for my car as a typical HGV of the heaviest type, despite their causing orders of magnitude more road damage, pollution and road space occupancy.*

The basic problem with road pricing is that much or most of the users' cost is fixed (VED, insurance, depreciation of vehicle value) so there is no dis-incentive to use a vehicle to the full once you have it, and the distribution of that cost among users has acquired a Kafkaesque skew to it.


That depends on what you consider to be progress. I would regard getting freight in particular onto rail as progress.

* Road damage by a vehicle is related to the fourth power of the axle load, multiplied by the number of axles.

You're comparing Apples with Bananas though.

Your private car is there for you and your wife to transport private individuals to / from Waitrose, the seaside, Great Aunt Maud's (delete as appropriate) at your convenience.

HGVs are being used for entirely commercial purposes - to move product from place A to place B.

You can't compare commercial use with private use - the motives are totally different.

 

[Lucan]

So please explain to me how the railways - already at capacity - are going to deliver the goods to my local Tesco without incurring massive costs ? The railways are fine for shipping large quantities of bulky products from one point to another. They are not in any way efficient at delivering smaller quantities or handling multiple drops.

The rails don't need to go in through Tesco's back door. As you say, smaller lorries and vans are best for most last-leg distribution. Do you know - that is what the railways did once, with their own fleet of local delivery trucks from goods yards. And that is what a lot of the road haulage industry does today, using large lorries for long haul to localised distribution depot/warehouses (there is a big one near me, Tesco are there as it happens, right next to a railway as it happens) for re-loading onto local distribution trucks.

What killed that business with the railways was the unnecessarily large number of goods yards (one at every station practically) after horses and hand barrows were replaced by vans and trucks. But the old yards were kept on, uneconomically, because they were legally required - so there was no point in modernising the system until, with greater powers, Beeching simply closed them as money drains.

 

[A0wen]

The rails don't need to go in through Tesco's back door. As you say, smaller lorries and vans are best for most last-leg distribution. Do you know - that is what the railways did once, with their own fleet of local delivery trucks from goods yards. And that is what a lot of the road haulage industry does today, using large lorries for long haul to localised distribution depot/warehouses (there is a big one near me, Tesco are there as it happens, right next to a railway as it happens) for re-loading onto local distribution trucks.

What killed that business with the railways was the unnecessarily large number of goods yards (one at every station practically) after horses and hand barrows were replaced by vans and trucks. But the old yards were kept on, uneconomically, because they were legally required - so there was no point in modernising the system until, with greater powers, Beeching simply closed them as money drains.

Which means you'll still have large - in some cases double-deck - trailers doing deliveries. Because that's what will be needed to make it efficient. For the likes of Tesco, with perishable items which need to be temperature controlled, the railways can't even begin to offer a viable service. They can just about offer something where you have non-perishable goods arriving in containers from the Far East or Eastern Europe - but even then it will be shipped from the container to a 'Hub' warehouse which in turn will break that bulk down to deliveries for a group of stores. The railway network can't operate logistics in that way - it would be better to keep them focussed on what they need to do now, not trying to get them to do other stuff which they won't do very well.

 

[Lucan]

Your private car is there for you and your wife to transport private individuals to / from Waitrose, the seaside, Great Aunt Maud's (delete as appropriate) at your convenience. HGVs are being used for entirely commercial purposes - to move product from place A to place B.

I have a big estate car in the top car VED group because I live in the sticks and carry a lot of stuff. The other day it was a dozen fence posts, last week building blocks, there is always something to fill it. The lorry that delivered that stuff to the builders merchants was commercial, but when I take it onwards I am not - makes sense? How about people driving cars to work versus lorries delivering party poppers?

In essence, you are admitting that lorries are subsidised.

 

[A0wen]

I have a big estate car in the top car VED group because I live in the sticks and carry a lot of stuff. The other day it was a dozen fence posts, last week building blocks, there is always something to fill it. The lorry that delivered that stuff to the builders merchants was commercial, but when I take it onwards I am not - makes sense? .

Yes - go and look at the definition of commercial.

The lorry is delivering them to a commercial outlet.

You are not moving them to a commercial outlet, you are buying a subset of what that lorry has delivered for private consumption.