Bridge parapet height question

[Gathursty]

Whenever I walk over a rail bridge recently, I find I can barely look over the bridge down to the track. I'm not a midget (5'8"). I assume it is a recent criteria for rail bridges to have barriers a certain height.

How high do bridge barriers have to be nowadays?
How recent is the rule/legislation on this?

I guess some people will not be bothered by this as you will be taller than me but I have to sadly stand on tiptoes.

I try to get around this problem by looking at the end of the bridge where there are normally metal fences which you can look through. It is annoying for me however. I assume I'm not alone here.

 

[roversfan2001]

IIRC the minimum parapet height was recently increased. Can't remember if it was from 1.2m to 1.5m or from 1.5m to 1.8m though.

 

[jopsuk]

the idea is to make it harder to throw large objects over or to climb on top. Considered much more important than annoying people that want to watch trains from the bridge

 

[Gathursty]

the idea is to make it harder to throw large objects over or to climb on top. Considered much more important than annoying people that want to watch trains from the bridge

It's quite sad that it has to be done. It's even worse that there are people who would lob things on to a railway or try to climb/jump off such bridges and ruin it for everyone else.

 

[Tio Terry]

Whenever I walk over a rail bridge recently, I find I can barely look over the bridge down to the track. I'm not a midget (5'8"). I assume it is a recent criteria for rail bridges to have barriers a certain height.

How high do bridge barriers have to be nowadays?
How recent is the rule/legislation on this?

I guess some people will not be bothered by this as you will be taller than me but I have to sadly stand on tiptoes.

I try to get around this problem by looking at the end of the bridge where there are normally metal fences which you can look through. It is annoying for me however. I assume I'm not alone here.

The height was changed when the energy TSI was updated - 2012 if I recall correctly - to 1.8M. NR was somewhat tardy in introducing the new requirement so I expect there are some locations that are relatively new that still don't meet this requirement.

 

[snowball]

The height was changed when the energy TSI was updated - 2012 if I recall correctly - to 1.8M. NR was somewhat tardy in introducing the new requirement so I expect there are some locations that are relatively new that still don't meet this requirement.

Does that include non-electrified lines?

 

[najaB]

Does that include non-electrified lines?

Generally, yes. The idea is to build all new structures as if the line is going to be electrified to save having to go back and rebuild them a few years later.

 

[AM9]

... or try to climb/jump off such bridges and ruin it for everyone else.

It looks like old attitudes to the desperation that leads to suicide are still alive in the minds of some here.

 

[Tio Terry]

Does that include non-electrified lines?

All structures are built to electrification standards now. Even in 3rd rail areas things like new Access for All (A4A) footbridges are built to full OHEL electrification clearances.

 

[AM9]

All structures are built to electrification standards now. Even in 3rd rail areas things like new Access for All (A4A) footbridges are built to full OHEL electrification clearances.

That's sensible forward planning.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That's sensible forward planning.

Very sensible forward planning, something the railway often lacks.

 

[AM9]

Very sensible forward planning, something the railway often lacks.

I was going to say the second part of your comment but didn't want to start another string of anti-(UK)rail strategic policy criticisms.

 

[Gathursty]

It looks like old attitudes to the desperation that leads to suicide are still alive in the minds of some here.

I was referring to an earlier poster who was talking about silly risk-takers trying to impress friends, doing parkour in the wrong place etc... Sorry if my lack of specific words made that unclear.

 

[broadgage]

Generally, yes. The idea is to build all new structures as if the line is going to be electrified to save having to go back and rebuild them a few years later.

It certainly sounds like commendable forward planning to build new bridge parapets and other structures so as to allow for future electrification works.

My natural cynicism about creeping elfansafety leads me to suspect that when electrification starts in say 10 years, that TODAYs structures will be found to be non compliant with the future rules and will have to be rebuilt.

 

[Bevan Price]

An unfortunate side-effect with some footbridges is that it can make it more difficult for approaching pedestrians to see if some "undesirable types" are lurking on that footbridge, Some areas make people nervous at night, especially if one does not have a clear view of the route you are using - and that includes some stations.

 

[jopsuk]

it's not necessarily about protecting the general public- an object or person falling from above into the path of a fast moving train can cause physical and psychological harm to drivers.