Bridge weight limit Health and Safety

[David]

To the OP.
The matter should be reported to the Police, Network Rail AND the local Highways Dept. Sending them the photos might be a good idea.
I'm guessing it might be in Mid Wales?

VOSA would be a better option, as all companies that use goods vehicles need an 'O' license from them. Failure to comply with weight limits (either vehicular or restrictions on bridges) is considered a serious offence which could see the driver(s) and/or the company in a lot of bother.

 

[IanXC]

For the record I have received the following from Network Rail, who were grateful for the matter being raised:

Bridge 67A (CNH3) is a private Road-Over-Rail bridge which is used by Network Rail to access flood defences. Other parties have been granted authorised user status of the bridge and have been given dispensation to take heavier vehicles over the bridge. Therefore, we have no issue with the activity described because we have formally permitted it.

 

[jackndanni]

I would like to thank you guys for all your help and advice on this bridge issue and I also think I owe you some sort of an explanation too.
I am Chairman and and Press & Public Relations for a group of 'enthusiasts' campaigning to restore and reopen the Duke of Lancaster aka The Mostyn Funship. She is a beautiful ship and the last turbine passenger steam ship left in existence and myself and fellow members of DOLAS, the Duke of Lancaster Appreciation Society think she is worth saving.
It is almost common knowledge that the owners of the ship have been at loggerheads with the local Council for the past 30 years. They brought the ship to Mostyn with the full blessing of Delyn Borough Council which led to their financial commitment to go ahead with the venture. The night the ship arrived in 1979 there was a party on board. All the Council were there of course. That evening John Rowley, the owner of the ship was asked to 'contribute a little something for the wife' shall we say. He refused.
From that day on he and the Funship were repeatedly attacked by the Council. The very same week after the party the bar licences were withdrawn and the brewery pulled out plus numerous other things.
The Funship went on, in spite of this, to be very successful and earned the prestigious title of the third most popular tourist attraction in the Country even though they were being targeted all the while on numerous issues by the Council.
The serving of 13 enforcement notices was probably the death knell for the ship. They had to close whilst being investigated which took 5-6 years by which time 11 of the notices were quashed, one withdrawn on the day and the 13th was a proviso to build up a wall to 5.5 meters which was done. The Secretary of State wiped the floor with the Council and an unprecedented sum was awarded.
That is just a very rough , tip of the iceberg, idea of what the owners were subjected to and they finally made the decision to close the ship.
We have been in talks now with Flintshire County Council for close on 2 years and like the history tells, we are experiencing pretty much the same treatment.
They say there are constraints that really aren't there one of them being access for the emergency services. When the ship was open the access they used has since been blocked off and the only access now is via, you guessed it, the bridge. The Council claimed in 1979 it was a weak bridge but it didn't matter so much then as alternative access was found but now, the bridge is the only way emergency vehicles can get to the site.
I have been researching this bridge for over 12 months now and I always knew it was a lot stronger than the Council claimed especially as I witnessed loads well excess of 10 tonne crossing it on a regular basis but the Council said otherwise.
To cut a very long story short Network Rail have now confirmed it is not a weak bridge and a fire engine has a statutory right to cross it. You see rather than fight the Council over the 10 tonne limit we decided to focus on the issue of health and safety instead... pointing out all the heavy loads crossing daily. I think Network Rail have realised they don't want to be roped in to claiming something that could well backfire on them.

I have just informed the Council of our new findings and wonder what next they will come up with? They have made false claims to stop any regeneration of the ship for 30 years and now we can begin to expose what a corrupt Council they are.
Thank you all for your help and advice and apologise if I was a little economical with the whole story. Ashley x

 

[dysonsphere]

And so you should truth up front would have got you more help.

 

[Murph]

You should probably have also mentioned that the ship in question is an interesting piece of BR heritage. That might well be considered interesting for this forum, possibly even gaining you some additional support and/or help!

Along with her sister ships the TSS Duke of Rothesay and the TSS Duke of Argyll she was amongst the last passenger-only steamers built for British Railways (at that time, also a ferry operator). She was a replacement for the 1928 steamer built by the London Midland and Scottish Railway, RMS Duke of Lancaster.

(And for those with interest in our shipbuilding heritage, built by H&W in Belfast.)

 

[jackndanni]

I think you're being a little harsh on me! I did not tell any lies. What you have to understand is usually when I mention anything to do with the Council people automatically turn their backs because they do not want to get involved. Why they do is beyond me because whilst people are quite prepared to turn their backs on what the authorities are doing it just gives them license to carry on.
Rather than put you all in a situation you would not like I simply chose to ask for your advice from a completely impartial view. Does this mean you don't support the ship and what we're trying to do?

 

[Murph]

I think you're being a little harsh on me! I did not tell any lies. What you have to understand is usually when I mention anything to do with the Council people automatically turn their backs because they do not want to get involved. Why they do is beyond me because whilst people are quite prepared to turn their backs on what the authorities are doing it just gives them license to carry on.
Rather than put you all in a situation you would not like I simply chose to ask for your advice from a completely impartial view. Does this mean you don't support the ship and what we're trying to do?

No harshness intended from me, quite the opposite, wanted to help by mentioning the BR heritage aspect! Given the situation, your approach wasn't entirely unreasonable.

Best of luck with it all!

 

[Squaddie]

The Funship went on, in spite of this, to be very successful and earned the prestigious title of the third most popular tourist attraction in the Country...

Third most popular tourist attraction in the country? Are you sure? How many customers did it attract each year?

 

[jon0844]

County perhaps?

 

[table38]

The Duke of Lancaster was featured on an episode of "Coast" a few years ago. There is a "video of the video" on Youtube:

[youtube]U3b8dCmtpyI[/youtube]

 

[Sidious]

On a side note, the imposition of weight limits on bridges is generally for one if two reasons:

The first is generally because if a vehicle (on any occasion) which was grossly in excessive the design limit of the bridge were to cross, it would be liable to cause the bridge to collapse. This would be usually for bridges such as pedestrian bridges.

The second is generally because if vehicles in excess of a particular weight on numerous and regular occasions were to cross the bridge it would cause cumulative long term damage to the bridge, but a single instance would not be a safety critical issue.

I suspect that the bridge in question firmly falls firmly the latter category.

 

[jackndanni]

Hi guys,

A while ago the leader of the Council Aaron Shotton said to me and to Maurice Blunt who is the organiser of the artwork that the Chief executive of Flintshire was researching the bridge and would get back to us with his findings.

Maurice Blunt and Dolas are not connected by the way but we do strive for the same thing at the end of the day, to save the Duke.
Anyway, I received an email from the CEO and this is what he has to say ...

Dear Ms Gardner,

Thank you for your email.

The Chief Executive has responded to a Maurice Blunt at Blackduke with the following information which I think answers the issues raised by yourself.

Duke of Lancaster and Glan-y-Don Bridge

Further to our recent e-mail exchange I have set out below the position with the Glan-y-Don Bridge. Whatever discussion and assumption may have preceded, including debate over an earlier Hyder report, this is a definitive position statement.

In summary, and as verified with Network Rail:-
1. The Glan-y-Don Bridge is owned and maintained by Network Rail;
2. The unmade track that passes over this bridge is owned and maintained by Network Rail;
3. Irrespective of gross weight, only vehicle authorised by Network Rail are permitted to pass over this bridge;
4. Network Rail acknowledges that the unmade track over this bridge is not an adopted highway but the surface of the public footpath is maintained by Flintshire County Council;
5. The weight restriction has been established by Network Rail; and
6. Prospective users of the bridge are required to apply to Network Rail for authorisation to use this bridge.

In full:-
The bridge is a private structure owned by Network Rail. Anyone who wishes to use this bridge requires authorisation from Network Rail, irrespective of the weight of the vehicle, to cross this bridge. The owners have full rights to allow and exclude whoever they wish. In discussions with Network Rail they have confirmed that anyone can apply for authority to use this bridge. This use would probably be limited to a number of passes or a time period. Permission is unlikely to be granted for open ended use.

There are only 3 authorised users for this bridge currently:-
1. The local farmer who has authorisation to use vehicles weighing up to 10 tonne
2. Welsh Water for servicing the sewerage works
3. Network Rail

If anyone planned to drive their car over the bridge they would first need Network Rail's authorisation. There is a question over the strength of this bridge and Network Rail have put a weight limit on it. They need no special permission to impose a weight limit since this is a private road and they own the bridge. The observed use of the Glan y Don bridge by vehicles clearly in excess of the 10t weight limit is essentially an unauthorised use of the bridge.
It seems evident that some vehicles may have been using this bridge without authorisation. The use of unauthorised vehicles over this bridge does not provide a precedent for other vehicles, nor proves the structural integrity of the bridge to sustain loads over the weight limit. Other than the maintenance of the public footpath that crosses this bridge for which the Council is responsible, we are not responsible for the bridge, the track over the bridge or the setting of the weight limit.

Vehicles in excess of the weight restriction which might have been photographed passing and repassing over the bridge (a 30t vehicle for instance) have done so without Network Rail’s authorisation. Network Rail have only given three parties authorisation to use this bridge (as above) and a 30t vehicle was not one of these. It is a very serious matter for an unauthorised vehicle to use this bridge, particularly if it exceeds 10t, and if any damage or incident occurs there could be serious consequences.

Fire appliances are treated as a separate type vehicle when assessing loading limits on bridges. So there will be instances where a fire appliance gross weight might exceed 10t, but nevertheless pass the load assessment for the bridge. As this is a Network Rail bridge we are not aware of their choice of fire appliance for this structure.
We have asked Network Rail to follow up their verbal advice with a written statement and to provide convenient contact details for anyone seeking permission to use the bridge.

I trust that this email deals with the issues beyond dispute.

The Network Rail contact for bridge access permission is set out below:-

<redacted>

Regards

Cllr. Aaron Shotton

Round about the same time this email arrived I also received an email from <> at Network Rail ...

Aug 29 (1 day ago)
to me

Dear Ashley

Thank you for your e-mail. I can confirm that, in the case of an emergency, the fire service does not need our permission to gain access over the route since it has statutory powers to do so. However, we cannot provide any guarantee that the land outside of our ownership is suitable for such access, nor that it would be available at all times in the future.

With regard to your other two questions, I will investigate and respond presently.

Kind Regards,

Robin

<>
Community Relations Manager
Government & Corporate Affairs
Network Rail

and this is my response to Flintshire Council which I am still waiting for a reply ...


Dear Aaron Shotton,

Thank you for your response but you cannot be serious as in no way does it answer the issue that we raised.

The issue is the Councils' claim the bridge is too weak to carry fire engines or vehicles weighing more than 10 tons. ( fire engines generally weigh around 12 tons )

Apparently the bridge being too weak has been the Councils' claim ever since the Duke of Lancaster berthed at Llanerch-y-Mor dock in 1979.
It is the Councils' claim in the Council commissioned Hyder report that the Council sent to us last year.

Dolas asked the Council to justify their weak bridge claim in the light of vehicles well over 20 ton being seen regularly using the bridge but the Council never have justified their claim despite numerous requests.

Mr Everett the Councils chief executive has now supposedly investigated the issue with Network Rail and come up with a definitive statement supposedly given to him verbally.
The definitive statement that you have copied to us avoids the issue of justifying the Councils' claim that the bridge is too weak but it does say we have to contact a Don Hughes at Network Rail in order to seek any authorisation for fire engines to cross the bridge.

It is quite alarming for Mr Everett to say, after carrying out his enquiries, that the definitive position is we must seek authorisation from Network Rail for fire engines to go over the bridge.
The real position is this, by coincidence and only yesterday, Network Rail wrote to our group and said authorisation for fire engines to cross the bridge is not required as they have a statutory right to do so.
The Councils' chief executive would know that.

Therefore can you please find out and explain what is going on?

May I also add that Network Rail have also confirmed that the bridge is not too weak to carry more than 10 tons and acknowledge the fact vehicles well in excess of 20 tons can use the bridge.

So can you please justify why the Council has been making the false claim all these years blocking our and others attempts to regenerate the site at Llanerch-y-Mor ?

We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Ashley

___________________
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have made a few videos for the ship and thought you may like to see the latest ones that tell more of the story...

http://youtu.be/XUmNP7aW0o4



http://youtu.be/_RQYFBe1HMY

The last particularly features the bridge issue x

 

[jackndanni]

Hi Guys,

During my research into the bridge at Glan-y-Don I have found out it has another name and that is 'Skelseys' ... attached a link to verify this.
Does anyone have any idea why ?

http://www.abcrailwayguide.co.uk/bridge/CNH3.67.2