This article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-63636260 on the BBC refers to Harefield Road in West Ruislip receiving 12 stikes but were is the bridge? The nearest Harefield Roads to West Ruislip are in Rickmansworth and Uxbridge and no where near any railways. Checking the map I can only find over bridges in West Ruislip except Breakspear Road South. Where is the BBC referring to?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Harefield Road West Ruislip bridge bashes
- Thread starter Kevin51
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Chris M
Member
The source of the BBC report (and the identical wording in many other news articles) appears to be this Network Rail press release which includes at number 6 "Harefield Road, Brakespeare Road South, West Ruislip, London 12 strikes"
Brakespeare Road South is the first bridge west of the one at West Ruislip station, and the bridge strike plate appears to say "Harefield Road Breakspear Road" (Google street view)
There was a proposed Harefield Road tube station approximately on the site of (South) Harefield Halt, closed in 1931, but that was on what is now Harvil Road, one bridge further west. Breakspear Road does lead to the village of Harefield a couple of miles north, so it's possible it's a local alternative or former name for the road.
Brakespeare Road South is the first bridge west of the one at West Ruislip station, and the bridge strike plate appears to say "Harefield Road Breakspear Road" (Google street view)
There was a proposed Harefield Road tube station approximately on the site of (South) Harefield Halt, closed in 1931, but that was on what is now Harvil Road, one bridge further west. Breakspear Road does lead to the village of Harefield a couple of miles north, so it's possible it's a local alternative or former name for the road.
Here's the full list:
Top 10 most-bashed bridges
The railway bridges struck the most in 2021/22 were:
1. Stonea Road, near Manea, Cambridgeshire - 33 strikes
2. Lower Downs Road in Wimbledon, southwest London - 18 strikes
3. Harlaxton Road in Grantham, Lincolnshire - 17 strikes
4. Abbey Farm in Thetford, Norfolk - 15 strikes
5. Stuntney Road in Ely, Cambridgeshire - 12 strikes
6. Harefield Road bridge in West Ruislip, northwest London - 12 strikes
7. Station Road in Berkswell, West Midlands - 12 strikes
8. Station Road in Langley, Berkshire - 12 strikes
9. St John's Street in Lichfield, Staffordshire - 11 strikes
10. Coddenham Road in Needham Market, Suffolk - 10 strikes
I know #2 in Wimbledon well - it's a nightmare as it is a single car width on a regular rat-run (the only place to cross the railway between Wimbledon town centre and Raynes Park, over 2km in a heavily populated area). It sees far more road rage incidents than bridge strikes I think!
Top 10 most-bashed bridges
The railway bridges struck the most in 2021/22 were:
1. Stonea Road, near Manea, Cambridgeshire - 33 strikes
2. Lower Downs Road in Wimbledon, southwest London - 18 strikes
3. Harlaxton Road in Grantham, Lincolnshire - 17 strikes
4. Abbey Farm in Thetford, Norfolk - 15 strikes
5. Stuntney Road in Ely, Cambridgeshire - 12 strikes
6. Harefield Road bridge in West Ruislip, northwest London - 12 strikes
7. Station Road in Berkswell, West Midlands - 12 strikes
8. Station Road in Langley, Berkshire - 12 strikes
9. St John's Street in Lichfield, Staffordshire - 11 strikes
10. Coddenham Road in Needham Market, Suffolk - 10 strikes
I know #2 in Wimbledon well - it's a nightmare as it is a single car width on a regular rat-run (the only place to cross the railway between Wimbledon town centre and Raynes Park, over 2km in a heavily populated area). It sees far more road rage incidents than bridge strikes I think!
I’m not sure why they call it Harefield Road bridge but this list is regularly incorrect, pretty much every year they get the road name or location wrong on at least one bridge.
The bridge in question is Breakspear Road South as correctly pointed out by yourself. The bridge is arched so higher in the middle than at the edges (tall vehicles need to drive in the middle of the road).
The bridge in question is Breakspear Road South as correctly pointed out by yourself. The bridge is arched so higher in the middle than at the edges (tall vehicles need to drive in the middle of the road).
12LDA28C
Established Member
Is it a coincidence that Brakespeare Road leads to a rather large HS2 construction site with its associated road traffic into and out of the site I wonder...
It might
Maybe the road was called Harefield Road when the bridge was built. After all, the road bridge over the canal at Camden Lock is called "Hampstead Road Bridge", presumably because the road was called Hampstead Road when it was built.
Maybe the road was called Harefield Road when the bridge was built. After all, the road bridge over the canal at Camden Lock is called "Hampstead Road Bridge", presumably because the road was called Hampstead Road when it was built.
It really is hard to help some folk
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Chris M
Member
How does that add anything to my post? I explained the source of the confusion, identified the actual location (which has a different name to the one the BBC reported) and linked to it on Google Street View
"There was a proposed Harefield Road tube station approximately on the site of (South) Harefield Halt,"
They must at one time have been planning some large housing estates as there is nothing there now. Might have been the underground's shortist lived station.
They must at one time have been planning some large housing estates as there is nothing there now. Might have been the underground's shortist lived station.
greatkingrat
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 2,770
Looking at Google Streetview, I'm not surprised it keeps getting hit. The signage does not make it clear that the published height only applies if you are in the middle of the road.
Ralph Ayres
Member
I'd assumed BrianW was referring to the enormous yellow LOW BRIDGE warning, lairy black/yellow hatching and both metric and imperial height warning triangles across the bridge apparently going unnoticed by some lorry drivers.
As a local, I'm pretty sure the road has never been called Harefield Road, certainly within the timespan of the railway line. The overbridge to the west is on Harvil Road, an old version of Harefield, so parallel roads effectively having the same name would be odd. The lorry problem is more likely to be down to the number of skip hire firms and slightly dodgy scrapyards in the area as well as a large waste disposal site, rather than HS 2. The possible "Harefield Road" name for the proposed Central line station (never built thanks to a World War followed by the Greenbelt) sounds more like a classic railway convention when the station was away from the target settlement than it actually being the road name.
Dear Chris M, you're right- I don't think my post does add anything new to what you had identified and posted. I'm sorrry if I gave you the impression that I was in any way intending to contest/ rubbish/ play down your contribution. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I wa supporting/ reinforcing your posting. While seeing clearly your Streetview focused on the bridge sign and the location described, on running around and 'backng out' I saw the huge LOW BRIDGE sign which gave rise to my somewhat pithy observation regarding not being clear to some as the damaged brickwork so clearly demonstrates.
Thank you Ralph- that is what I was intending to convey.
Streetview gives me this for the bridge viewed for the other direction: clearer/ less clear?
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.573...gJBOvCm29NOgG-339slQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
To add here if I may, while writing ... I imagine that the proposed Central Line station would have been part of a plan to reach Uxbridge either at the then Uxbridge High Street station (or maybe as part of some grand scheme to amalgamate stations and lines in Uxbridge Town Centre focusing around the Met/Picadilly 'Tube' station, or York Road, or Fassnidge Park, or Vine Street?)
I imagine 'Harefield Road' would have been a station name in the same sense as e.g. Bodmin Road or Uxbridge Road being not very close to Bodmin or Uxbridge; or Harefiled!
Also, there was (is?) a London Borough of Hillingdon (ex GLC?) 'tip' at Newyears Green, not far from the bridge in question, and probably much used by excessively large waste lorries: https://hidden-london.com/gazetteer/newyears-green/
The road sign when approaching the unnamed Brakspear Road South (?) roundabout on Swakeleys Road from the A40 does show weight and height restrictions:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
and from the Ickenham direction:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
I don't recall significant signage at the Harefield end of Brakespear Road North warning of this low bridge ahead.
At the start of Harvil Road at Swakeleys Road roundabout on the B467 from the A40, there is a sign with a 7.5t limit: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.563...cOLVOq0Klea_AhHkcgLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I observe however many an HGV on streetview at that roundabout, and flowers attached to a lamppost there, suggesting traffic dangers, maybe also related.
I seem to recall when I worked in Hillingdon's Architects Dept some 'confusions' regarding street namings across different maps of this area, but my recollection is not so good now. (I was the architect for a scheme of houses at the junction of Church Hill and Harvil Road. (Nicholas Brakespeare was the first English Pope)
It always seemed to me an area that was difficult to navigate, with roads narrow, twisting and turning, so very liable to have traffic taking unfamiliar and unclear routes, and esp difficult for heavy, wide or high vehicles. Hopefully the HS2 construction traffic is well-directed!
Chris M
Member
Sorry, I completely misinterpreted the "some folk" in your post to be referring to people posting on this thread, not drivers navigating the road in question.
As well as the Council recycling centre, Newyears Green Lane also gives access to composting sites which handle plant waste on a large scale (producing a rather strong smell which regularly drifts over Ruislip). These are served by very large lorries which are among those which have hit the Breakspear Road South bridge. The Green Belt status of the area is one reason why the local roads have seen minimal improvement to cope with this traffic- Newyears Green Lane is largely single track with passing places, which is extraordinary for a road within Greater London. The huge "Low Bridge" signs were provided in connection with of the HS2 works, but only after the bridge had been so badly damaged by a vehicle that the road was closed for some weeks.
I'd also second the view that NR have got it wrong- the road has been called Breakspear Road South for at least sixty years to my knowledge. It's possible that the bridge was given a different name when the line was built, which was never used by the locals (cf Blind Lane signalbox in Wembley, actually near Park Lane), but perpetuating it now just causes confusion, as this thread demonstrates!
I'd also second the view that NR have got it wrong- the road has been called Breakspear Road South for at least sixty years to my knowledge. It's possible that the bridge was given a different name when the line was built, which was never used by the locals (cf Blind Lane signalbox in Wembley, actually near Park Lane), but perpetuating it now just causes confusion, as this thread demonstrates!
Last edited:
Jim Jehosofat
Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2017
- Messages
- 171
The bridge plaque clearly states the name of the bridge and the bridge number which will also be the used in all railway publications.
Where's the confusion?
The bridge is on Breakspear Road South, not Harefield Road or Breakspear Road which are valid names of other roads in the local area. It is between Ickenham and Harefield, not in South Ruislip. So that part of the information on the bridge plate is just plain wrong, and could result in emergency services going to the wrong place.
I imagine that at some point during the creation of that plate, "Breakspear Road South, Ruislip" became "Breakspear Road, (in) South Ruislip". Hence the perpetuation of confusion.
I imagine that at some point during the creation of that plate, "Breakspear Road South, Ruislip" became "Breakspear Road, (in) South Ruislip". Hence the perpetuation of confusion.
Last edited:
This document estimates the 'cost' of bridge strikes to be £23Million; I would expect them to actually be higher, and potentially much more if folk get killed:
I recall the huge 'knock-on' effects of the bridge strike in Plymouth last year: https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/photo-shows-damage-caused-railway-5852876
I would hope that each incident gives rise to evaluation of what, if anything, should be done. Could there not be a national programme to eliminate them, as with level crossings? I would also hope that such matters were considered when the HS2 construction site was proposed.
Chris M
Member
The difference between bridge strikes and level crossings is that level crossings are entirely the responsibility of the railway - they manage both the road and rail parts of them - but with bridges that's rarely the case and they have to liaise with other land owners and infrastructure managers much more, which will make closing low bridges/replacing them with higher ones (which is what I presume you mean by "eliminating them") more complex. Also, while low rail-over-road bridges are the most common type of bridge strike, the third page of the report you linked shows that road-over-rail bridges are also at risk.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Indeed. Exactly what I was thinking.
They may well do but if the lorry drivers will persist in driving according to their SATNAV no amount making a dedicated route will have any affect.
Falcon1200
Established Member
The bridge is on Breakspear Road South, not Harefield Road or Breakspear Road which are valid names of other roads in the local area. It is between Ickenham and Harefield, not in South Ruislip. So that part of the information on the bridge plate is just plain wrong, and could result in emergency services going to the wrong place.
The purpose of that plate is so that Network Rail (NR) can be informed as quickly as possible of a bridge strike (the phone number is an Emergency Line in NR Control), so that the correct action regarding train running is taken (depending on the classification of the bridge) and response staff sent to site. The bridge number alone would identify the location to NR staff. Anyone on the scene requiring the Emergency Services would surely just phone 999?
If the person phoning 999 is asked where they are, and they pass on the information on the plate, confusion will be the result. I'm not sure why people are trying to excuse the incompetence on display here.
Last edited:
Picking up on a few points re bridge strikes generally.
Where drivers can make mistakes they will.
Technology exists to help drivers make fewer such mistakes and for the consequences to be reduced.
Vehicles over such-and-such a size (width, height, length, weight) should be required to be fitted with sensors to detect what's in front in time to alert and stop the vehicle.
Bridges should be fitted with 'profiles' ahead of similar (or smaller) size with some kind of 'ding-a-ling' like bells, sounders, lights to increase likelihood of drivers being 'told.
There should be a programme to eliminate these- ie increase widths, heights etc and /or close those are incapable of improvement or too expensive and alternative routes signed.
I would imagine a 'standard' height, width etc could be devised and applied like a standard container on standard trailer.
And finally, for now, offenders should pay up the full cost of remedy in addition to fines etc that may be due in relation to driving without care and attention.
EDIT- a thread started on 5 Nov:
Where drivers can make mistakes they will.
Technology exists to help drivers make fewer such mistakes and for the consequences to be reduced.
Vehicles over such-and-such a size (width, height, length, weight) should be required to be fitted with sensors to detect what's in front in time to alert and stop the vehicle.
Bridges should be fitted with 'profiles' ahead of similar (or smaller) size with some kind of 'ding-a-ling' like bells, sounders, lights to increase likelihood of drivers being 'told.
There should be a programme to eliminate these- ie increase widths, heights etc and /or close those are incapable of improvement or too expensive and alternative routes signed.
I would imagine a 'standard' height, width etc could be devised and applied like a standard container on standard trailer.
And finally, for now, offenders should pay up the full cost of remedy in addition to fines etc that may be due in relation to driving without care and attention.
EDIT- a thread started on 5 Nov:
Peterborough to Leicester Line Bridge Bash.
reminds us of the cost to the driver as well- spine damage. So, attention required for their benefit too.
Last edited:
Falcon1200
Established Member
That's a fair point, but I'm not sure anyone phoning 999, rather than Network Rail, would necessarily refer to the bridge plate, if they even knew it was there (and they have only existed at all for the last few years). But I agree that the road name should of course be correct.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,447
Just on the off chance, I thought I’d see how the next bridge to the west is labelled. It’s an overbridge, so no immediate risk from overweight vehicles.
But yes, “Harvil Road” (the current signed street name) passes over the railway using a bridge labelled as being on “Harefield Road”. On the national library of Scotland old maps site, the 1:10000 map for 1949/1971 shows this Harvil Road as Harefield Road, however older and newer maps than that seem to use Harvil.
It’s not that straightforward is it…
But yes, “Harvil Road” (the current signed street name) passes over the railway using a bridge labelled as being on “Harefield Road”. On the national library of Scotland old maps site, the 1:10000 map for 1949/1971 shows this Harvil Road as Harefield Road, however older and newer maps than that seem to use Harvil.
It’s not that straightforward is it…
Would you compel drivers to use it? Specialist Satnavs etc are expensive and for lots of companies not viable.
Again, who pays for this? (There are options, just interested to hear your opinion)
Many are, both with chains that make a noise and with big 'bash beams' (also called Goalposts). But it isn't viable nor reasonable to do it for every bridge in the country.
Again, who pays for this? Where NR are looking at bridge replacements they do consider the practicality of increasing clearances but a wholesale programme of road closures is a non-starter. It's hard enough to get rid of Level crossings.
There are already road construction standards, such as that which determines whether or not you need to put a warning sign up.
This would be financially bad for society. Very few Lorry drivers have several million quid stuffed down the back of the sofa, so all that would happen is these people would be forced to sell all their assets for not a lot and then be declared bankrupt. The railway gets very little money back, and a lorry driver is left homeless, penniless, and jobless. Reclaiming the costs through the insurers is by far the better option, especially for commercial drivers.
I am more open to the idea of people who run the lights at Level Crossings having the book thrown at them, but that's a different thread.
Vehicle owners have to met the costs of their roadworthiness. 'Standards' are determined rightly by governments to look after the welbeing of the population, eg emissions, tyres, MoT, maybe with transitional arrangements to give time to meet them.
Government, 'advised' by Beeching, closed lots of miles of railway; time for something similar for 'uneconomic'/ duplicate roads?
If a bridge is important enough it should be made to comply; if not, and suitable alternative routes are available,it should be closed- a bit like Beeching.
Previous threads have testified to 'issues' regarding differential signing arrangements for 'flat'/ level girdered bridges and brick arched ones
Perhaps hauliers might be permitted to choose whether to insure, and otherwise meet the costs of their errors, as with 'public liability'? This is the kind of questionb as to who should bear costs of mistakes, misjudgements, errors, 'accidents'.
There is a case for saying that liability for costs increases the likelihood of greater care being taken- which might be considered good for society.
The removal of 'problematic' bridges would make roads and rails safer for all road and rail users, including commercial drivers, saving them for becoming homeless, penniless and jobless as well as from injury or worse.
You've studiously avoided saying who should pay for the bridge rebuilds! Should NR, as the railway operator to benefit, or the DfT, for the good of the country, or the relevant highway authority, as it's their road safety that will improve? Each has different methods of raising money.
Btw hauliers already insure, I was saying get the costs of the insures not the drivers individually. If signs aren't working then absolutely they should be reviewed, although never in a million years are you going to be rebuilding every single arched bridge over a road in Britain.
And the road network must be able to support emergency response times and such like - it's not as simple as 'do a Beeching'. Even if it's only 1 house at the end of a farm track, if it's the access road it needs to stay. Realigning would often be just as expensive as rebuilding the bridge.
- Status