Bridge collapse on M20
Discussion
vikingaero said:
I think this picture gives a good perspective of the incident:
Look at the rear doors of the white trailer for reference height and look at the height of the jib in relation to the concrete structure. The low loader may be low but there may be several models of the excavator ranging from small to large. If the Auto Renovations is contracted to move the plant then maybe they used an agency driver with little experience?
This picture, when you take into account how the other side of the bridge support definetly sweeps down to the lowest height over the hard shoulder, proves to me that the crane was maybe just inches above the minimum height of the bridge support. Perhaps if he was in lane one he'd have squeezed under it. Look at the rear doors of the white trailer for reference height and look at the height of the jib in relation to the concrete structure. The low loader may be low but there may be several models of the excavator ranging from small to large. If the Auto Renovations is contracted to move the plant then maybe they used an agency driver with little experience?
SilverSpur said:
This picture, when you take into account how the other side of the bridge support definetly sweeps down to the lowest height over the hard shoulder, proves to me that the crane was maybe just inches above the minimum height of the bridge support. Perhaps if he was in lane one he'd have squeezed under it.
In these side-on pics the flatbed trailer appears to have a fairly obvious nose-down attitude. Assuming this is due to the sudden appearance of a large chunk of bridge further up the trailer bed and not how the trailer actually does sit when loaded normally, then the top of the digger would have been even higher than it appears to be now...twister said:
In these side-on pics the flatbed trailer appears to have a fairly obvious nose-down attitude. Assuming this is due to the sudden appearance of a large chunk of bridge further up the trailer bed and not how the trailer actually does sit when loaded normally, then the top of the digger would have been even higher than it appears to be now...
I'd say with 170 tons sat on it i would have a nose down attitude too I still reckon the dumper was punted back slightly as the bridge fell and pushed the arm of the digger down slightly
Vaud said:
Who is it costing millions per hour?
My understanding is that the HA get paid per lane of motorway, on a sliding basis on time of day, day of week etc from the Government (or whoever, it doesn't matter). The HA will put out to tender a maintenance contact for that section of road (or that motorway will be part of another section of motorways). Amey-Ferrovial, Balfour Beatty for example.
Those contractors are then incentivised to keep the lanes open at all times, maintain the roads etc. They also take the risk of accidents, normally any accident on the motorway the insurance company will pick up the costs. So don't have an accident on a motorway as the cost are simply staggering.
So in this case, whoever has the maintenance contract will loose revenue from the road being closed. Which will then get passed on. I expect that the haulage companies insurance will have to pick up the bill for this, which is probably in the order of £24m (easily £1m per hour from memory of working on the M25 DBFO tender). Delay and disruption on other parts of the network (similar to Network Rail delay minutes) may get passed on.
This obviously excludes the motorbike riders claim, cost to demolish and then reconstruct the footbridge.
This will also result in a massive review of all similar structures across motorways and dual carriageways I would imagine.
On another matter the duck jib still looks lower than those massive Asda lorries you see driving about.
Still cannot believe no one got killed.
ALawson said:
My understanding is that the HA get paid per lane of motorway, on a sliding basis on time of day, day of week etc from the Government (or whoever, it doesn't matter).
The HA will put out to tender a maintenance contact for that section of road (or that motorway will be part of another section of motorways). Amey-Ferrovial, Balfour Beatty for example.
Those contractors are then incentivised to keep the lanes open at all times, maintain the roads etc. They also take the risk of accidents, normally any accident on the motorway the insurance company will pick up the costs. So don't have an accident on a motorway as the cost are simply staggering.
So in this case, whoever has the maintenance contract will loose revenue from the road being closed. Which will then get passed on. I expect that the haulage companies insurance will have to pick up the bill for this, which is probably in the order of £24m (easily £1m per hour from memory of working on the M25 DBFO tender). Delay and disruption on other parts of the network (similar to Network Rail delay minutes) may get passed on.
This obviously excludes the motorbike riders claim, cost to demolish and then reconstruct the footbridge.
Thanks. Every day is a school day.The HA will put out to tender a maintenance contact for that section of road (or that motorway will be part of another section of motorways). Amey-Ferrovial, Balfour Beatty for example.
Those contractors are then incentivised to keep the lanes open at all times, maintain the roads etc. They also take the risk of accidents, normally any accident on the motorway the insurance company will pick up the costs. So don't have an accident on a motorway as the cost are simply staggering.
So in this case, whoever has the maintenance contract will loose revenue from the road being closed. Which will then get passed on. I expect that the haulage companies insurance will have to pick up the bill for this, which is probably in the order of £24m (easily £1m per hour from memory of working on the M25 DBFO tender). Delay and disruption on other parts of the network (similar to Network Rail delay minutes) may get passed on.
This obviously excludes the motorbike riders claim, cost to demolish and then reconstruct the footbridge.
ALawson said:
Those contractors are then incentivised to keep the lanes open at all times, maintain the roads etc. They also take the risk of accidents, normally any accident on the motorway the insurance company will pick up the costs. So don't have an accident on a motorway as the cost are simply staggering.
So in this case, whoever has the maintenance contract will loose revenue from the road being closed. Which will then get passed on. I expect that the haulage companies insurance will have to pick up the bill for this, which is probably in the order of £24m (easily £1m per hour from memory of working on the M25 DBFO tender). Delay and disruption on other parts of the network (similar to Network Rail delay minutes) may get passed on.
I'd be pretty astonished if that sort of cost is recoverable from the truck's insurer.So in this case, whoever has the maintenance contract will loose revenue from the road being closed. Which will then get passed on. I expect that the haulage companies insurance will have to pick up the bill for this, which is probably in the order of £24m (easily £1m per hour from memory of working on the M25 DBFO tender). Delay and disruption on other parts of the network (similar to Network Rail delay minutes) may get passed on.
Iva Barchetta said:
greygoose said:
Impressive work to get the motorway reopened so quickly, perhaps the lorries being under the bridge saved the carriageway from being damaged?
Makes a change.I'm surprised the road didn't stay closed for a week whilst they messed about making decisions.
I do wonder, looking at some of the other pictures posted up, whether the truck was loaded too high or there was a cock up with the bridge height? As others pointed out, the pedestrian bridge does drop across the carriageway. Will be interesting to find out.
Digga said:
I do wonder…...whether ………. there was a cock up with the bridge height?
That section of the M20 was opened in 1971, and the bridge connects two sections of another road which presumably ran straight through beforehand, so truer will have been a bridge there since it opened. I've lived in the area all my life and the bridge has been as it is for as long as I can remember; it may or may not be the original but I'd be very surprised if it hasn't been there in its current form for at the very least 15 years. It would be quite extraordinary if the height was wrong and they had just winged it and got away with it for that long. CAPP0 said:
Digga said:
I do wonder…...whether ………. there was a cock up with the bridge height?
That section of the M20 was opened in 1971, and the bridge connects two sections of another road which presumably ran straight through beforehand, so truer will have been a bridge there since it opened. I've lived in the area all my life and the bridge has been as it is for as long as I can remember; it may or may not be the original but I'd be very surprised if it hasn't been there in its current form for at the very least 15 years. It would be quite extraordinary if the height was wrong and they had just winged it and got away with it for that long. Halmyre said:
I wouldn't be surprised. The Arkleston Road bridge over the M8 near Renfrew suffered from more than its fair share of 'strikes', my lorry-driving dad (who never hit it himself) always reckoned it was noticeably lower than any other bridge on the motorway. It was raised by 150mm in 2009, 40 years since it was built, to "bring it into line both with current standards and other bridges along the M8".
Assuming this one had its low height on warning signs that some ignored.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff