How much does it cost to raise a railway bridge?

[Type R Tom]

I always thought this was a pretty clever idea

http://www.itsinternational.com/categories/detecti...

[swanny200]

jimbobsimmonds said:

Darnley arch, Gun lane or the one by the old Civic Centre car park? R Swains haulage are now located down knight road, so you can imagine the problems you get at Darnley arch with hundreds of artics going through every day...

Unfortunately, not a lot you can do...

Bryant Road, as you come towards the bottom of it by Quik Fit. I used to work in the building on the corner, my office was one of the arches underneath.

[legzr1]

saaby93 said:

ha ha good comparison - and then it's not a crossing.
Instead there are many safe crossings how to change operation of the unsafe ones in line with those

So here most bridges are used safely, what is it about the few bridges that trucks seem to miss all the warnings
Is it a Ladbroke Grove situation?
Have the warnings been placed, where they look obvious in photos, but not where youd naturally spot them while driving.
And there will be a height where most if not all vehicles will clear them.

Why mention Ladbroke Grove?

After the inquiries and the publication of the Cullen report there were many recommendations.

The lack of TPWS ( and the cost reasons) hit the headlines but the main points for drivers were the introduction of post-qualified assessments for 2 years after ‘passing out’, far greater importance given to route training and, in particular, mention of multi-spad locations (and later, publication of these areas in depot notice cases).
The way rules and regulations were taught was tightened up as was the requirement for recording briefings and training - all records to be audited regularly with dire consequences for those that missed, ignored or ‘mislaid’ documents leading to possible suspension of operating licence (which has happened in a fairly recent high-profile case...).

Are you suggesting that an average, say 10 man haulier company needs to adopt similar procedures?
Who will pay? Who will audit?
It’s one thing budgeting the costs when you’re talking about highly trained railway employees on £63K. Quite another introducing it for agency lorry drivers on £14 an hour.

[saaby93]

legzr1 said:

saaby93 said:

ha ha good comparison - and then it's not a crossing.
Instead there are many safe crossings how to change operation of the unsafe ones in line with those

So here most bridges are used safely, what is it about the few bridges that trucks seem to miss all the warnings
Is it a Ladbroke Grove situation?
Have the warnings been placed, where they look obvious in photos, but not where youd naturally spot them while driving.
And there will be a height where most if not all vehicles will clear them.

Why mention Ladbroke Grove?

After the inquiries and the publication of the Cullen report there were many recommendations.

The lack of TPWS ( and the cost reasons) hit the headlines but the main points for drivers were the introduction of post-qualified assessments for 2 years after ‘passing out’, far greater importance given to route training and, in particular, mention of multi-spad locations (and later, publication of these areas in depot notice cases).
The way rules and regulations were taught was tightened up as was the requirement for recording briefings and training - all records to be audited regularly with dire consequences for those that missed, ignored or ‘mislaid’ documents leading to possible suspension of operating licence (which has happened in a fairly recent high-profile case...).

Are you suggesting that an average, say 10 man haulier company needs to adopt similar procedures?
Who will pay? Who will audit?
It’s one thing budgeting the costs when you’re talking about highly trained railway employees on £63K. Quite another introducing it for agency lorry drivers on £14 an hour.

It was mentioned because it was a very good example of a sign that ticked the boxes about there being a sign up, but too many people were missing it due to it's location.
Ok the remedies afterwards were extensive due to the type of collision that could ensue

If it was thought that a truck crashing into a bridge could derail a train, a level of funding might suddenly besome available to do something more useful than just make a claim from the truck insurance, and the same the next time

[ZymoTech]

Good afternoon all. Having spent many years as a lurker and reading posts I've finally taken the plunge and signed up to have go replying to this one. I'm a volunteer at the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway so the location depicted in the photograph in the OP is very familiar. It's Station Road bridge in Broadway looking north towards the direction of Evesham. There's a 40 mph limit coming down the hill before it becomes a 30 towards the bottom - you can see the road sign on the left hand side beyond the bridge.

Being at the bottom of the hill, flood water accumulates under the bridge.so lowering the road to improve the height clearance isn't going to help. Raising the bridge to improve the height clearance isn't an option either. Broadway station is out of shot on the right hand side in the photo and the platforms start just past the bridge. The track has to be at the right level coming off the bridge in order to come into the platforms at the right level so the carriages sit at the platforms at the right level so our passengers can step safely on and off. Which leaves the only option being the installation of "roof slicer" crash beams either side of the bridge to protect it.

[saaby93]

ZymoTech said:

Good afternoon all. Having spent many years as a lurker and reading posts I've finally taken the plunge and signed up to have go replying to this one. I'm a volunteer at the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway so the location depicted in the photograph in the OP is very familiar. It's Station Road bridge in Broadway looking north towards the direction of Evesham. There's a 40 mph limit coming down the hill before it becomes a 30 towards the bottom - you can see the road sign on the left hand side beyond the bridge.

Being at the bottom of the hill, flood water accumulates under the bridge.so lowering the road to improve the height clearance isn't going to help. Raising the bridge to improve the height clearance isn't an option either. Broadway station is out of shot on the right hand side in the photo and the platforms start just past the bridge. The track has to be at the right level coming off the bridge in order to come into the platforms at the right level so the carriages sit at the platforms at the right level so our passengers can step safely on and off. Which leaves the only option being the installation of "roof slicer" crash beams either side of the bridge to protect it.

welcome
What about the traffic light idea with height sensors 100yds up the road ( maybe still keep the roof slicers)?
If something is too high the lights change to red

[Pompeymedic]

I can’t remember where in the country it is, but there is a low bridge collocated with a level crossing. All cars and some vans go under the bridge, anything bigger uses the level crossing. Would this be a possible idea for sites like this?

[Krikkit]

What about a set of traffic lights linked to a height sensor? If the lights turn red to stop the traffic with a big, flashy sign as well, it might make people think?

[paintman]

Simplest answer would be the goalpost shaped assembly idea made of substantial H section girders with the crossbar at the appropriate height and the sideposts set deep in a large amount of concrete on each approach to the bridge so they hit that first.
Of course it won't be particularly pretty.....

[alangla]

Pompeymedic said:

I can’t remember where in the country it is, but there is a low bridge collocated with a level crossing. All cars and some vans go under the bridge, anything bigger uses the level crossing. Would this be a possible idea for sites like this?

Ely? https://goo.gl/maps/2kLcGtQZZjm - that's probably more a low bridge that was built to bypass a crossing, not the opposite way round. Building a crossing to bypass a bridge, particularly in a dense, urban area, would mean huge land take for the ramps etc.

[brycheiniog1]

The bridge in Ely is (or was) the most struck railway bridge in Britain so the scheme clearly works well .

[Shakermaker]

Might be cheaper to employ a man to sit next to the bridge 24/7 and stop all suspected overheight vehicles with a red flag and get them to turn around to a more appropriate route?

[spitfire-ian]

brycheiniog1 said:

The bridge in Ely is (or was) the most struck railway bridge in Britain so the scheme clearly works well .

We've got a similar setup where I live. High vehicles go over the crossing, low ones use the bridge.

Didn't stop this from happening though! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185289/Do...

[ZymoTech]

Over-height sensors, red lights and flashing signs saying "Stop" are all good ideas. However, having successfully detected an over-height vehicle and stopped it short of hitting the bridge it now has to be turned around and sent away. At Broadway, on the east side of the bridge, there is the Caravan Club entrance which "could" be used for executing a 3-point turn but on the west side there's not a great deal of scope. There is the entrance to our soon to be constructed car park but that's too close to the bridge to utilise. There may be no alternative but a long reverse back up the hill towards the roundabout at the top.

It would probably be better to have over-height sensors and matrix signs on the approaches to Broadway as well so that "offending" vehicles can be detected and directed on to alternative routes before they get even near to the bridge. However I dread to think what the installation cost of all that would be and who would foot the bill. One of my colleagues has worked out that the Broadway bridge gets hit, on average, once every 3 months. I'm no expert in cost-benefit analysis but how often does a bridge need to be hit in order to justify that kind of expenditure ?

[saaby93]

ZymoTech said:

Over-height sensors, red lights and flashing signs saying "Stop" are all good ideas. However, having successfully detected an over-height vehicle and stopped it short of hitting the bridge it now has to be turned around and sent away. At Broadway, on the east side of the bridge, there is the Caravan Club entrance which "could" be used for executing a 3-point turn but on the west side there's not a great deal of scope. There is the entrance to our soon to be constructed car park but that's too close to the bridge to utilise. There may be no alternative but a long reverse back up the hill towards the roundabout at the top.

It would probably be better to have over-height sensors and matrix signs on the approaches to Broadway as well so that "offending" vehicles can be detected and directed on to alternative routes before they get even near to the bridge. However I dread to think what the installation cost of all that would be and who would foot the bill. One of my colleagues has worked out that the Broadway bridge gets hit, on average, once every 3 months. I'm no expert in cost-benefit analysis but how often does a bridge need to be hit in order to justify that kind of expenditure ?

There should already be height warning signs at the beginning of the road, or where there is a suitable turning around point.
Isnt that where over height detectors usualy go? Unless the trucks need to use the stretch of road for access eg to the railway

[Wozy68]

saaby93 said:

ZymoTech said:

Good afternoon all. Having spent many years as a lurker and reading posts I've finally taken the plunge and signed up to have go replying to this one. I'm a volunteer at the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway so the location depicted in the photograph in the OP is very familiar. It's Station Road bridge in Broadway looking north towards the direction of Evesham. There's a 40 mph limit coming down the hill before it becomes a 30 towards the bottom - you can see the road sign on the left hand side beyond the bridge.

Being at the bottom of the hill, flood water accumulates under the bridge.so lowering the road to improve the height clearance isn't going to help. Raising the bridge to improve the height clearance isn't an option either. Broadway station is out of shot on the right hand side in the photo and the platforms start just past the bridge. The track has to be at the right level coming off the bridge in order to come into the platforms at the right level so the carriages sit at the platforms at the right level so our passengers can step safely on and off. Which leaves the only option being the installation of "roof slicer" crash beams either side of the bridge to protect it.

welcome
What about the traffic light idea with height sensors 100yds up the road ( maybe still keep the roof slicers)?
If something is too high the lights change to red

Welcome to the forum. I live in Evesham and have dropped in on many occasions to see how you guys were getting on rebuilding Broadway station ...... you’ve done a fab job

What a shame, that after 50 years of just having a triangle warning sign on a very neglected bridge, you spend all that money time and effort and add massive bridge signs warning of its hight, to then have some numpty hit it, especially after only a month of trains using it for the first time in over 40 years.

[rs1952]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This.

There are plenty enough low bridge signs around there, including one at the junction with the Cheltenham Road a few hundred yards away: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0377568,-1.86777...

There is a preconception in so many of Sabby's railway-related posts that if there is a problem with a bridge or a level crossing it is the railway's problem. No it isn't - its the idiots who are using the road's problem. If they did what they were supposed to do, or didn't do what they were supposed not to do, the problem wouldn't have happened.

Take some recent level crossing oes he's posted about. Frampton Mansell near Stroud a few years ago - a motorcyclist got hit and killed by a train on a minor road. It turned out that he couldn't hear the train coming because he had music playing through his crash helmet. His mates went to a local house to ring to get help - if they'd read the bloody signs they might - just might - have read the one about ringing the signaller from the phone provided at the crossing. Who knows, they might even have seen the phone if they'd have bothered looking. RAIB found minor problems with the signage but whether they took into account the motorcyclists collective lack of brain and observational power is another matter - one queries if they should have been let loose on the roads at all, let alone a level crossing.

Then there was the old idiot a few months ago that did a zigzag and killed himself and his grandson in Sussex. They couldn't pin that one on the railway.

Saaby does himslef no favours at all by constantly brining up Ladbroke Grove, a SPAD from 20 years ago from which the railway learned many lessons. I would suggest you give this one a rest Saaby as you are quoting it completely out of context and, to be honest, keeping raising it makes you look like a fool who doesn't really understand these things.

Finally, this bridge is owned, not by Network Rail who appear to have buckets of money to chuck at problems real or imagined when they have a mind to; this bridge is owned by the heritage Gloucestershire Warwickshire railway who do not have buckets of money, especially when you consider they are currently rebuilding Broadway station that was wantonly demolished by BR half a century ago.

By far the cheapest way to nake sure that bridge strikes never happen here again is to close the road to all vehicles - there are plenty of other ways around including using the Broadway bypass. What's that? It wouldn't be popular with the locals? Well perhaps they should raise a few million to carry out more acceptable solutions - or, alternatively, stop trying to get a quart of a lorry under a pint pot of a bridge...

Rant over. Mind you it is easily done. Some years ago SWMBO and I hired a high transit to move her daughter's stuff to Brighton. Whilst we were there she decided she wanted to go to Sainsurys and directed me to the store. As we came up to the car park entrance I noticed that there was no way that this van was going in through that hole...

If SWMBO had been driving we would have taken an open-topped Transit back to Enterprise car & van hire...

[saaby93]

rs1952 said:

This.

There are plenty enough low bridge signs around there, including one at the junction with the Cheltenham Road a few hundred yards away: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0377568,-1.86777...

There is a preconception in so many of Sabby's railway-related posts that if there is a problem with a bridge or a level crossing it is the railway's problem. No it isn't - its the idiots who are using the road's problem. If they did what they were supposed to do, or didn't do what they were supposed not to do, the problem wouldn't have happened.

Oh well at least you didnt say I thought this was the railways fault

However I agree that everytime something hits this bridge it becomes the railways problem and they have to spend time and money they havent got sorting it out. Ok they'll eventually claim it back on insurance.

All Ive asked is what can be done?
The suggestions of height detectors and warning lights - are they usually installed by Highways?

[Gareth1974]

saaby93 said:

All Ive asked is what can be done?
The suggestions of height detectors and warning lights - are they usually installed by Highways?

Lorry drivers routinely ignore height detectors/warning signs. Here is one positioned on the approach to one of the top 10 bridges struck each year, doesn’t seem to make much difference.

[eccles]

saaby93 said:

There should already be height warning signs at the beginning of the road, or where there is a suitable turning around point.
Isnt that where over height detectors usualy go? Unless the trucks need to use the stretch of road for access eg to the railway

They don't work.
I live near a town called Needham Market in Suffolk that has a low bridge, it's got several sets of signs leading up to it (in the old days it also had 'don't follow sat nav' signs as well), and two or three times a week you get lorries or vans trying to reverse back and causing chaos in the area.