How much does it cost to raise a railway bridge?

[saaby93]

With the spate of lorries hitting low bridges


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44023027
Theyre talking about mounting beams either side that the truck will hit first but how much would they need to raise the bridge and ideally how high does it need to be?
Or can they dig the road lower by about a foot

[saaby93]

gothatway said:

Surely it must a lot cheaper to lower the road than to lift, raise and relay the trackbed ? I guess that drainage would be a problem.

Opulent Bob in other forums describes eye watering costs by services to be relocated

To run the stupid speed limit argument, the speed limit there may be too low so drivers may be worrying more about that than the height of the bridge.

[saaby93]

valiant said:

Raising the bridge ain't going to happen. Costs would indeed be eyewateringly expensive as the gradient for the trains has to be shallow and gradual. You'd be staring you're 'dig' from as much as a mile away in either direction depending on what type of trains use it (freight trains especially so). Building anything on the railway is monumentally expensive.

Far cheaper to have a height sensor fitted a few hundred yards from the bridge linked to a set of traffic lights and build a turn around point or escape road if necessary like they have on the Blackwall Tunnel.

Harsher penalties for those who manage to ignore all the above would help sharpen a few minds as well...

Trouble with penalties is they always kick in after something has happened rather than preventing it and as weve seen with the bus cash gate cash cows there can be an incentive in keeping penalties flowing.
How many penalties do you need before it's cheaper to raise or dig out under the bridge?

Can you say more about the Blackwall tunnel system?

[saaby93]

Jader1973 said:

There is a bridge in South Melbourne that kept getting hit by things.

They’ve put huge dangling gantries either side of it for anything over height to hit before they get to the bridge, although it got hit again a few days ago after quite a while with no issues.

It even has a website

http://howmanydayssincemontaguestreetbridgehasbeen...

3 metres

[saaby93]

Rick101 said:

Even if you do raise the height, a higher vehicle will still ignore the signs and end up striking it.

Much like the level crossing conundrum, the only safe one, is a closed one.

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.

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[saaby93]

eccles said:

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.

Maybe we should have trucks that can be quicly unloaded and collapsed befroe refilling the other side

What about the height detector and traffic light idea some posters quoted?

[saaby93]

Shakermaker said:

Lessons should have been learned by anyone who ever watched Thomas The Tank Engine growing up.

Arrogant Bulgy the Bus gets stuck under a low bridge on the railway and then gets turned into a hen house because he's too damaged. Maybe this 5 minute children's story should be referenced more regularly to highlight the perils of low bridges?

3:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWNFnNLz09s

Poor old Bulgy the Bus

Gets a reprieve

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-bmGkAQv9U

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 14th May 14:27

[saaby93]

Here's what happens when they hit the top slicer

http://www.altonherald.com/article.cfm?id=125532&a...

[saaby93]

matchmaker said:

Bridge strikes have reduced since these signs were installed.

Or they could use rising bollards

[saaby93]

DanMalkin said:

Play realignment and vertical curves are possible but eye watering lay expensive- not necessarily the works but the associated blockade( possession of the railway) costs that the train and freight operators levy on NR for closing the railway.. good eh!

unlike the others isnt that an artificial cost?
If someone hits the bridge and the line is closed arent the costs similar

[saaby93]

DanMalkin said:

The question related to actual costs for undertaking these types of work. Actual costs of bridge strikes depend on the associated route delay costs which are dependent on trains affected and knock on scheduled costs. These are not usually shared unless damages are going to be levied.

And in response- no, not really. Delay costs associated with bridge strikes are often offset against insurances - be that NR or often these days the insurers of the vehicle causing the collision. The only other costs are the inspections and minor remedial works unless someone has got incredibly adventurous (read unlucky and dense) and managed to affect the bridge or track structurally..

To design, plan and install a whole new alignment requires significant time in planning, development, design, procurement and finally installation due to interfaces, gauge clearances not only over a structure but also on the approaches as well as an assessment of knock on effects ie signalling, power and comms as a start.

That's understood
If its thought of that when bridge strikes occur and there's a funding regime usually via insurance that pays for inpection teams etc
It probably goes down as useful income on a balance sheet

Realigment is all written down as expense and might even suggest future loss of that income.

Maybe it would work better if there wasnt a claim route via insurance

If installing roof choppers 6 inches lower than the bridge results in even more incidents that may not be a good idea either

[saaby93]

ZymoTech said:

One nugget of information that cropped up was that Station Road bridge is in the top 15 of the most bashed railway bridges in the UK.

That being the case youd have thought there'd be some process for getting bridges off that list
Isnt reducing the height by 20mm going to move it further up the list not down it

[saaby93]

mcdjl said:

If who ever put the signs up was sensible they'll have marked it as 2m whens is actually 2.02m anyway. That 20mm will soon very lost in a lorry bouncing, being high on its springs or just sloping up as it as angles through the dip.
Alternatively the beam will just slice whatever a bit lower protecting the bridge.

Is that legal
How low are they allowed to place 'slicers' before being taken to task

We've seen in other threads eg bus lanes, that it's possible to place signs in places that are perfectly obvious in photographs but where you'd hardly notice them while driving.
( and since we're talking about railways - we know signals can be placed where train drivers dont see them too)

[saaby93]

gothatway said:

How difficult/expensive would it be for all vehicles over a certain height to be required to be fitted with a satnav which knew the heights of all low bridges and could warn the driver of those in the vicinity ? Low loaders, hay/straw wagons, etc. would need some facility to enter the height of their load. Truckers' road atlases already contain low bridge info so the data is certainly available. I assume that all modern HGVs are already fitted with satnavs or trackers.

One problem is many of the indicated heights are inaccurate
The local school double decker bus in theory shouldnt be able fit under the local railway bridge
However they brought it out, measured it up, took it under, checked there was a decent clearance and it's in service, presumabley lower when it's laden

[saaby93]

Evanivitch said:

Foliage said:

Hydraulically lift the bridge up when no trains are coming, when a trains coming drop barriers and lower the railway into position.


Turning any often hit bridges into a pseudo level crossings

It's not a bad idea at all, and mechanically quite simple (hydraulic screw lift wouldn't be impossible for a few foot lift).

The biggest issue IMO would be doing it with a suitable safety factor as the bridge staying high is not a fail-safe scenario.

Effectively trains would be required to stop/severely slow before all approaching all such crossings. I'm not sure this would be suitable.

They could put a ramp either side

[saaby93]

two bridges being raised by a foot
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-45501434