GWSR Broadway Developments

I'd be inclined to set it a bit lower, to take off the heads of nitwitted drivers! Maybe THAT would cause people to pay a bit more attention while driving!

Noel

 

A good clarification of how it is. Are there - if not there maybe should be - signs informing heavy. high vehicles that the road is unsuitable for high vehicles and the alternative route (by pass) mentioned.

 

This is the part that staggers me. They must know there's a bridge on that route, and that it's low. Are the strikes being covered in the local media at all?

Anyway, that tends to show that a camera/etc system, and an 'act against the miscreants afterwards' approach, is pure 'Whack-a-Mole'. The protective barriers approach, something to proactively stop the strikes, is the only way to go.

Noel

 

I wonder if the local highway authority could be prevailed upon to install traffic calming - either a chicane in advance in each direction with give way to oncoming traffic in each direction; or artificially narrow the road to single track under the bridge with traffic lights?

https://goo.gl/maps/7yCLaTZ5Pfr
https://goo.gl/maps/uM5hKiYxSr52

It would slow traffic enough to get people to think; and even if they didn't, any bridge strikes would be low speed. As it stands, it appears to be to be on a nice straight road exiting the village - conducive to excessive speed in either direction.

Tom

 

Shouldn't think you'd need any protection against muppets. They wouldn't damage even the flimsiest bridge.

 

This would be a really good idea, as traffic barrels along that straight piece of road, despite the 30mph speed limit. The bridge is at the bottom of a slope, either way. You can exceed the speed limit without putting your foot on the accelerator, as you are rolling down a hill.

What I'm hoping is that the council put a traffic island at the new car park entrance. That would slow people down, and reduce the force of the impacts. This was done at Bishops Cleeve and I've not heard of any hits there since. Because of the traffic island, the road is reduced to one lane under the bridge. It works like a dream.

Whether the traffic island is coming or not I don't know. I suspect the planning side is still a bit fluid here, but the new arrangements around the future car park entrance are a golden opportunity to calm the traffic there, and make it safer for people to cross the road. Again, we will have to wait and see.

 

Everyone knows the bridge is there. What they don't know is the height of their load. Amazingly (and I saw this in a BBC article) even if you erect a height warning sign triggered by a light beam, it only reduces the strikes by one third. Two thirds plough on regardless. The steel beam is the only answer, backed by a camera system.

I retain a small worry that the beam will not prevent strikes under the bridge (where the last big incident took place) as most vehicles drag their overheight load right under and through the bridge. I'm not aware of any strikes resulting in a complete stop in front of the bridge. A 360 digger arm for example will bounce along under the bridge and strike each of the 8 or so cross members in turn. The biggest damage to the recent expensive strike was to the third cross member, not the outside.

Ideally you would fit a steel rubbing plate underneath, so that things would get dragged along it, without taking off all the rivet heads as before, or bouncing along the cross members each in turn.

 

How many HGV drivers who hit bridges lose their licences and thus their livelihoods? I suspect very few.

 

Chicanes would not work.
They have them in some of the roads around here and people try and race through to avoid waiting.

 

How about something simple like a speed bump either side of the bridge. May not prevent the bridge being struck but would reduce the amount of damage caused.

 

Hit the bump hard enough and you could launch your cargo over the bridge to save damaging the bridge itself!

 

If the beam is like the ones on the rail bridge on the A325 at Wrecclesham (near Farnham, Surrey) it is of a massive construction and set at a slanting angle (not right angle) to the road. This has the "interesting" result that the offending overheight vehicle usually completely overturns (tipped over by the beam) and ends up on it's side underneath the bridge. This happens regularly, often several times a year (despite there being illuminated flashing warning signs, triggered by the overheight vehicle). The road is often closed for most of the day while "recovery" takes place. As far as I know, these beams do completely protect the bridge.

 

I'm sure the local residents won't be impressed, but my immediate reaction to your description was "oh goody!" With gleeful rubbing of hands!

 

Yes the Wrecclesham bridge is a source of local news and once the truck is on it's side they do find it harder to drive away and deny all responsibility.

 

You would be surprised! Where I work in Salisbury, I, and my colleagues are regularly being called to bridge strikes. One of the bridges on the A36 is hit on average probably once a month, sometimes more. It's a brick arch bridge which has had to have steel sheeting placed under its arch to protect the brickwork. There are three more within a couple of miles of Salisbury city centre that are also hit with regularity. One is down a single lane "rat run" with a 7.5t weight limit on due to a river bridge. Does this stop artics? Yeah right! When asked to explain why they used the road, the same old story comes up each time. "Sat Nav directed me this way!" There seems to be a lack of situational awareness when the Sat Nav is turned on hence it's nickname, "Prat Nav".

Out of interest, when details of the vehicle are known on the GWR and other affected heritage lines, do they make insurance claims for damage against the haulier?

 

You mean like this? This one is installed in Romsey and is the final piece of protection for the bridge with the approaching triangular signs and flashing height warning signs being the first line of defence. If the beam had not been installed then the railway here would have been greatly affected by the number of bridge strikes it has experienced.


One thing we have found in recent years is that it is a lot harder for hauliers to claim off their insurance if they claim for damage caused by a bridge and have not reported the incident to the railway. We often get calls about late bridge strikes and yes, Network Rail do claim for losses from the haulier for train delays and repairs.

 

This has been happening to my knowledge for the last seventy years - and probably longer in fact since a bridge was built.
Before Sat-Navs - which seem to be less understood by many drivers - it was usually the idea of a 'short cut' which caused the incident. There have been over those long times many instances of double deck buses trying to go beneath too low a bridge. I guess the bridge near Broadway is not on a bus route.

 

I'm pretty sure in at least one of the strikes on this bridge, the GWSR got some repair money from the haulier's insurer. Maybe someone from the GWSR can confirm that?

Noel

PS: Not for most, though: In a lot of cases, they don't know who it was.

 

The bridge in (not near) Broadway is on a bus route - but said route uses single deck buses.

 

I don't have that much inside knowledge.
I do recall that the first one, which I photographed zig-zagging away backwards from the bridge after I heard a huge rumble, denied everything when we finally manged to stop him after chasing him in a car. His boss backed him up. It was a lorry carrying a tall skip.

The money is not the whole story re the beams.People twist and turn and question, it can take 2 years to get your money. The paperwork during this time is horrendous and you don't get money for that. Neighbours get angry about the repairs and question those. It all falls on the shoulders of one volunteer.

We hope that the crash protection beams will relieve some of that pressure.

For a bit of background on the mentality, watch this first video:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/bish-bash-bosh/
Notice how the lorry actually accelerates once the first bridge is struck. Stop and leave your details? No, get out of here quick!

And BTW that was the same rumble I heard from the skip lorry, it pulled half the rivet heads off, and the driver had the gall to say it was his brakes I heard. Miserable lot.