Another bridge strike
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: Another bridge strike
On Tuesday the A5 between Dodwells (A47) and the M69 was shut for most of the morning after yet another bridge strike.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
- FleetlinePhil
- Member
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:26
- Location: Calder Valley
Re: Another bridge strike
That's a pretty horrible set-up, although I might have thought northbound would be worse if you are unfamiliar with the road as you come to the bridge immediately from the corner. Not sure why the bus driver has failed to recognise where they need to be on the road, though? I know it can be extremely unnerving moving into the middle of the road when you can't see what is coming - this one in Brighouse was not for the faint-hearted - but not realising that is what is required is rather odd.jervi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:57 Rocky Lane Haywards Heath / Burgess Hill had a few hits recently...
Friday 23rd - https://twitter.com/MidSussexPolice/sta ... 73/photo/1
Tuesday 27th - https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1926093 ... ocky-lane/
There are three roads linking HH & BH together, Rocky Lane is the central one and is seeing more traffic since the Eastern one (B2112) is closed for a few months for a water main replacement, which explains why there have been two strikes a few days apart. Strikes here are quite common (a few a year it seems), almost all of them going southbound, and there is plenty of signage.
The issue is the arched bridge is on a corner, it really ought to have traffic lights here, and a pavement since there are popular public footpaths/bridleways on either side of the bridge.
As you say, traffic lights and at least one pavement would seem to be be the best way forward on Rocky Lane.
Re: Another bridge strike
The driver of the box van is known to a friend of mine. Story goes that he wasn't used to driving anything bigger than cars/car derived vans, was doing someone a favour driving the rental van involved in this incident. Sad thing is that, unlike the double decker bus (the second incident), there was actually plenty of room for the van to pass safely under this bridge. Unfortunately the driver adopted his normal "car driving" line under the bridge (which is as far left as possible to allow for vehicles coming the other way) and due to geometry of the bridge the front nearside upper bodywork struck the bridge which curves in from the left at a relatively low height. No one hurt, but much dented pride, as well as bodywork.
Re: Another bridge strike
Ouch, a lot of rental companies dont cover overhead damage in the insurance cover.avtur wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 14:06 The driver of the box van is known to a friend of mine. Story goes that he wasn't used to driving anything bigger than cars/car derived vans, was doing someone a favour driving the rental van involved in this incident. Sad thing is that, unlike the double decker bus (the second incident), there was actually plenty of room for the van to pass safely under this bridge. Unfortunately the driver adopted his normal "car driving" line under the bridge (which is as far left as possible to allow for vehicles coming the other way) and due to geometry of the bridge the front nearside upper bodywork struck the bridge which curves in from the left at a relatively low height. No one hurt, but much dented pride, as well as bodywork.
- FleetlinePhil
- Member
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:26
- Location: Calder Valley
Re: Another bridge strike
Are you suggesting that the bus was "too high, period", as our American friends would say, or just that the amount of room available in the centre of the arch for a vehicle of that height is much less than for the box van?avtur wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 14:06 The driver of the box van is known to a friend of mine. Story goes that he wasn't used to driving anything bigger than cars/car derived vans, was doing someone a favour driving the rental van involved in this incident. Sad thing is that, unlike the double decker bus (the second incident), there was actually plenty of room for the van to pass safely under this bridge. Unfortunately the driver adopted his normal "car driving" line under the bridge (which is as far left as possible to allow for vehicles coming the other way) and due to geometry of the bridge the front nearside upper bodywork struck the bridge which curves in from the left at a relatively low height. No one hurt, but much dented pride, as well as bodywork.
Re: Another bridge strike
I think he was suggesting that if the box van had been driven under the centre of the arch it would have been OK but by staying the left side of the road that side of the van hit the bridge.FleetlinePhil wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 10:09Are you suggesting that the bus was "too high, period", as our American friends would say, or just that the amount of room available in the centre of the arch for a vehicle of that height is much less than for the box van?avtur wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 14:06 The driver of the box van is known to a friend of mine. Story goes that he wasn't used to driving anything bigger than cars/car derived vans, was doing someone a favour driving the rental van involved in this incident. Sad thing is that, unlike the double decker bus (the second incident), there was actually plenty of room for the van to pass safely under this bridge. Unfortunately the driver adopted his normal "car driving" line under the bridge (which is as far left as possible to allow for vehicles coming the other way) and due to geometry of the bridge the front nearside upper bodywork struck the bridge which curves in from the left at a relatively low height. No one hurt, but much dented pride, as well as bodywork.
Re: Another bridge strike
The bridge is signed at 13' 9", which to the best of my knowledge is too low for a double decker. So my suggestion was that the bus wasn't going to clear the bridge under any circumstances where the van "could" have cleared the bridge had the driver followed the bridge height markings.FleetlinePhil wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 10:09Are you suggesting that the bus was "too high, period", as our American friends would say, or just that the amount of room available in the centre of the arch for a vehicle of that height is much less than for the box van?avtur wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 14:06 The driver of the box van is known to a friend of mine. Story goes that he wasn't used to driving anything bigger than cars/car derived vans, was doing someone a favour driving the rental van involved in this incident. Sad thing is that, unlike the double decker bus (the second incident), there was actually plenty of room for the van to pass safely under this bridge. Unfortunately the driver adopted his normal "car driving" line under the bridge (which is as far left as possible to allow for vehicles coming the other way) and due to geometry of the bridge the front nearside upper bodywork struck the bridge which curves in from the left at a relatively low height. No one hurt, but much dented pride, as well as bodywork.
Re: Another bridge strike
ExactlyKeithW wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 16:34I think he was suggesting that if the box van had been driven under the centre of the arch it would have been OK but by staying the left side of the road that side of the van hit the bridge.FleetlinePhil wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 10:09Are you suggesting that the bus was "too high, period", as our American friends would say, or just that the amount of room available in the centre of the arch for a vehicle of that height is much less than for the box van?avtur wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 14:06 The driver of the box van is known to a friend of mine. Story goes that he wasn't used to driving anything bigger than cars/car derived vans, was doing someone a favour driving the rental van involved in this incident. Sad thing is that, unlike the double decker bus (the second incident), there was actually plenty of room for the van to pass safely under this bridge. Unfortunately the driver adopted his normal "car driving" line under the bridge (which is as far left as possible to allow for vehicles coming the other way) and due to geometry of the bridge the front nearside upper bodywork struck the bridge which curves in from the left at a relatively low height. No one hurt, but much dented pride, as well as bodywork.
- FleetlinePhil
- Member
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:26
- Location: Calder Valley
Re: Another bridge strike
Thanks, I wondered if anything had been published locally about a double-decker being wrongly allocated to the route, which is diverted due to road closure jervi mention (B2112)? Metrobus are a pretty responsible operator, from what I know of them, certainly no cowboy outfit.avtur wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 18:10The bridge is signed at 13' 9", which to the best of my knowledge is too low for a double decker. So my suggestion was that the bus wasn't going to clear the bridge under any circumstances where the van "could" have cleared the bridge had the driver followed the bridge height markings.FleetlinePhil wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 10:09Are you suggesting that the bus was "too high, period", as our American friends would say, or just that the amount of room available in the centre of the arch for a vehicle of that height is much less than for the box van?avtur wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 14:06 The driver of the box van is known to a friend of mine. Story goes that he wasn't used to driving anything bigger than cars/car derived vans, was doing someone a favour driving the rental van involved in this incident. Sad thing is that, unlike the double decker bus (the second incident), there was actually plenty of room for the van to pass safely under this bridge. Unfortunately the driver adopted his normal "car driving" line under the bridge (which is as far left as possible to allow for vehicles coming the other way) and due to geometry of the bridge the front nearside upper bodywork struck the bridge which curves in from the left at a relatively low height. No one hurt, but much dented pride, as well as bodywork.
I'm not sure exactly the height of the vehicle involved, and 13'9" would indeed be too low for most double-deckers. However, I spent most of my driving years with buses that had to fit into a 13'6" garage in Todmorden, so it is certainly possible for a low-height double-decker to fit if driven through the correct part of the arch.
Re: Another bridge strike
From what I can find the service's diversion is via the A273FleetlinePhil wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 22:20 Thanks, I wondered if anything had been published locally about a double-decker being wrongly allocated to the route, which is diverted due to road closure jervi mention (B2112)? Metrobus are a pretty responsible operator, from what I know of them, certainly no cowboy outfit.
I'm not sure exactly the height of the vehicle involved, and 13'9" would indeed be too low for most double-deckers. However, I spent most of my driving years with buses that had to fit into a 13'6" garage in Todmorden, so it is certainly possible for a low-height double-decker to fit if driven through the correct part of the arch.
https://assets.goaheadbus.com/media/cms ... on_map.pdf
Not entirely sure why the driver took Rocky Lane, maybe they were unfamiliar with the area and thought that Rocky Lane was Issacs Lane (A273)? It happened early in the morning so maybe they were still half asleep.
It is also to note that Rocky Lane is the name of the road of the A272 between the B2112 and the roundabout with itself since the southern part of the Haywards Heath Relief road uses the original (rough) alignment of Rocky Lane, so maybe they were just following Rocky Lane as directed instead of staying on the A272 until Issacs Lane.
Also reading some of the comments on the most reliable Sussex news outlet (the Argus), someone has said that **some** double decker busses do fit under this bridge.
Re: Another bridge strike
There is a signed diversion for all vehicles which is via the A273, as per Jervi's post. The signed diversion route is a greater distance than using either the closed road or Rocky Lane as an alternative. However, local's will know that Rocky Lane is a slightly shorter alternative to the signed diversion route, this has lead to an increase in traffic on Rocky Lane.FleetlinePhil wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 22:20Thanks, I wondered if anything had been published locally about a double-decker being wrongly allocated to the route, which is diverted due to road closure jervi mention (B2112)? Metrobus are a pretty responsible operator, from what I know of them, certainly no cowboy outfit.avtur wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 18:10The bridge is signed at 13' 9", which to the best of my knowledge is too low for a double decker. So my suggestion was that the bus wasn't going to clear the bridge under any circumstances where the van "could" have cleared the bridge had the driver followed the bridge height markings.FleetlinePhil wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 10:09
Are you suggesting that the bus was "too high, period", as our American friends would say, or just that the amount of room available in the centre of the arch for a vehicle of that height is much less than for the box van?
I'm not sure exactly the height of the vehicle involved, and 13'9" would indeed be too low for most double-deckers. However, I spent most of my driving years with buses that had to fit into a 13'6" garage in Todmorden, so it is certainly possible for a low-height double-decker to fit if driven through the correct part of the arch.
There is a great deal of frustration with traffic in general in the local area because of, what seems like, a number of roads affected by road works (with temporary lights) and other closures, there has been much comment about it in the local press and on local social media. There were a couple of days last week when I encountered six sets of temporary lights on a 9mile journey to work.
I seem to remember back up in Stockport many years ago (50+ ) that North Western had a small number of reduced height double deckers, were they nick-named 'low-lines'? The aisle for the upper deck was placed at one side and ran alongside 4 across bench seats, the aisle was lower than the upper deck floor, so there was reduced height above the seats and consequently the roof line was lower.
Re: Another bridge strike
Middlesbrough had a number of these used on the route under the railway bridge for Middlesbrough Station.avtur wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 09:20 I seem to remember back up in Stockport many years ago (50+ ) that North Western had a small number of reduced height double deckers, were they nick-named 'low-lines'? The aisle for the upper deck was placed at one side and ran alongside 4 across bench seats, the aisle was lower than the upper deck floor, so there was reduced height above the seats and consequently the roof line was lower.
- JackieRoads
- Member
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2020 14:49
Re: Another bridge strike
Back then, that double-decker bus looks like it'd get stuck but compare that to the height of the tunnel...
Fantasy Strip Map Creator- feel free to send me some requests!
As a wise roadie said, don't make any mistakes in building roads.
As a wise roadie said, don't make any mistakes in building roads.
- FleetlinePhil
- Member
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:26
- Location: Calder Valley
Re: Another bridge strike
Right, got it now. I'd looked at the diversion notice on Metrobus's website, seen "Rocky Lane" and read no further, assuming that meant the section under the bridge. Hopefully the driver had been better informed at some point, so why they took that route is something of a mystery for now. Little excuse for actually hitting the bridge, of course.avtur wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 09:20There is a signed diversion for all vehicles which is via the A273, as per Jervi's post. The signed diversion route is a greater distance than using either the closed road or Rocky Lane as an alternative. However, local's will know that Rocky Lane is a slightly shorter alternative to the signed diversion route, this has lead to an increase in traffic on Rocky Lane.FleetlinePhil wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 22:20Thanks, I wondered if anything had been published locally about a double-decker being wrongly allocated to the route, which is diverted due to road closure jervi mention (B2112)? Metrobus are a pretty responsible operator, from what I know of them, certainly no cowboy outfit.avtur wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 18:10
The bridge is signed at 13' 9", which to the best of my knowledge is too low for a double decker. So my suggestion was that the bus wasn't going to clear the bridge under any circumstances where the van "could" have cleared the bridge had the driver followed the bridge height markings.
I'm not sure exactly the height of the vehicle involved, and 13'9" would indeed be too low for most double-deckers. However, I spent most of my driving years with buses that had to fit into a 13'6" garage in Todmorden, so it is certainly possible for a low-height double-decker to fit if driven through the correct part of the arch.
Actually, all North Western buses were reduced height. Older types (which would have still been around in our early years) had the four-abreast seating and side gangway you describe, then from the very late 1950s designs became available with a dropped-centre rear axle permitting a lower floor height. North Western had both the Dennis Loline (a licensed version of the Bristol Lodekka that was only available to British Transport Commission operators) and AEC Renown. They then settled on the Dailmler Fleetline (as per my avatar) when the move to rear-engined chassis became inevitable. All of these suffered from limited headroom, particularly on the upper deck, which would have been no fun for a tallish conductor, I imagine! One bridge I can think of where the reduced height was needed was on the A6144 at Partington, but I have the feeling that the garages were all built with a reduced-height fleet in mind. Unfortunately the former garages in Urmston and Stockport (Charles Street) don't have a height warning visible on GSV - in fact Charles Street is now replaced by housing on recent shots .avtur wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 09:20 I seem to remember back up in Stockport many years ago (50+ ) that North Western had a small number of reduced height double deckers, were they nick-named 'low-lines'? The aisle for the upper deck was placed at one side and ran alongside 4 across bench seats, the aisle was lower than the upper deck floor, so there was reduced height above the seats and consequently the roof line was lower.
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Another bridge strike
It would of course have been possible to have a bus specifically designed for obstacles on the route as in Beverley until common sense struck and the bus station was moved.
Re: Another bridge strike
Dashcam footage of a recent bridge strike on East Street in Epsom as tweeted by Surrey Police's Roads Policing Unit:
https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/stat ... 6331370499
https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/stat ... 6331370499
Re: Another bridge strike
It’s scary to see such lack of concentration by someone driving such a potentially lethal ‘weapon’.DavidB wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 12:26 Dashcam footage of a recent bridge strike on East Street in Epsom as tweeted by Surrey Police's Roads Policing Unit:
https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/stat ... 6331370499
Re: Another bridge strike
In case any one is looking the bridge is NOT on East Street its on Hook Road here.DavidB wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 12:26 Dashcam footage of a recent bridge strike on East Street in Epsom as tweeted by Surrey Police's Roads Policing Unit:
https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/stat ... 6331370499
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33599 ... 8192?hl=en
It seems to have lots of scars from previous impacts and no shortage of signs.
- M4 Cardiff
- Member
- Posts: 2403
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 15:12
- Location: Leamington Spa
Re: Another bridge strike
Not sure whether a common cause of the bashes, including this most recent ones is that tall vehicles cannot move right due to queuing traffic in the oncoming lane, and because they probably would fit under the centre, end up misjudging the height in their lane, even though there does appear to be a height triangle for that lane only as well.
Depending on how often this happens, maybe a yellow box area under the bridge would prevent queuing traffic waiting there and allow tall vehicles to use the high part of the bridge unobstructed.
Depending on how often this happens, maybe a yellow box area under the bridge would prevent queuing traffic waiting there and allow tall vehicles to use the high part of the bridge unobstructed.
Driving thrombosis caused this accident......a clot behind the wheel.
Re: Another bridge strike
It would help traffic flow if that was implemented (and observed!), but it wasn't the cause of the accident! The accident was caused by the lorry driver going too fast and paying no attention to the fact that there was a low/arch bridge. A competent driver would have realised he needed to use the middle of the road and waited until he was able to do so ... which, yes, would have held up the traffic, although by rather less than his actual course of action!M4 Cardiff wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 19:43 Not sure whether a common cause of the bashes, including this most recent ones is that tall vehicles cannot move right due to queuing traffic in the oncoming lane, and because they probably would fit under the centre, end up misjudging the height in their lane, even though there does appear to be a height triangle for that lane only as well.
Depending on how often this happens, maybe a yellow box area under the bridge would prevent queuing traffic waiting there and allow tall vehicles to use the high part of the bridge unobstructed.