Re: Lorry struck bridge

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Andy <andypurk@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 26, 2:02 am, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:52:31 -0700 (PDT), cosmo.john...@googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 25, 3:16 pm, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT"
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >> The 0900 from Euston to Holyhead (Pendolino) was delayed this morning
at
>> >> Harrow & Wealdstone for approx. 20 mins and the guard gave the
announcement
>> >> that "a lorry had struck a bridge near Harrow & Wealdstone.
>> >> Regards   Mike.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Britain must leave the criminal EU NOW!
>>
>> >I was on the 0854 LM from Euston which was neatly parked next to that
>> >Pendo at the red signal (LM driver was only told it was "a
vehicle"
>> >striking the bridge, clearly that extra info is reserved for Virgin
>> >pax!). How bad was the "strike" (I couldn't see anything obvious
>> >passing through) and what do NR have to do in this kind of situation
>> >to ensure that trains can safely run under again?
>>
>> The Headstone Drive bridge is fairly substantial (6 tracks on one deck
>> which is somewhat wider than it is long IIRC) so I would expect it to
>> need something rather in excess of the normally-permitted vehicle size
>> (which probably would not get past the roundabout to the west anyway)
>> to hit it before any significant damage occurred. In most cases of
>> anything hitting this bridge (usually double-deck buses driven by
>> forgetful drivers) the chances of dislodging the deck would seem very
>> remote.
>
>The problem is more usually vehicles coming from the east. The road
>has an incline going up from east to west and tall vehicles get wedged
>under the bridge, rather than hitting the side, if you see what I
>mean.
>
Yes, ISWYM. Possibly an argument for fitting a sacrificial piece of
stripey metalwork on the lower side to prevent the false assumption
that getting in one side means you'll get out the other side OK ?
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]