Bash-prone city bridge gets struck again

Post by Mark Goodge
"Station Road in Ely, Cambridgeshire, was blocked for recovery efforts on
Wednesday, after a vehicle became wedged under the low railway bridge."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d49vyrnq6o
Good to see a popular Facebook group credited in the report. It's important
that these things are spotted.

The police in a muddle again, because the reports said it was a digger.
That's the first vehicle of that type I've logged in the last ten years
at that bridge (although a skip lorry hit the taller bridge at Queen
Adelaide a few years ago.

"Spotted in Ely" is the remains of a social media experiment, where a
local journalist thought they could generate a revenue stream from a
curated Facebook group. They did raise some pennies from job adverts,
less from events announcements, and pretty much nothing from anything
else.

There are other such groups like "Spotted in Evesham", but they weren't
commercially linked. Curiously there's also a "The Official Spotted in
Evesham", with slightly more members, and a "Spotted in and around
Evesham" with about the same number. Anyone would think Evesham was in
the Balkans.

Anyway, the founder passed away after a couple of years, and I think his
partner (business/personal, I can't quite remember) struggled on, and
now it's a mixture of pleas for help " and rants about bridge bashes.

The police say they were called at 5:54, and someone had started a
thread on Spotted in ELy by 5:57. One the reasons bridge bashes are
picked up is that it's a busy area, and a busy road, right next to the
station and Tesco. Currently 205 comments and 284 "likes", which isn't
bad.

Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again, including this
time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail refuse to install a
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway) so they can claim delay
minutes (there are usually none, and fines for dangerous driving would
go to the Treasury) from the vehicle's insurers (who probably won't pay
out for bridge strikes).

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

2025-03-01 08:37:09 UTC

oops, pressed 'send' too soon...

"Has anyone found a black wallet in Aldi two days ago... store staff
said nothing handed in" and

"Who do I contact at $foo hotel to arrange a wedding..."

Captain Obvious answers being:

<silence>
and "Make an appointment with the person there who deals with this".

Post by Roland Perry
and rants about bridge bashes.
The police say they were called at 5:54, and someone had started a
thread on Spotted in ELy by 5:57. One the reasons bridge bashes are
picked up is that it's a busy area, and a busy road, right next to the
station and Tesco. Currently 205 comments and 284 "likes", which isn't
bad.
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again, including this
time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail refuse to install a
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway) so they can claim
delay minutes (there are usually none, and fines for dangerous driving
would go to the Treasury) from the vehicle's insurers (who probably
won't pay out for bridge strikes).

--
Roland Perry

Charles Ellson

2025-03-02 20:47:38 UTC

The police in a muddle again, because the reports said it was a digger.
That's the first vehicle of that type I've logged in the last ten years
at that bridge (although a skip lorry hit the taller bridge at Queen
Adelaide a few years ago.
"Spotted in Ely" is the remains of a social media experiment, where a
local journalist thought they could generate a revenue stream from a
curated Facebook group. They did raise some pennies from job adverts,
less from events announcements, and pretty much nothing from anything
else.
There are other such groups like "Spotted in Evesham", but they weren't
commercially linked. Curiously there's also a "The Official Spotted in
Evesham", with slightly more members, and a "Spotted in and around
Evesham" with about the same number. Anyone would think Evesham was in
the Balkans.
Anyway, the founder passed away after a couple of years, and I think his
partner (business/personal, I can't quite remember) struggled on, and
now it's a mixture of pleas for help " and rants about bridge bashes.
The police say they were called at 5:54, and someone had started a
thread on Spotted in ELy by 5:57. One the reasons bridge bashes are
picked up is that it's a busy area, and a busy road, right next to the
station and Tesco. Currently 205 comments and 284 "likes", which isn't
bad.
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again, including this
time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail refuse to install a
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

Post by Roland Perry
so they can claim delay
minutes (there are usually none, and fines for dangerous driving would
go to the Treasury) from the vehicle's insurers (who probably won't pay
out for bridge strikes).

John

2025-03-03 06:26:46 UTC

On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 20:47:38 +0000, Charles Ellson

The police in a muddle again, because the reports said it was a digger.
That's the first vehicle of that type I've logged in the last ten years
at that bridge (although a skip lorry hit the taller bridge at Queen
Adelaide a few years ago.
"Spotted in Ely" is the remains of a social media experiment, where a
local journalist thought they could generate a revenue stream from a
curated Facebook group. They did raise some pennies from job adverts,
less from events announcements, and pretty much nothing from anything
else.
There are other such groups like "Spotted in Evesham", but they weren't
commercially linked. Curiously there's also a "The Official Spotted in
Evesham", with slightly more members, and a "Spotted in and around
Evesham" with about the same number. Anyone would think Evesham was in
the Balkans.
Anyway, the founder passed away after a couple of years, and I think his
partner (business/personal, I can't quite remember) struggled on, and
now it's a mixture of pleas for help " and rants about bridge bashes.
The police say they were called at 5:54, and someone had started a
thread on Spotted in ELy by 5:57. One the reasons bridge bashes are
picked up is that it's a busy area, and a busy road, right next to the
station and Tesco. Currently 205 comments and 284 "likes", which isn't
bad.
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again, including this
time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail refuse to install a
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

How's Street is built into the bridge abutments and not mounted on the
roadway, which is often given as the problem. Another example is the
nearby A1011 Manor Road, not a railway bridge, but where you are
literally in the shit if you damage what's overhead.
The Greenway sounds so much nicer than North London Outfall Sewer.

--
Regards

John

Charles Ellson

2025-03-03 19:01:42 UTC

Post by John
On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 20:47:38 +0000, Charles Ellson

The police in a muddle again, because the reports said it was a digger.
That's the first vehicle of that type I've logged in the last ten years
at that bridge (although a skip lorry hit the taller bridge at Queen
Adelaide a few years ago.
"Spotted in Ely" is the remains of a social media experiment, where a
local journalist thought they could generate a revenue stream from a
curated Facebook group. They did raise some pennies from job adverts,
less from events announcements, and pretty much nothing from anything
else.
There are other such groups like "Spotted in Evesham", but they weren't
commercially linked. Curiously there's also a "The Official Spotted in
Evesham", with slightly more members, and a "Spotted in and around
Evesham" with about the same number. Anyone would think Evesham was in
the Balkans.
Anyway, the founder passed away after a couple of years, and I think his
partner (business/personal, I can't quite remember) struggled on, and
now it's a mixture of pleas for help " and rants about bridge bashes.
The police say they were called at 5:54, and someone had started a
thread on Spotted in ELy by 5:57. One the reasons bridge bashes are
picked up is that it's a busy area, and a busy road, right next to the
station and Tesco. Currently 205 comments and 284 "likes", which isn't
bad.
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again, including this
time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail refuse to install a
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

How's Street is built into the bridge abutments and not mounted on the
roadway, which is often given as the problem.

The primary problem regarding the roadway is that in most cases the
necessary land (or the right to use it) will have to be obtained from
someone else.

Post by John
Another example is the
nearby A1011 Manor Road, not a railway bridge, but where you are
literally in the shit if you damage what's overhead.
The Greenway sounds so much nicer than North London Outfall Sewer.

Mark Goodge

2025-03-04 11:17:22 UTC

Post by John
On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 20:47:38 +0000, Charles Ellson

Post by Charles Ellson
There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

How's Street is built into the bridge abutments and not mounted on the
roadway, which is often given as the problem.

Yes, and it's also wholly within the footprint of the land owned by Network
Rail. So from a legal perspective it is just a part of the bridge.

Post by John
Another example is the
nearby A1011 Manor Road, not a railway bridge, but where you are
literally in the shit if you damage what's overhead.

That is a genuine exception to the general rule, in that the danglebeam is
on highway land and not attached to the aqueduct. But I suspect that does
predate the current highway design regulations.

Mark

Mike Humphrey

2025-03-04 19:35:22 UTC

Another example is the nearby A1011 Manor Road, not a railway
bridge, but where you are literally in the shit if you damage
what's overhead.

The A1011 barrier doesn't look like it actually blocks over-height
vehicles - the cylinders are hanging on chains, so it probably doesn't
count as an obstruction.

Mike

Charles Ellson

2025-03-04 20:25:14 UTC

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:35:22 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Another example is the nearby A1011 Manor Road, not a railway
bridge, but where you are literally in the shit if you damage
what's overhead.

The A1011 barrier doesn't look like it actually blocks over-height
vehicles - the cylinders are hanging on chains, so it probably doesn't
count as an obstruction.

An obstruction is an obstruction whether immovable or not.

Roland Perry

2025-03-03 07:28:26 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again, including this
time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail refuse to install a
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).

What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

--
Roland Perry

Clank

2025-03-03 15:08:10 UTC

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

M***@DastardlyHQ.org

2025-03-03 16:13:03 UTC

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 15:08:10 -0000 (UTC)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

I've noticed a lot of people involved in legal matters think human laws are
on a par with and have the gravitas (pun intended) of laws of nature rather
than some made up rules which just happens to be in vogue at the moment.

Scott

2025-03-03 16:16:46 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 15:08:10 -0000 (UTC)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

Good jurisprudence question - positive vs normative law.

M***@DastardlyHQ.org

2025-03-03 16:24:05 UTC

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:16:46 +0000

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
I've noticed a lot of people involved in legal matters think human laws are
on a par with and have the gravitas (pun intended) of laws of nature rather
than some made up rules which just happens to be in vogue at the moment.

Good jurisprudence question - positive vs normative law.

Whenever ethics are involved its angels on the head of a pin time.

Throughout most of human history and in fact even in plenty of countries now,
stringing up or chopping the head off criminals was seen as natural justice.
Only in the last 50 years or so as society slowly feminised (maybe hormones
in the water) has it been seen as some kind of horrendous barbaric punishment.

Coffee

2025-03-03 21:14:22 UTC

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

Most politicians are either frightened of motorist or too worried about
losing their vote from motorists to take such action.

Roland Perry

2025-03-04 10:22:34 UTC

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Other examples are footbridges over roads, and where shopping centres
are extended over the ring-road to produce a tunnel-effect.

--
Roland Perry

M***@DastardlyHQ.org

2025-03-04 10:42:00 UTC

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest of
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

Marland

2025-03-04 16:54:07 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest of
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I wonder if that is because there are more legacy tram systems on the
continent than here ?
Fairly sure I have read reports of tallish loads fouling tram wires in some
places and their tramways since the 1900’s have been predominantly single
deck unlike the UK where double deck trams were common with a wire height
to match.

GH

Scott

2025-03-04 17:31:07 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest of
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Tweed

2025-03-04 17:44:23 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest of
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges. The minimum height of an
unmarked bridge is 16 feet 6 inches.

Scott

2025-03-04 17:49:16 UTC

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 17:44:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest of
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Theres no legal restriction but youd find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges. The minimum height of an
unmarked bridge is 16 feet 6 inches.

That is what I thought, but it creates another 'fun fact' for Muttley.

Roland Perry

2025-03-05 13:59:16 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Abnormally high loads have specific routes they can follow (escorted).
Often things like boats on trailers - what a dumb thing to have, a boat
factory with no floating route out. It can even involve taking down
telephone dropwires for the day.

Post by Tweed
The minimum height of an unmarked bridge is 16 feet 6 inches.

--
Roland Perry

Marland

2025-03-05 17:14:58 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons , boat owners ,repairers and
manufacturers may well have their own reasons not to
navigate them on water.

GH

Sam Wilson

2025-03-05 22:15:39 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

UK rail loading and structure gauges are roughly about 4 m tall (4 m = 13
ft 1.48 in - wow my computer just filled that equation in; I was going to
say 13 ft 2 in, the length of an old-style canoe slalom boat). I’d guess
that means the majority of rolling stock can be moved on suitable low
loader vehicles within the 5 m road height limit.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Charles Ellson

2025-03-05 23:10:17 UTC

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 22:15:39 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Theres no legal restriction but youd find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Abnormally high loads have specific routes they can follow (escorted).
Often things like boats on trailers - what a dumb thing to have, a boat
factory with no floating route out.

More likely it will be a non-floatable boat going for repair or being
moved to/from a land-locked location. I found myself behind a Belgian
barge being taken round the M25 last year.

Post by Roland Perry
It can even involve taking down
telephone dropwires for the day.

UK rail loading and structure gauges are roughly about 4 m tall (4 m = 13
ft 1.48 in - wow my computer just filled that equation in; I was going to
say 13 ft 2 in, the length of an old-style canoe slalom boat). Id guess
that means the majority of rolling stock can be moved on suitable low
loader vehicles within the 5 m road height limit.
Sam

Roland Perry

2025-03-06 07:51:10 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 22:15:39 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

Sun, 2 Mar 2025, Charles Ellson

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Abnormally high loads have specific routes they can follow (escorted).
Often things like boats on trailers - what a dumb thing to have, a boat
factory with no floating route out.

More likely it will be a non-floatable boat going for repair or being
moved to/from a land-locked location. I found myself behind a Belgian
barge being taken round the M25 last year.

No, there's a steady stream of boats being delivered from land-locked
factories.

Post by Roland Perry
It can even involve taking down
telephone dropwires for the day.

--
Roland Perry

Charles Ellson

2025-03-06 20:00:24 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 22:15:39 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

Sun, 2 Mar 2025, Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again,
including this
time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail refuse to install a
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Theres no legal restriction but youd find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Abnormally high loads have specific routes they can follow (escorted).
Often things like boats on trailers - what a dumb thing to have, a boat
factory with no floating route out.

More likely it will be a non-floatable boat going for repair or being
moved to/from a land-locked location. I found myself behind a Belgian
barge being taken round the M25 last year.

No, there's a steady stream of boats being delivered from land-locked
factories.

Unusually big or just cleared route big ?

Post by Roland Perry
It can even involve taking down
telephone dropwires for the day.

UK rail loading and structure gauges are roughly about 4 m tall (4 m = 13
ft 1.48 in - wow my computer just filled that equation in; I was going to
say 13 ft 2 in, the length of an old-style canoe slalom boat). Id guess
that means the majority of rolling stock can be moved on suitable low
loader vehicles within the 5 m road height limit.
Sam

Roland Perry

2025-03-06 20:49:02 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 22:15:39 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

20:47:38 on
Sun, 2 Mar 2025, Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again,
including this
time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail refuse to install a
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton.
Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you
can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road,
which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Abnormally high loads have specific routes they can follow (escorted).
Often things like boats on trailers - what a dumb thing to have, a boat
factory with no floating route out.

More likely it will be a non-floatable boat going for repair or being
moved to/from a land-locked location. I found myself behind a Belgian
barge being taken round the M25 last year.

No, there's a steady stream of boats being delivered from land-locked
factories.

Unusually big or just cleared route big ?

Both.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

2025-03-06 07:49:55 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again,
including this time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock?

No, because they have rules about being track-legal, which doesn't apply
to boats. And while there are a few exceptions, brand new rolling stock
is usually delivered by rail.

Post by Marland
A lot of that is transported by road for various reasons , boat owners
,repairers and manufacturers may well have their own reasons not to
navigate them on water.

It's the manufacturers who I regard as a bit dumb having a factory that
isn't on a waterway.

A couple of years ago a guy bought a second-hand narrowboat from one of
the many marinas in the Rugby area, and had it trailered to Ely and
lifted into the water. He lived on it ('working from home') for about
six months then disappeared off the radar.

--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall

2025-03-06 08:12:06 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again,
including this time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock?

No, because they have rules about being track-legal, which doesn't apply
to boats. And while there are a few exceptions, brand new rolling stock
is usually delivered by rail.

Post by Marland
A lot of that is transported by road for various reasons , boat owners
,repairers and manufacturers may well have their own reasons not to
navigate them on water.

It's the manufacturers who I regard as a bit dumb having a factory that
isn't on a waterway.

How do you know the factory isn't on a waterway? There are many reasons
why boats would be delivered by road to a given location. Southampton
boat show is a classic example, boats get delivered from all over Europe
for that and quite a lot travel by road. Not every craft is capable of
navigating in open water. Your mate's narow boat for starters.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

M***@DastardlyHQ.org

2025-03-06 09:15:12 UTC

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:12:06 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
It's the manufacturers who I regard as a bit dumb having a factory that
isn't on a waterway.

I saw a narrowboat sink in the Thames near blackfriars about 20 years ago. It
was a very windy day and the swell had swamped it. Luckily they managed to tie
it to a pier so they could get off but it went down soon after. Don't know what
happened after that.

Roland Perry

2025-03-06 14:50:47 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:12:06 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
It's the manufacturers who I regard as a bit dumb having a factory that
isn't on a waterway.

I took a narrowboat from Bow Locks past Westminster and up to Brentford
back in April 78 and there was considerable swell. Looking back, it
wasn't the wisest thing to do! But we have it on video (early precursor
to camcorder).

However, the big boats with (remember now, it's HEIGHT which we are
talking about) issues on roads are mainly sea-going plastic cruisers.

--
Roland Perry

Marland

2025-03-06 10:14:09 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Abnormally high loads have specific routes they can follow (escorted).
Often things like boats on trailers - what a dumb thing to have, a boat
factory with no floating route out. It can even involve taking down
telephone dropwires for the day.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock?

No, because they have rules about being track-legal, which doesn't apply
to boats. And while there are a few exceptions, brand new rolling stock
is usually delivered by rail.

Post by Marland
A lot of that is transported by road for various reasons , boat owners
,repairers and manufacturers may well have their own reasons not to
navigate them on water.

It's the manufacturers who I regard as a bit dumb having a factory that
isn't on a waterway.

Same with some that are exported through Southampton Docks and likely other
ports as well.
If you are paying several millions for a luxury craft you want to receive
it as pristine condition as possible , and it won’t be fit to travel as
there be no fuel or water on board ,insurance won’t be in place. Often
the transporting ship is a container type vessel that has had space
arranged for a cradle to be placed onboard which is done by the normal
container cranes which can be fitted with spreaders etc which allow them to
lift things besides containers. The new craft is then lifted off the lorry
by the container crane and placed in the cradle.

Occasionally one is launched elsewhere such as on the Hamble river and
towed close behind the
container ship, Divers go down and position the lifting strops the crane
lifts it and then traverses over the ship and places it.

GH

Roland Perry

2025-03-06 11:56:18 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

Sun, 2 Mar 2025, Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again,
including this time the conspiracy theory that Network
Rail sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you
can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road,
which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock?

No, because they have rules about being track-legal, which doesn't
apply to boats. And while there are a few exceptions, brand new
rolling stock is usually delivered by rail.

Post by Marland
A lot of that is transported by road for various reasons , boat
owners ,repairers and manufacturers may well have their own
reasons not to navigate them on water.

It's the manufacturers who I regard as a bit dumb having a factory
that isn't on a waterway.

How do you know the factory isn't on a waterway?

Because I looked it up.

Post by Graeme Wall
There are many reasons why boats would be delivered by road to a given
location. Southampton boat show is a classic example, boats get
delivered from all over Europe for that and quite a lot travel by road.

Boris's road bridge over the channel was another whacky scheme that
never happened.

Post by Graeme Wall
Not every craft is capable of navigating in open water. Your mate's
narow boat for starters.

He wasn't a mate, and the other way to get that boat to Ely would be to
navigate it across the open waters of the Wash. But at the time the
piloting scheme had been suspended "because of Covid" presumably.

Had it been a bit shorter it could have got to Ely via the Middle Levels
(modulo some issues they had about shallows).

--
Roland Perry

Sam Wilson

2025-03-06 10:06:22 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again,
including this time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock?

No, because they have rules about being track-legal, which doesn't apply
to boats. And while there are a few exceptions, brand new rolling stock
is usually delivered by rail.

Post by Marland
A lot of that is transported by road for various reasons , boat owners
,repairers and manufacturers may well have their own reasons not to
navigate them on water.

It's the manufacturers who I regard as a bit dumb having a factory that
isn't on a waterway.
A couple of years ago a guy bought a second-hand narrowboat from one of
the many marinas in the Rugby area, and had it trailered to Ely and
lifted into the water. He lived on it ('working from home') for about
six months then disappeared off the radar.

How far is it from Rugby to Ely by water, and how long would it take to get
a narrow boat from one to the other? The cost of taking time off work or
paying someone to do the trip would have to be compared with the price for
taking it by road.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry

2025-03-06 15:03:43 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Usually the same ideas trotted out over and over again,
including this time the conspiracy theory that Network Rail
sacrificial beam (which would be illegal anyway)

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock?

No, because they have rules about being track-legal, which doesn't apply
to boats. And while there are a few exceptions, brand new rolling stock
is usually delivered by rail.

Post by Marland
A lot of that is transported by road for various reasons , boat owners
,repairers and manufacturers may well have their own reasons not to
navigate them on water.

It's the manufacturers who I regard as a bit dumb having a factory that
isn't on a waterway.
A couple of years ago a guy bought a second-hand narrowboat from one of
the many marinas in the Rugby area, and had it trailered to Ely and
lifted into the water. He lived on it ('working from home') for about
six months then disappeared off the radar.

How far is it from Rugby to Ely by water, and how long would it take to get
a narrow boat from one to the other?

<there's an app for that>

Assuming 7hrs a day cruising, the 118 miles will take 6 days and 2hrs.

You might have to add half a day contingency for the tide at Denver (the
app doesn't accommodate that).

</there's an app for that>

Post by Sam Wilson
The cost of taking time off work

If he was "working from the boat", there'd be no time off required,
although it would lengthen the trip to however much daylight was outside
9-5.

Post by Sam Wilson
or paying someone to do the trip would have to be compared with the
price for taking it by road.

On one hand it's probably about a £2k bill for the low loader, plus
cranes either end; on the other hand there's a market for "delivery
trips" where people get a rent-free holiday in return for making the
one-way journey.

--
Roland Perry

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-03-06 08:38:16 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Recliner

2025-03-06 08:49:33 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can’t travel from the factory by rail.

Scott

2025-03-06 12:14:27 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Theres no legal restriction but youd find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles cant travel from the factory by rail.

Surely the trains purchased will be adapted for UK gauge. Otherwise,
there would be problems with diverting or cascading. Caledonian
Sleeper for example bought CAF coaches that operate in rural ScotRail,
tunnels at Queen Street, WCML and ECML (on diversion).

Sam Wilson

2025-03-06 14:13:42 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Theres no legal restriction but youd find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles cant travel from the factory by rail.

It’s not the structure/loading gauge that’s the problem, it’s Spain’s
broader track gauge.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Scott

2025-03-06 14:33:08 UTC

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:13:42 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There?s no legal restriction but you?d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can?t travel from the factory by rail.

Its not the structure/loading gauge thats the problem, its Spains
broader track gauge.

Ah, so Recliner means that the trains cannot travel by rail in Spain.
I misunderstood. I thought we were talking about UK roads.

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-03-07 07:42:14 UTC

Post by Scott
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:13:42 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There?s no legal restriction but you?d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can?t travel from the factory by rail.

Its not the structure/loading gauge thats the problem, its Spains
broader track gauge.

Ah, so Recliner means that the trains cannot travel by rail in Spain.
I misunderstood. I thought we were talking about UK roads.

You might have missed:

"Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock?"

Scott

2025-03-10 11:48:17 UTC

Post by Scott
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:13:42 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There?s no legal restriction but you?d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can?t travel from the factory by rail.

It?s not the structure/loading gauge that?s the problem, it?s Spain?s
broader track gauge.

Ah, so Recliner means that the trains cannot travel by rail in Spain.
I misunderstood. I thought we were talking about UK roads.

"Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock?"

I certainly missed the significance :-)

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-03-07 07:28:35 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Theres no legal restriction but youd find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles cant travel from the factory by rail.

It’s not the structure/loading gauge that’s the problem, it’s Spain’s
broader track gauge.

Well, Albuixec(h) should be connected to the French 1435 mm network now.

Regards, ULF

Graeme Wall

2025-03-06 18:00:00 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There’s no legal restriction but you’d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can’t travel from the factory by rail.

But they won't fit on Spanish rails.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Scott

2025-03-06 20:01:15 UTC

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 18:00:00 +0000, Graeme Wall

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Theres no legal restriction but youd find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles cant travel from the factory by rail.

But they won't fit on Spanish rails.

Yes I now understand this was a reference to Spain. I thought we were
talking about UK roads.

Recliner

2025-03-06 21:49:34 UTC

Post by Scott
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 18:00:00 +0000, Graeme Wall

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

Theres no legal restriction but youd find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles cant travel from the factory by rail.

But they won't fit on Spanish rails.

Yes I now understand this was a reference to Spain. I thought we were
talking about UK roads.

That’s why I said: “Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and
Stadler trains built in Spain. These standard gauge vehicles cant travel
from the factory by rail.”

Scott

2025-03-10 11:49:26 UTC

Post by Scott
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 18:00:00 +0000, Graeme Wall

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than
the rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

There?s no legal restriction but you?d find it very hard to find a
significant route without any over bridges.

Do you apply the same argument to railway rolling stock? A lot of that is
transported by road for various reasons ,

Things get quite interesting if the
loading gauge of the given stock is
larger than what is normally admitted
in the contry of production and maybe
transit countries.

Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can?t travel from the factory by rail.

But they won't fit on Spanish rails.

Yes I now understand this was a reference to Spain. I thought we were
talking about UK roads.

Thats why I said: Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and
Stadler trains built in Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can?t travel
from the factory by rail.

I was confused at the time of writing :-)

Marland

2025-03-07 01:37:03 UTC

Post by Recliner
Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can’t travel from the factory by rail.

Could probably do so if they really wanted.

Zaragoza where the CAF factory is located has standard gauge links.
Spain has been providing strategic connections quite rapidly in recent
years either by laying std gauge lines or making existing routes mixed
gauge.
This one to part of Barcelona Port even caters for the Metre gauge as well
making a rare triple gauge line though I don’t know if the Metre gauge sees
traffic now.

<https://maps.app.goo.gl/1CQPsteiRpAPXazr8>

Back to Zaragoza.
The CAF plant has a rail connection to the Iberian gauge but the std gauge
just passes by.
Perhaps it is high speed passenger only.

<https://maps.app.goo.gl/5oZFbjzuLJMseyav5?g_st=ic>

Maybe when the planned reopening of the through route to France via
Canfranc which will be std or mixed gauge is achieved it might be worth
CAV getting a connection but that has fallen back from 2025/6 to 2030.

CAF Irun is tantalisingly close to std gauge , less than a mile but a lot
of Iberian gauge yard tracks in between.
Looking at Google maps even the Iberian gauge connection looks a bit
unused.

<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gsW2D7Dx2bo1cXT9A?g_st=ic>

GH

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-03-07 08:29:33 UTC

Post by Recliner
Or the track gauge. The UK has been buying CAF and Stadler trains built in
Spain. These standard gauge vehicles can’t travel from the factory by rail.

Could probably do so if they really wanted.
Zaragoza where the

former MMC

Post by Marland
CAF factory is located has standard gauge links.
Spain has been providing strategic connections quite rapidly in recent
years either by laying std gauge lines or making existing routes mixed
gauge.
This one to part of Barcelona Port even caters for the Metre gauge as well
making a rare triple gauge line though I don’t know if the Metre gauge sees
traffic now.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/1CQPsteiRpAPXazr8>
Back to Zaragoza.
The CAF plant has a rail connection to the Iberian gauge but the std gauge
just passes by.
Perhaps it is high speed passenger only.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/5oZFbjzuLJMseyav5?g_st=ic>
Maybe when the planned reopening of the through route to France via
Canfranc which will be std or mixed gauge is achieved it might be worth
CAV getting a connection but that has fallen back from 2025/6 to 2030.

At least the first five Caledonian sleeper carriages
came from Beasain, by road.
https://www.railwaygazette.com/traction-and-rolling-stock/caledonian-sleeper-coaches-ready-for-testing/45055.article

Post by Marland
CAF Irun is tantalisingly close to std gauge , less than a mile but a lot
of Iberian gauge yard tracks in between.
Looking at Google maps even the Iberian gauge connection looks a bit
unused.
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/gsW2D7Dx2bo1cXT9A?g_st=ic>

Maybe there are both kinds of track or four-rail tracks?

Mike Humphrey

2025-03-04 19:33:46 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

You're right, there isn't a limit. But overhead obstructions only have to
be signed if they're below 5 metres. If your vehicle is taller than that,
it's on you to check for obstructions - and no-one is obliged to move them
out of your way. Not just bridges, but cables (including safe distances
from high-voltage ones), trees, signs etc. Also no-one is obliged to
inform you of changes, so you need to re-check the route every time you
use it. And if you make a mistake and hit something, you're on the hook
for the damage.
This means that it's a huge hassle to move anything over 5m tall, and in
practice vehicles stay below that unless there's no choice.

Mike

Mark Goodge

2025-03-04 20:55:50 UTC

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:33:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

The DfT does publish a list of designated high load routes, which have no
overhead obstructions below 6 metres.

Mark

tony sayer

2025-03-05 13:46:51 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:33:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

The DfT does publish a list of designated high load routes, which have no
overhead obstructions below 6 metres.
Mark

Simple hook the suspended beam up to the 25 kV overhead, word will soon
get around after a few funerals;)....

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

Scott

2025-03-05 14:17:44 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:33:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

The DfT does publish a list of designated high load routes, which have no
overhead obstructions below 6 metres.
Mark

Simple hook the suspended beam up to the 25 kV overhead, word will soon
get around after a few funerals;)....

Would this not require banning rubber tyres?

Charles Ellson

2025-03-05 23:12:47 UTC

On Wed, 05 Mar 2025 14:17:44 +0000, Scott

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:33:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

The DfT does publish a list of designated high load routes, which have no
overhead obstructions below 6 metres.
Mark

Simple hook the suspended beam up to the 25 kV overhead, word will soon
get around after a few funerals;)....

Would this not require banning rubber tyres?

ISTR there is a YouTube video demonstrating that would not inevitably
be required.

Marland

2025-03-06 08:05:49 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:33:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

The DfT does publish a list of designated high load routes, which have no
overhead obstructions below 6 metres.
Mark

Simple hook the suspended beam up to the 25 kV overhead, word will soon
get around after a few funerals;)....

Would this not require banning rubber tyres?

Tyres have a carbon content of about 20% in their composition which is
enough to pass some current at high voltages , what usually happens when a
vehicle like a crane makes contact with a HV line
is that the tyres conduct but being high resistance heat up and catch fire
.

GH

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-03-06 08:42:59 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:33:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

The DfT does publish a list of designated high load routes, which have no
overhead obstructions below 6 metres.
Mark

Simple hook the suspended beam up to the 25 kV overhead, word will soon
get around after a few funerals;)....

Would this not require banning rubber tyres?

20 % besides
Loading Image...

Charles Ellson

2025-03-06 18:50:12 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:33:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

The DfT does publish a list of designated high load routes, which have no
overhead obstructions below 6 metres.
Mark

Simple hook the suspended beam up to the 25 kV overhead, word will soon
get around after a few funerals;)....

Would this not require banning rubber tyres?

There are a couple of YouTube videos knocking around showing cranes
which have come into contact with overhead lines. There seems to be
initial burning at the bottom of the tyre followed by an arc from the
wheel to the ground across the surface of the tyre.

Coffee

2025-03-06 19:07:50 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:33:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the
rest of the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

I thought there was no maximum height in the UK.

The DfT does publish a list of designated high load routes, which have no
overhead obstructions below 6 metres.
Mark

Simple hook the suspended beam up to the 25 kV overhead, word will soon
get around after a few funerals;)....

Would this not require banning rubber tyres?

That makes sense. The tyres will have some resistance so that is where
the heat is generated. I2R applies.

Chris J Dixon

2025-03-07 08:57:15 UTC

Post by Coffee

Post by Charles Ellson
There are a couple of YouTube videos knocking around showing cranes
which have come into contact with overhead lines. There seems to be
initial burning at the bottom of the tyre followed by an arc from the
wheel to the ground across the surface of the tyre.

That makes sense. The tyres will have some resistance so that is where
the heat is generated. I2R applies.

Rubber is often loaded with carbon making it conductive to a
degree.

A locomotive electrical cabinet was once under test. On top was a
short-circuiter, which was a device with three incoming
electrical connections, spaced 120 degrees apart. When triggered,
a metal ring dropped to short the three connections together. It
had a transparent protective dome, with a rubber sealing strip
around its circular bottom edge.

During the test, the dome suddenly burst into flames. Upon
measuring a rubber strip from stock, its resistance was about
1K0, so students can work out for themselves what that would
dissipate connected in delta across a three phase supply. ;-)

As it was a bought-in component, we manufactured a more compliant
no-flammable cover. I gather the scrapped ones were popular in
Loughborough veg plots as individual cloches.

Chris

--
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

Charles Ellson

2025-03-04 19:53:44 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest of
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

There is no _general_ maximum height for vehicles; there is a height
limits for buses (4.57m/15ft)-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/9
(The 4.2m limit for semi-trailers was removed in 1995)

There is a minimum height for unsigned structures over roads and there
are maximum widths, lengths and weights for road vehicles travelling
without special measures.

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-03-04 20:01:30 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest of
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

There is no _general_ maximum height for vehicles; there is a height
limits for buses (4.57m/15ft)-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/9
(The 4.2m limit for semi-trailers was removed in 1995)
There is a minimum height for unsigned structures over roads and

Okay but that might be less than 6 metres.

So, how should the driver of a lorry 6 metres high
find out for passing under structures?

Regards, ULF

Charles Ellson

2025-03-04 20:23:46 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:22:34 +0000

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It was mainly introduced so that new construction over highways left
sufficient room for a max-sized HGV to drive underneath (like it's
widely assumed they can under motorway bridges).

Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest of
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

There is no _general_ maximum height for vehicles; there is a height
limits for buses (4.57m/15ft)-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/9
(The 4.2m limit for semi-trailers was removed in 1995)
There is a minimum height for unsigned structures over roads and

Okay but that might be less than 6 metres.
So, how should the driver of a lorry 6 metres high
find out for passing under structures?

By the route being surveyed beforehand. In some cases there are preset
routes with a maintained extra clearance to allow more than occasional
movement of high loads. Most but not all motorways will provide routes
of long distance with significant extra clearance.

M***@DastardlyHQ.org

2025-03-05 09:12:45 UTC

On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 19:53:44 +0000

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

There is no _general_ maximum height for vehicles; there is a height
limits for buses (4.57m/15ft)-

Occasionally I've seen UK double decker buses in the EU, usually a Routemaster
TBH. I wonder if before taking them over the drivers have to get special
permission and plan their route accordingly in case they collide with a bridge?

Scott

2025-03-05 09:37:50 UTC

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 19:53:44 +0000

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

There is no _general_ maximum height for vehicles; there is a height
limits for buses (4.57m/15ft)-

Well, yes - if the EU limit is 4 metres and a routemaster is 4.38
metres, I can see a potential problem.

Charles Ellson

2025-03-05 23:24:56 UTC

On Wed, 05 Mar 2025 09:37:50 +0000, Scott

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 19:53:44 +0000

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Fun fact - the max vehicle height in the UK is somewhat higher than the rest

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
the EU. 16ft vs 13 foot or something like that.

There is no _general_ maximum height for vehicles; there is a height
limits for buses (4.57m/15ft)-

Well, yes - if the EU limit is 4 metres and a routemaster is 4.38
metres, I can see a potential problem.

4m seems to be the limit for _general_ unrestricted movement in most
states. That gives scope for individual states having different ways
of allowing higher vehicles (e.g. higher clearances on particular
classes of road).
https://app.croneri.co.uk/topics/preparing-international-operations-vehicle-dimensions/employer-factsheet-maximum-permitted

Mark Goodge

2025-03-04 10:41:20 UTC

There is one in front of a bridge in How's Street in Hoxton. Maybe you
should report it?

The are sacrificial beams with grandfather rights, and you can also add
one to the existing bridge structure (although whether that helps is
debatable).
What you can't do is construct a new one across the road, which is what
Facebook posters repeatedly call for.

Was this handed down on stone tablets from God, or is it mere human
legislation which could, with sufficient will, be changed?

It could be changed, obviously. But there's insufficient willpower to change
it. The highway authorities have no reason to want the law to be changed,
and Network Rail don't have enough locations where sacrificial beams would
be beneficial and practical for them to be all that strongly in favour of
changing the law. So nobody is actually asking politicians to change the
law, other than commenters on social media who have precisely zero influence
in that respect.

Mark

Scott

2025-03-03 16:01:38 UTC

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 23:08:44 +0000, Mark Goodge

As far as I can see, the upper limit for insurance liability for third
party damage is £1.2m according to RTA 1988 s145(4)(b). Are repairs
likely to cost more than £1.2m? If so, would Network Rail pursue the
driver for the difference? This might help to focus minds.

Charles Ellson

2025-03-03 19:28:42 UTC

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:01:38 +0000, Scott

Post by Scott
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 23:08:44 +0000, Mark Goodge

That is the minimum amount of liability to be covered by insurance
etc. (I am covered up to 20M IIRC); there is no upper limit on
liability other than how much blood can be squeezed out of the
available stones. NR does pursue costs but like most motoring claims
they aren't going to get publicity in court rather be a matter of
private negotiation.

Scott

2025-03-03 20:59:54 UTC

On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 19:28:42 +0000, Charles Ellson

Post by Charles Ellson
On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:01:38 +0000, Scott

Post by Scott
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 23:08:44 +0000, Mark Goodge

But just so I understand does this mean in principle that the driver
is personally liable for the balance?

Mike Humphrey

2025-03-04 03:56:41 UTC

But just so I understand does this mean in principle that the driver is
personally liable for the balance?

The driver is liable for the full amount of damages, regardless of
insurance coverage, if they were negligent - that's basic civil law. And
in most cases driving into a low bridge is negligent - unless the bridge
is wrongly signed for example. Insurance covers liability within the
policy conditions - so if you are liable for £30m and your policy covers
up to £20m you need to find the other £10m out of your own pocket. In
practice you'd declare bankruptcy and pay a tiny fraction of that, which
is why it's not usually worth pursuing. But if the driver is a multi-
millionaire they may well get sued for the full amount.

Mike

Charles Ellson

2025-03-04 20:07:14 UTC