# Motor home stuck under Flintshire bridge



## Bayblue (Jul 11, 2016)

The motor home got stuck under the bridge on Broughton Hall Road in Broughton at about 6pm today.
Can't see one of our stickers on it

Motor home stuck under Flintshire bridge blocks road - Daily Post


----------



## hextal (Jul 11, 2016)

One of our bridges got whacked by a truck the other day, totally stoving in the container on the back.

I send an inspector out to check on the bridge condition. A few hours later get a message "you're not going to believe this, it's been hit by another truck, right in front of the inspector".

Then about half an hour later I get "you're really not going to believe this........"

Yup, hit by 3 trucks in 6hrs.  Gotta be something of a record.


----------



## trevskoda (Jul 11, 2016)

hextal said:


> One of our bridges got whacked by a truck the other day, totally stoving in the container on the back.
> 
> I send an inspector out to check on the bridge condition. A few hours later get a message "you're not going to believe this, it's been hit by another truck, right in front of the inspector".
> 
> ...



Surly these bridges are not up to eu standards ie hight or the trucks are on steroids.


----------



## Tezza33 (Jul 11, 2016)

trevskoda said:


> Surly these bridges are not up to eu standards ie hight or the trucks are on steroids.


It is a 2.2M bridge and signed as such so where do EU standards come in to it, the driver is at fault for not seeing it or not knowing the height of his motorhome, sometimes you have to have low bridges, there is always an alternative route


----------



## Auld Pharrrt (Jul 11, 2016)

tezza33 said:


> It is a 2.2M bridge and signed as such so where do EU standards come in to it, the driver is at fault for not seeing it or not knowing the height of his motorhome, sometimes you have to have low bridges, there is always an alternative route



Personally I believe a lot of the times it comes from not knowing what 2.2m = in old money.


----------



## maingate (Jul 11, 2016)

There are a couple of bridges near where I live that get smacked regularly. Thy are both around 14' 6". The problem is that they are close to a large Trading Estate and catch out newbies in HGVs.


----------



## n brown (Jul 11, 2016)

a proper camper would let a bit of air out of his tyres, pull the thing out of there, and drive onto the rest of his holiday


----------



## Robmac (Jul 11, 2016)

I thought he was just delivering a bridge?


----------



## Tezza33 (Jul 11, 2016)

Obviously I cannot say certain things, one of my favourite members/people delivers low bridges


----------



## Deleted member 13543 (Jul 11, 2016)

What intrigues me is that the roof of the motorhome seems relatively intact?? At 2.2m I would expect it to be seriously damaged!


----------



## Auld Pharrrt (Jul 12, 2016)

maingate said:


> There are a couple of bridges near where I live that get smacked regularly. Thy are both around 14' 6". The problem is that they are close to a large Trading Estate and catch out newbies in HGVs.



or agency drivers ... who are mostly newbies


----------



## runnach (Jul 12, 2016)

A few years ago in Doncaster a car transporter smacked a bridge, common route to a large holding compound. I turned out the road had been re surfaced and the signage not changed. Sonot always th edrivers fault.

Channa


----------



## Jimhunterj4 (Jul 12, 2016)

Auld Pharrrt said:


> Personally I believe a lot of the times it comes from not knowing what 2.2m = in old money.



On this occasion It's clearly written underneath it in old money buddy, 7"6 guy must be blind or was getting an ear bashing at the time from his mrs


----------



## trevskoda (Jul 12, 2016)

tezza33 said:


> It is a 2.2M bridge and signed as such so where do EU standards come in to it, the driver is at fault for not seeing it or not knowing the height of his motorhome, sometimes you have to have low bridges, there is always an alternative route



Bar a few historical bridges here most under eu law were knocked down here and  rebuilt,any roads with low bridges are marked long before you enter with weight/hight limitations  ,england is full of we bridges  but not so many here as poor paddy is not long out of the bog.:lol-049:


----------



## hextal (Jul 12, 2016)

trevskoda said:


> Bar a few historical bridges here most under eu law were knocked down here and  rebuilt,any roads with low bridges are marked long before you enter with weight limitations  ,england is full of we bridges  but not so many here as poor paddy is not long out of the bog.:lol-049:



There is no EU law relating to bridge height in the UK.

The height is still governed by the DMRB (design manual for roads and bridges). The requirement is that existing bridges have a minimum maintained height of 5.03m. if they do not then a risk assessment and strategy is adopted to suit. If there is a lot of hgv traffic or it is a high load route then a higher bridge may be opted for.

A significant amount of bridges on minor roads are below this height and the cost involved in raising them all would be astronomic. They are more often than not, associated with railways. Now my pway design is rusty but the gradient change on a line is incredibly restrictive, so raising a bridge is a real big issue. While swapping decks can be achieved in a weekend, modifying the approaches is a different kettle of fish.


----------



## mossypossy (Jul 12, 2016)

kernowprickles said:


> What intrigues me is that the roof of the motorhome seems relatively intact?? At 2.2m I would expect it to be seriously damaged!



His canoe and aircon and satellite are all off picture in a skip


----------



## hextal (Jul 12, 2016)

That is one of the more common approaches used. The main issues are gradient, drainage, adjacent buildings and foundation depth. Many of these bridges tend to be on relatively shallow footings, so there is a limitation on how much can be excavated in front of the toe.


----------



## Robmac (Jul 12, 2016)

hextal said:


> That is one of the more common approaches used. The main issues are gradient, drainage, adjacent buildings and foundation depth. Many of these bridges tend to be on relatively shallow footings, so there is a limitation on how much can be excavated in front of the toe.



Can they be underpinned like a house can? (just out of interest). Or too much weight involved?


----------



## mossypossy (Jul 12, 2016)




----------



## hextal (Jul 12, 2016)

Robmac said:


> Can they be underpinned like a house can? (just out of interest). Or too much weight involved?



Theoretically, it's certainly possible, but not something I've ever seen done. I suspect the bigger issue, above the increased surcharge from the new foundation, and localised settlement, would be the increased lateral earth pressure behind the abutments.  The taller they are, the more horizontal load the are subjected to. Now the deck will, rightly or wrongly, act as a horizontal prop, but the centre of gravity of the horizontal load is 1/3 from the bottom of the abutment. So, they will potentially try to rotate. This too can be countered by casting a trough beneath the road to effectively brace the bottom of the abutments against each other.

The reality is that unless there is a burning need, or an easy win, they tend to just get managed.

A fall back is installation of collision protection beams up and down stream of the bridge. They are a structural portal set lower than the bridge and not flexible. So they are sacrificed rather than the edge of the bridge.


----------



## Robmac (Jul 12, 2016)

hextal said:


> Theoretically, it's certainly possible, but not something I've ever seen done. I suspect the bigger issue, above the increased surcharge from the new foundation, and localised settlement, would be the increased lateral earth pressure behind the abutments.  The taller they are, the more horizontal load the are subjected to. Now the deck will, rightly or wrongly, act as a horizontal prop, but the centre of gravity of the horizontal load is 1/3 from the bottom of the abutment. So, they will potentially try to rotate. This too can be countered by casting a trough beneath the road to effectively brace the bottom of the abutments against each other.
> 
> The reality is that unless there is a burning need, or an easy win, they tend to just get managed.
> 
> A fall back is installation of collision protection beams up and down stream of the bridge. They are a structural portal set lower than the bridge and not flexible. So they are sacrificed rather than the edge of the bridge.



I can think of a couple of bridges that could do with a solution.

As usual I suppose it is all down to cost.


----------



## Deleted member 13867 (Jul 12, 2016)

This could be the new prototype for the height barrier at Huttoft car terrace. 

On a serious note i like the advanced warning structures on the approach to this type of bridge, they have a girder framework higher than the bridge but from the top girder chains are hung to a height. Six inches or so lower that the bridge so that if you are over-height the chains brush the top of the vehicle providing some advanced warning of the impending disaster.
Dave


----------



## Robmac (Jul 12, 2016)

dr dave said:


> This could be the new prototype for the height barrier at Huttoft car terrace.
> 
> On a serious note i like the advanced warning structures on the approach to this type of bridge, they have a girder framework higher than the bridge but from the top girder chains are hung to a height. Six inches or so lower that the bridge so that if you are over-height the chains brush the top of the vehicle providing some advanced warning of the impending disaster.
> Dave



As in Blackwall Tunnel.


----------



## hextal (Jul 12, 2016)

Robmac said:


> I can think of a couple of bridges that could do with a solution.
> 
> As usual I suppose it is all down to cost.



Absolutely.

I have circa 900 bridges/tunnels that I'm currently managing across southern England and an annual budget that would cover maybe 2 of the above described options whilst leaving zero funds for anything else.

So it tends to be minor maintenance schemes rather than large scale works.

Essentially, the government love ploughing money into blingy new schemes as they can pin their names to it and the public see that something has been built for the money. Maintenance is very much the poor cousin, it's dull, it's not good for getting Ministers noticed, and if done right, the public won't even be aware that anything has been done at all. So, it doesn't attract much money.

It's also something of a circular argument because statements along the lines "look at the state of our ageing infrastructure - we need a brand new road/railway/etc" can then be used.


----------



## yeoblade (Jul 12, 2016)

I think they were erring on the side of caution whith the bridge height sign.

Also in the newspaper article comments I don't think Dr. Collins is aware fully aware of what happened


----------



## roamingman (Jul 12, 2016)

Plenty of low bridges in the Eu,


----------



## lebesset (Jul 12, 2016)

roamingman said:


> Plenty of low bridges in the Eu,



been talking to carol again ?


----------



## ThursdaysChild (Jul 12, 2016)

*Even the Swiss*

Not actually stuck, but you can see where they have been !


----------



## Caz (Jul 12, 2016)

Aw bless, it's just like the Sundance I had. I always worried that it was too tall for it's own good.


----------



## Mojo77 (Jul 12, 2016)

n brown said:


> a proper camper would let a bit of air out of his tyres, pull the thing out of there, and drive onto the rest of his holiday



Was thinking the same thing, would that work if the aerial and other roof things were removed?


----------



## carol (Jul 12, 2016)

lebesset said:


> been talking to carol again ?



Nooooooooooooooo! Was expecting it. I ignored Tezz33's vague reference in case it was me being sensitive


----------



## jeanette (Jul 12, 2016)

carol said:


> Nooooooooooooooo! Was expecting it. I ignored Tezz33's vague reference in case it was me being sensitive



Aww Carol !!! Anyway I don't know what happened to you and your MH so if you could enlighten me I won't keep bringing it up!!! :lol-061:


----------



## Wooie1958 (Jul 12, 2016)

Lytham Road,  Fulwood,  Preston      


This one gets hit regular despite having electronic warning signs and a snazzy paint job.

It`s on a short cut to the hospital and not that far from it so it`s quick to take the injured to      :rolleyes2:


----------



## oldish hippy (Jul 12, 2016)

Yes


Google Maps


----------



## carol (Jul 12, 2016)

jeanette said:


> Aww Carol !!! Anyway I don't know what happened to you and your MH so if you could enlighten me I won't keep bringing it up!!! :lol-061:



I can't bring myself to say it, Jeanette but it involves Rouen, underpass and high top t4


----------



## yorkslass (Jul 12, 2016)

carol said:


> I can't bring myself to say it, Jeanette but it involves Rouen, underpass and high top t4



Customised may be the word your looking for Carol.


----------



## IanH (Jul 12, 2016)

*2.2m!!!!!!*



Auld Pharrrt said:


> Personally I believe a lot of the times it comes from not knowing what 2.2m = in old money.



In old, or new money, 2.2m =======2.2m!!

I did my apprenticeship in 1968 to 1971, even then all metric!

So, even in 1968, 2.2m was, actually, 2,2m!

Do you still calculate your banking, savings, euro thingies etc in Pounds and Pence?


----------



## phillybarbour (Jul 12, 2016)

Oh dear!


----------



## Tezza33 (Jul 12, 2016)

carol said:


> Nooooooooooooooo! Was expecting it. I ignored Tezz33's vague reference in case it was me being sensitive



I said 





			
				me said:
			
		

> Obviously I cannot say certain things, one of my favourite members/people delivers low bridges


  I should change that to just 'Obviously I cannot say certain things, one of our members delivers low bridges'


my favourite list gets shorter


----------



## mossypossy (Jul 12, 2016)

*Call that low?*

Try this one for size
Google Maps


----------



## Robmac (Jul 12, 2016)

mossypossy said:


> Try this one for size
> Google Maps



I know the very one! I've delivered there a couple of times. My work Sprinter just get's under.


----------



## mossypossy (Jul 12, 2016)

Robmac said:


> I know the very one! I've delivered there a couple of times. My work Sprinter just get's under.



There is a northern entrance with no bridge....just low flying aircraft


----------



## Robmac (Jul 12, 2016)

Robmac said:


> I know the very one! I've delivered there a couple of times. My work Sprinter just get's under.



My mistake, it looks just like a bridge I had to get under, but that was at Dawlish!


----------



## trevskoda (Jul 12, 2016)

hextal said:


> There is no EU law relating to bridge height in the UK.
> 
> The height is still governed by the DMRB (design manual for roads and bridges). The requirement is that existing bridges have a minimum maintained height of 5.03m. if they do not then a risk assessment and strategy is adopted to suit. If there is a lot of hgv traffic or it is a high load route then a higher bridge may be opted for.
> 
> A significant amount of bridges on minor roads are below this height and the cost involved in raising them all would be astronomic. They are more often than not, associated with railways. Now my pway design is rusty but the gradient change on a line is incredibly restrictive, so raising a bridge is a real big issue. While swapping decks can be achieved in a weekend, modifying the approaches is a different kettle of fish.


I here what you are saying,but when a bridge or road under one is being altered here a big sine is up saying being rebuilt with eu funds to comply with eu regs & compleation date and cost.


----------



## hextal (Jul 12, 2016)

trevskoda said:


> I here what you are saying,but when a bridge or road under one is being altered here a big sine is up saying being rebuilt with eu funds to comply with eu regs & compleation date and cost.



If it's a new structure it will be designed to eurocodes (which have replaced British standards), however within the UK (and I believe Eire NRA still) the DMRB still dictates headroom.  The DMRB is kinda the mechanism for application of the Eurocodes, and it is currently the dictating document for headroom (amongst many other things).

Essentially, the DMRB is the go to document (it's actually a rather large suite if documents), setting out what is needed. These things are then delivered by eurocodes.

Each Eurocode comprise (generally) 3 components. The Euronorm (the main technical body), the national annex (comprising locally applicable factors, temperatures, wind etc) and the NCCI (non contradictory complimentary information), which is essentially a best practice document (though non mandatory, unlike the other 2).

Changes to the DMRB (which constantly evolves) have to be run through the EU to ensure that they do not conflict with the Eurocodes.

Now, as we have only recently swapped to Eurocodes and all of my design work was to British Standards I'm not as hot on them, however, the DMRB element covering headroom is still current, which means it is not contradictory to the Eurocodes.  This means that the Eurocodes either have left that element 'open' or simply adopted the existing local requirements within the national annex (couldn't tell you which, though can check on Monday).

Incidentally, the real fun begins when strengthening bridges....

See, we still assess to British standards, albeit British standards that are now incorporated within the DMRB documents.

So we assess a bridge to BS and find it weak, but we can't strengthen to BS as we have to use Eurocodes, but we can't strengthen to Eurocodes cos they differ notably in places to BS, so we don't know what the Eurocode shortfall is. So, we then have to reassess to Eurocodes. We then strengthen to Eurocodes.

Why not just assess to eurocodes? Well, depending on the element, they can be more or less onerous, so you may fail a bridge to eurocodes that would pass BS.

Just one of the fun elements of trying to standardise everything across the EU.


Edit... good god I'm dull.


----------



## carol (Jul 12, 2016)

tezza33 said:


> I said   I should change that to just 'Obviously I cannot say certain things, one of our members delivers low bridges'
> 
> 
> my favourite list gets shorter



Oh, you've removed me from your favourites list? You fickle thing!


----------



## runnach (Jul 13, 2016)

hextal said:


> If it's a new structure it will be designed to eurocodes (which have replaced British standards), however within the UK (and I believe Eire NRA still) the DMRB still dictates headroom.  The DMRB is kinda the mechanism for application of the Eurocodes, and it is currently the dictating document for headroom (amongst many other things).
> 
> Essentially, the DMRB is the go to document (it's actually a rather large suite if documents), setting out what is needed. These things are then delivered by eurocodes.
> 
> ...


 Thanks for the insight, like many people cross bridges go underneath them totally oblivious to the science involved.

Another great example of what we perhaps perceive as layman is totallydifferentin reality.

channa


----------



## mossypossy (Jul 13, 2016)

*Beat this*

Google Maps

6 feet high!


----------



## hextal (Jul 13, 2016)

Yes, never really seen the issue with metric/imperial, tend to work with both as many bridge designs predate metric so you tend to be converting things a lot.

The BS/EC issue is a little less than black and white, I think it's fair to say. It's main purpose was not to necessarily improve standards but rather standardise them to simplify trade/services.  As such, lower performance characteristics were sometimes adopted in order that existing suppliers did not find themselves excluded.

The problem here is that in certain areas this meant adoption of products/methods/concepts that were not seen as safe within the UK. I cannot go into great deal, but have been (in a prior role) privvy to investigations into certain CE testing of products from outside the UK for the highways/structures sector and it's fair to say that "interesting" would be a mild term.  Not just in terms of performance, but in the auditing of the CE compliance.

So, 'gold plating' can sometimes be people just digging their heels in for no great reason, but sometimes it can be because there are genuine issues.


----------



## ashbyspannerman (Jul 13, 2016)

I have to take my truck under this one regularly, it can be interesting after heavy rain! access to Viridor Crayford.


----------



## roamingman (Jul 13, 2016)

lebesset said:


> been talking to carol again ?



Sorry do not know carol, used to drive HGV'S all over Europe, so have experience of low bridges, mind you that was over 35 years ago ha ha :raofl:


----------



## OLJIM (Jul 13, 2016)

This one is rather cosy in a car... but I have seen some fool try to fit a van through it (unsuccessfully!)

Google Maps


----------



## Kontiki (Jul 13, 2016)

Bayblue said:


> The motor home got stuck under the bridge on Broughton Hall Road in Broughton at about 6pm today.
> Can't see one of our stickers on it
> 
> Motor home stuck under Flintshire bridge blocks road - Daily Post
> ...




I used to live on the estate in Broughton just up the road from there & used to go under the bridge daily to the BAe/Airbus factory that was over 30 years ago, in the early days so many vans hit the bridge that they put flashing warning lights on both sides of the bridge. I had a Renult 12 estate & having my Topper sailing dinghy on top used to set the lights off even though I knew I could get under.

Even shows it in old  feet & inches on street view Google Maps


----------



## Deleted member 919 (Jul 13, 2016)

carol said:


> I can't bring myself to say it, Jeanette but it involves Rouen, underpass and high top t4


Tom Tom nearly had me down one last week and i thought i knew my way around Rouen :scared::scared:.(not usually on that side of river )


----------



## Tezza33 (Jul 13, 2016)

rebbyvid said:


> Tom Tom nearly had me down one last week and i thought i knew my way around Rouen :scared::scared:.(not usually on that side of river )


Is that a standard TomTom or a Truck version, I use a Truck version and it guides me through Rouen and other places with low bridges perfectly


----------



## Deleted member 919 (Jul 13, 2016)

Standard ish ,  a go live,  tend to ignore it if i know where im going :scared:


----------



## Tezza33 (Jul 14, 2016)

rebbyvid said:


> Standard ish ,  a go live,  tend to ignore it if i know where im going :scared:


It is for car navigation then so no such thing as 'low bridges' as far as the satnav is concerned,


----------



## Kontiki (Jul 15, 2016)

Problem is some people seem to believe the sat nav rather than what they can see out of the windscreen, also there seems to be a fear of disrearding a computer telling you what to do. Maybe sat navs should have a warning when turning on saying that they are only advisory & you should use common sense. I've had sat navs of one kind or another for years, first real one was a Garmin GPS V, tiny mono chrome screen & just beeps to warn you to turn. Caught out loads of times being sent the wrong way or down unsuitable roads, try to use a bit more common sense now.


----------



## Tbear (Jul 15, 2016)

hextal said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I have circa 900 bridges/tunnels that I'm currently managing across southern England and an annual budget that would cover maybe 2 of the above described options whilst leaving zero funds for anything else.
> 
> ...



It is odd what they spend money on at times. The A47 locally had an enormous amount of money spent on changing the seemingly perfect central metal barriers for concrete ones. Then they decided to do a huge amount of work on the bridges. Added a few hundred meters of extra lane however until recently, they seemed to ignore the appalling state of the road surface.

Richard


----------



## hextal (Jul 15, 2016)

Again, all down to budgets for maintenance. Most of the UK highways infrastructure, as a result of way too little budget, is managed on what you could call a 'controlled deterioration' basis. As such it tends to be H&S issues that get tackled, whereas preventative measures that will save a fortune over the mid to long term (such as replacing bridge joints so that the bearings/abutments don't deteriorate due to deicing salts, or maintenance painting steelwork) get ignored. There is also a bigger issue of certainty of budget allocations. Lots of agencies are essentially on a yearly allocation, so don't know what they will get till they get it. So large/costly schemes are somewhat unworkable.

As mentioned, big budgets for new schemes, but nobody wants to allocate for up-keep.

The link is to an 'american series, but the basics of what he is saying are largely true for the UK - also very funny.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Infrastructure (HBO) - YouTube


The driving factors on concrete step barriers are safety to the public due to higher containment and reduced chance of crossover, safety of the workers and public as a result of not having to regularly change sections of barrier, and long term maintenance costs.


----------



## Sharon the Cat (Jul 15, 2016)

What an interesting thread this has turned into, much helped by Hextal's knowledge.


----------



## hextal (Jul 15, 2016)

Sharon the Cat said:


> What an interesting thread this has turned into, much helped by Hextal's knowledge.



Chances were good that, after several years of talking pants, there would eventually be a topic I could talk marginally less pants about.:lol-053:


----------

