Driving this morning to a delivery, following my sat nav, I approach a bridge which I think nothing of. As a get closer I see I height restriction on the bridge. Thinking to myself that’s odd as there been no warning sign further back and also my sat nav has my vehicle height in. Not taking a chance I start to slow down ready to stop, as I get closer I see the sign says 16’6". Why?? Why do I need to know that. When I did my theory any unmarked bridge is 16’6!
Coincidentally a few days ago I was in Stoke and saw a bridge height warning sign for 17’3…wtf? Why■■?
Rowley010:
Why?? Why do I need to know that. When I did my theory any unmarked bridge is 16’6!
That doesn’t mean the authorities can’t sign any that are over 5 meters, though.
If it is only just 16 ft 6 in then it is liable to get hit by anything that is slightly over height or hasn’t been measured properly, whereas a driver who knows they are over that height would know to measure every bridge or plan the route in advance.
There is a bridge on the A96 which is signed with a 5.1m/16ft 9in restriction (and has plenty of advance warning with a diversion route), again because it is so close to 5m that drivers may assume it is higher. These days a bridge over a road wouldn’t be built so close to 5m if it is to be unsigned, there would be a bigger margin of error.
Rowley010:
Driving this morning to a delivery, following my sat nav, I approach a bridge which I think nothing of. As a get closer I see I height restriction on the bridge. Thinking to myself that’s odd as there been no warning sign further back and also my sat nav has my vehicle height in. Not taking a chance I start to slow down ready to stop, as I get closer I see the sign says 16’6". Why?? Why do I need to know that. When I did my theory any unmarked bridge is 16’6!
Coincidentally a few days ago I was in Stoke and saw a bridge height warning sign for 17’3…wtf? Why■■?
For the benefit of high vehicles. Perhaps based on the perceived risk (or past record) of collisions with the structure in question, and also perhaps due to a new structure being built along a corridor which reduces the headroom that was previously available on that route.
The law doesn’t say a structure over 16’6 must not be marked or warned in advance, only that it need not be.
Oh yeah of course, I know that there’s nothing saying they can’t mark it. Just made me unnecessarily slow right down until I was close enough to read the sign properly with traffic waiting behind, because when I saw the restriction sign I assumed is missed a sign further back or my sat nav was failing me haha
There’s something strange about the Meir tunnels and the bridges further along the a50 with the height signs but I can’t remember what…I assume this may be because of the JCB site further down and the increased chances of low loaders with plant on them?
LASHHGV:
On my cpc I was told railway bridges are not marked over 16’3’'.
Check the document linked to below - 16’ 3" is what it says. This is direct from a Government website. This particular guidance has been around for a good few years. Seems to conflict with other advice. So I can see where the DCPC trainer got their information from.
Rowley010:
Driving this morning to a delivery, following my sat nav, I approach a bridge which I think nothing of. As a get closer I see I height restriction on the bridge. Thinking to myself that’s odd as there been no warning sign further back and also my sat nav has my vehicle height in. Not taking a chance I start to slow down ready to stop, as I get closer I see the sign says 16’6". Why?? Why do I need to know that. When I did my theory any unmarked bridge is 16’6!
Coincidentally a few days ago I was in Stoke and saw a bridge height warning sign for 17’3…wtf? Why■■?
newer bridges, build after 1996 are build to a minimum height of 17’5" and those that do not meet that minimum will need a sign, even if they are taller than 16’6".
LASHHGV:
On my cpc I was told railway bridges are not marked over 16’3’'.
He is wrong, 16’6" is the minimum railroad/highway/viaduct or others as long as they are load carrying, lightweight structures such as gantries are different
LASHHGV:
On my cpc I was told railway bridges are not marked over 16’3’'.
Check the document linked to below - 16’ 3" is what it says. This is direct from a Government website. This particular guidance has been around for a good few years. Seems to conflict with other advice. So I can see where the DCPC trainer got their information from.
They aren’t (generally) marked over 16’3 because the marked heights go up in increments of 3 inches, and therefore any bridge high enough to be marked as having a minimum 16’6 clearance, would not have to be marked at all.
That’s a little bit different than saying bridges over 16’3 are not marked. A bridge of 16’4 actual clearance (i.e. less than 16’6 clearance and therefore requiring a marking), would be marked 16’3 nominal clearance.
I have always been told in training that road bridges are marked below 16:6 and railway bridges 16:3. I pull a lot of multi decks and the new 50fters which are16:4 you have to be mindful of your route.
Judonut:
I have always been told in training that road bridges are marked below 16:6 and railway bridges 16:3. I pull a lot of multi decks and the new 50fters which are16:4 you have to be mindful of your route.
Are you sure you can tell an unmarked (and unwarned) railway bridge from any other unmarked bridge just by sight?
And if this distinction were true, then logically a high trailer over 16’3 could never be taken under any railway bridge anywhere in the country (unless it was specially marked as 16’6 or higher)!
Because it would be impossible to know whether an unmarked bridge was unmarked and above 16’6 (i.e. passable), or unmarked and between 16’3 and 16’6 (i.e. unpassable). Marked bridges at 16’3 or lower would also, of course, be unpassable for such a vehicle.
Most trainers in this game are far from the rocket scientists of the industry.
What I am saying is a railway bridge does not have to be signed unless it is lower than 16:3. Anyway most new bridges are well over 16:6. If I am on decks I always check my route on an upto date map and also have over 20 years experience so have a good idea where the low bridges are. The problem comes when using sat nav
LASHHGV:
On my cpc I was told railway bridges are not marked over 16’3’'.
He is wrong, 16’6" is the minimum railroad/highway/viaduct or others as long as they are load carrying, lightweight structures such as gantries are different
No, he is right (sort of). A bridge that is actually 16’ 6" will be signed at 16’ 3" (or even lower). As a result, the highest marking you will normally see is 16’ 3" (and yes, there are quite a few exceptions, including the one on the A50 at Stoke On Trent).
I questioned it but was told things have changed