“it does/doesn’t look that high” sounds like the famous last words of many a bridge striker. 
And not many loaded car transporters are going to go under a bridge at that height. Many run up to the m-way limit.
1 Like
Cheers mate.
yes because they are designed with force applied in one direction… apply a force in a different direction and it could be damaged. Think of an egg you can crush an egg with one hand by squeezing the sides but you wont do it if you squeeze against the ends.
I still find it difficult to believe that a light touch from the plastic wind deflector of a truck, or even the roof of a trailer, could cause any damage to a properly constructed bridge. The weight of the steel span alone outweighs that of the road vehicle, before it is set in concrete.
Damn, I’ve got egg on my face now. 
Some of our overbridges are concrete with re-bar inside, not steel girders.
Cracking (even fairly minor) can allow water ingress and with freezing etc can start a downhill run in the strength of the structure.
Concrete is great in compression but weak in tension and is susceptible to shock
And as @cooper1203 says the bridges are designed for strength in one direction and not (so much) in others. They are designed to be able to expand and contract in different temps, so are allowed to move along their length. Mostly the spans just “sit there”.
They are not all routinely rebuilt after every strike but doing a proper inspection seems a perfectly balanced response to all incidents that are reported.
After all how often has a driver said “I scratched a car today, boss” to transpire that a Rolls has been written off!
1 Like
Point taken, but I feel it’s taking caution to a level that would not occur if the cost was on the railway company/authority.
1 Like
it could of changed recently but the railway as a whole is three separate companies in the uk. There is one for the track one for the rolling stock and one of the drivers. If the bill was put onto the owners of the track and there was an accident they would be the ones liable if it was found that they hadnt checked the track. like any company its a case of covering ya backside.
Similar here Cooper. When the state privatized the railways, they retained ownership of the track. Various companies pay for the use of the track.
I don’t think they are worried so much about moving the bridge on its pillars but more about the alignment of the tracks which can move as a result of the strike. Wooden sleepers and 60ft bolted lengths of rail are still in use on some sections of track
1 Like
Bridge failures are fairly rare, but when they do let go, the consequences are awful.
Many of us must have passed over the Ponte Morandi bridge many times, not giving it’s safety much thought.
Firstly tell that to the numerous car transporter drivers who go under it regularly.
You seem to have swerved the unarguable fact of a marked 14’9’’ bridge being sufficient clearance for a double deck bus route.
So you’re saying that the trailer as shown is less than 6’’ lower than a double deck TFL bus ?.
And you seem to have avoided the unarguable fact that a 4m trailer is 16’ high 
4m = 16 ft you should get a job working for the council making bridge signs.It could be around that after 4 pints of ESB.But assuming sober call it 13’2’’ and a TFL double deck bus 4.4m.Which is how it gets under the Surbiton bridge.
Sounds a bit like the story of the international recovery wagon pulling a drawbar outfit, being waved through customs without stopping because they didn’t see the outfit on the back, let alone the four TIR plates attached front and rear on the prime mover and front and rear on the trailer.
I was attempting to make it look as if I was discalculic, so that I can prolong the delay in getting my asylum claim processed since the rubber dinghy came in, as now they’ve announced that I can get a job here if they haven’t done that in six months.
To be fair with all the flak I get I can safely say that at least I wouldn’t have trashed my safe driving record against that bridge in being sceptical of its marked height.
Also if I ever did have to bring a loaded broken down drawbar outfit, back to dear old blighty, with a wrecker,under TIR regs, it would definitely be showing at least two TIR plates, one on the front of the wrecker and one on the back of the trailer.
I don’t know the Serbo Croat for how many more TIR plates did you need to put on this bleedin thing.
Oh never mind. I’m fed up with attacking you and your posts. Let’s not pursue the argument. You clearly never did any TIR work so why argue about it for argument’s sake? I’m no bloody expert at it either, even though I did some really serious TIR work. What you might like to know, as a drawbar fan, is that the prime-mover of a drawbar outfit really did need a TIR-plate on the front and rear; and so did its trailer.
So forget the wrecker and let’s bring on a CF-worthy Bedford TM with Detroit 400 bhp drawbar and trailer complete with GV60 certification and TIR-plates. It has a Fuller 9 or 13-sp 'box of your choice (I would advise against the 15-sp one 
). Let’s throw in a night-heater, Jake-Brake, side lockers, twin underslung spare wheel carrier and lagged fuel lines. Now live the dream. Bonne route monsieur!
3 Likes
^^ CF will cream over that.
1 Like
He’s just firing up the computer now.
Allow him sweet dreams for once. We all need that.