Judonut:
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
Then in a 16’4 vehicle you can never pass under a railway bridge.
Think about it. You approach a railway bridge. It is over a major route or a motorway. It is unmarked. What is its minimum height? You are saying it’s minimum height is as little as 16’3. Therefore, you cannot safely pass under in your vehicle.
Judonut:
What I am saying is a railway bridge does not have to be signed unless it is lower than 16:3.
Official source please.
Like I said I on my first post that’s just what I have been told in my annul training. That’s with Wincanton, DHL and Argos. Not saying it’s law just what I work on.
Judonut:
What I am saying is a railway bridge does not have to be signed unless it is lower than 16:3.
Official source please.
Like I said I on my first post that’s just what I have been told in my annul training. That’s with Wincanton, DHL and Argos. Not saying it’s law just what I work on.
Please don’t post rumour and pub bar chitchat as Gospel then.
Judonut:
What I am saying is a railway bridge does not have to be signed unless it is lower than 16:3.
Official source please.
Like I said I on my first post that’s just what I have been told in my annul training. That’s with Wincanton, DHL and Argos. Not saying it’s law just what I work on.
Please don’t post rumour and pub bar chitchat as Gospel then.
This is a discussion forum where drivers post comments and share there opinions. I posted and stand by that post part of my official training as a professional driver with over 25 years on the road. It is not chitchat or rumour just because I haven’t got a link to post. However Carl if you are so cleaver where is your official source and what experience have you got. Maybe if drivers actually looked where they were going and not blindly following sat nav they would know where the low bridges are and there hights. It’s called planning ahead!
Judonut:
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
Then in a 16’4 vehicle you can never pass under a railway bridge.
Think about it. You approach a railway bridge. It is over a major route or a motorway. It is unmarked. What is its minimum height? You are saying it’s minimum height is as little as 16’3. Therefore, you cannot safely pass under in your vehicle.
Motorway bridges are all 16:6 or higher that includes railway bridges over motorways. If you read earlier post a number of other drivers have also posted that they have been told on CPC courses that railway bridges don’t have to be marked if they are 16:3 or higher so why all the arguments? At the end of the day you plan your route to your load and if the vehicle is too big for that road or you are unsure you find another route. End off.
Judonut:
This is a discussion forum where drivers post comments and share there opinions. I posted and stand by that post part of my official training as a professional driver with over 25 years on the road. It is not chitchat or rumour just because I haven’t got a link to post. However Carl if you are so cleaver where is your official source and what experience have you got. Maybe if drivers actually looked where they were going and not blindly following sat nav they would know where the low bridges are and there hights. It’s called planning ahead!
Don’t try diverting attention elsewhere. You came on here posting pub talk as Gospel and are continuing to state it is fact without being able to post an official source to back it up so don’t be surprised when your credibility is questioned when the best “proof” you can offer is “it’s only what I’ve been told” and “I’m not saying it’s law” . Consider for a moment that there are a lot of newbie drivers on this site and if they take your pub talk as being true when it’s not they could end up in a lot of bother.
Post the proof or delete your posts. If this stuff about rail bridges being 16’3 is apparently common knowledge as you claim then you will easily be able to find an official source stating it that you can post here. A cursory search by myself has not yielded any such proof so I suspect it’s complete bollox which, given that it has only come from a DCPC trainer is not in the least bit surprising.
Post the proof or delete your posts. If this stuff about rail bridges being 16’3 is apparently common knowledge as you claim then you will easily be able to find an official source stating it that you can post here. A cursory search by myself has not yielded any such proof so I suspect it’s complete bollox which, given that it has only come from a DCPC trainer is not in the least bit surprising.
Judonut:
(snapshot of Network Rail driver’s good practice guide)
I’ve seen that document before. It is not corroborated anywhere. Previous versions (i.e. pre 2012) of the document refer to a 16’6 limit.
The only possible explanation is either that it is plain wrong and a mistake, or there is some jiggery-pokery going on where they’re telling drivers one thing (i.e. lies), and telling everyone else the truth.
Scroll down to: “Prevention of strikes on bridges over highways: a protocol for highway managers and bridge owners”. This makes it clear that 16’6 remains the minimum for an unmarked structure of any kind, below which signage is required.
What’s this about circles and triangles, one prohibits and one warns?
Well if one shows a 14’6 bridge on a prohibited sign, and another 14’6 on a warning sign, then it’s all the same? But one is just warning you, and the other one is prohibiting you?
I thought it maybe that the prohibition would be at the bridge itself and the warning would be at the end of the road, but on the photos on that document it’s got triangle on some bridges and circles on others.
Rowley010:
What’s this about circles and triangles, one prohibits and one warns?
Well if one shows a 14’6 bridge on a prohibited sign, and another 14’6 on a warning sign, then it’s all the same? But one is just warning you, and the other one is prohibiting you?
I thought it maybe that the prohibition would be at the bridge itself and the warning would be at the end of the road, but on the photos on that document it’s got triangle on some bridges and circles on others.
Prohibitions are based on the height of your vehicle. You commit an offence if you pass the prohibition. They tend to be found on overhead structures with a level deck (or at the entrance to a place where it would be dangerous to turn around if you cannot pass).
Warning triangles tend to be found on arch bridges, sloping decks, or other (generally older) structures with irregular overhead clearance. Because the clearance in these cases is based on the profile of your vehicle and its road positioning, there is no consistent height limit - the driver can approach the structure and ascertain for himself. A low loader carrying a digger with a high boom (where the high point of your profile is much narrower than the trailer) which travels on the centre of the carriageway, for example, may be able to go where a shipping container could not. With a warning triangle, you commit an offence only if you criminally damage the structure.
With older structures also, certain local road users and operators may know from experience that the structure is passable with care, even though their clearance is below the accepted margin of error. The law allows these users (or their insurers) to decide to take the risk upon themselves - and a metal structure will probably come off well against a vehicle, so the main risk of a glancing blow is only to the bodywork. This seems to be common with double-deck buses on established routes.
Chapter 4 of the traffic signs manual advises that where any bridge passes over a highway and the bridge has a minimum headroom over any part of the carriageway od less than 16’ 6", adequate warning of the headroom available should be given to road users,
Where particular problems have been experienced consideration should be given to erecting signs at bridges with a headroom equal to or greater than 16’ 6".
. Consider for a moment that there are a lot of newbie drivers on this site and if they take your pub talk as being true when it’s not they could end up in a lot of bother.