|
Post by greeny253 on Jun 6, 2017 12:41:16 GMT
Worth adding to this discussion... Irrespective of how the bridges are measured, if the marked safe height is lower than your vehicle, is it really worth taking the chance?
In the link provided by londonbusboy, you can see that the driver has clearly taken the idea of an allowance in the marked height and got stuck. Ultimately, it's him that'll have to answer for it. All for the sake of basically ignoring the markings.
I did a vehicle movement once where the road away from the garage had a bridge that was marked by a 14'6" maximum clearance. Vehicle height? 14'6". Literally crawled under that one!
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jun 6, 2017 13:03:53 GMT
Worth adding to this discussion... Irrespective of how the bridges are measured, if the marked safe height is lower than your vehicle, is it really worth taking the chance? In the link provided by londonbusboy, you can see that the driver has clearly taken the idea of an allowance in the marked height and got stuck. Ultimately, it's him that'll have to answer for it. All for the sake of basically ignoring the markings. I did a vehicle movement once where the road away from the garage had a bridge that was marked by a 14'6" maximum clearance. Vehicle height? 14'6". Literally crawled under that one! The Volvos we used to drive on the 196 from Stockwell were 14 ft 9, the same height i believe marked on a bridge in Norwood going towards Norwood Junction.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 6, 2017 13:30:53 GMT
Worth adding to this discussion... Irrespective of how the bridges are measured, if the marked safe height is lower than your vehicle, is it really worth taking the chance? In the link provided by londonbusboy, you can see that the driver has clearly taken the idea of an allowance in the marked height and got stuck. Ultimately, it's him that'll have to answer for it. All for the sake of basically ignoring the markings. I did a vehicle movement once where the road away from the garage had a bridge that was marked by a 14'6" maximum clearance. Vehicle height? 14'6". Literally crawled under that one! The Volvos we used to drive on the 196 from Stockwell were 14 ft 9, the same height i believe marked on a bridge in Norwood going towards Norwood Junction. Norwood High Street does indeed have a 14'9'' bridge towards Norwood Junction - interesting that the VC's were 14'9'' as I'd always assumed they were 14'5''.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 6, 2017 13:45:37 GMT
Worth adding to this discussion... Irrespective of how the bridges are measured, if the marked safe height is lower than your vehicle, is it really worth taking the chance? In the link provided by londonbusboy, you can see that the driver has clearly taken the idea of an allowance in the marked height and got stuck. Ultimately, it's him that'll have to answer for it. All for the sake of basically ignoring the markings. I did a vehicle movement once where the road away from the garage had a bridge that was marked by a 14'6" maximum clearance. Vehicle height? 14'6". Literally crawled under that one! You should always be ok in that situation as that is the safe clearance but probably wise to take it slowly just in case.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 6, 2017 13:47:53 GMT
Manor Road near WH bus garage was notorious, especially for buses. They brought in the hanging poles after a while. Still, it catches out lorries as I saw on my recent visit to the road, a lorry got stuck. On entry from both sides, the road is tempting. From the Canning Town side, you join it from a major roundabout and assume the road is suitable, and the other end the road is so wide, you think the road is a dual carriageway. I am not much of a car/lorry driver, but have sitnavs, jimjims got restriction warnings. Thurlow Park Road bridge catches out lorries all the time because it's part of the A205 and it's easier to use than to try their luck at using Croxted Road which has a nasty turn at the Herne Hill end or at Lancaster Avenue where it's probably just pure laziness. Amazingly, a bus hasn't hit the Thurlow Park Road bridge for many years. The bridge at Hither Green on the South Circular also claims a few victims but it is a few feet bit higher. Tulse Hill accidents have apparently reduced since better signage was installed.
www.standard.co.uk/news/london/lorry-strikes-at-notorious-low-bridge-in-tulse-hill-drop-by-a-third-after-hightech-signs-installed-a3482856.html
|
|
|
Post by greeny253 on Jun 6, 2017 16:54:28 GMT
Worth adding to this discussion... Irrespective of how the bridges are measured, if the marked safe height is lower than your vehicle, is it really worth taking the chance? In the link provided by londonbusboy, you can see that the driver has clearly taken the idea of an allowance in the marked height and got stuck. Ultimately, it's him that'll have to answer for it. All for the sake of basically ignoring the markings. I did a vehicle movement once where the road away from the garage had a bridge that was marked by a 14'6" maximum clearance. Vehicle height? 14'6". Literally crawled under that one! You should always be ok in that situation as that is the safe clearance but probably wise to take it slowly just in case. I wasn't taking any chances with that one!
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Jun 6, 2017 21:01:14 GMT
Worth adding to this discussion... Irrespective of how the bridges are measured, if the marked safe height is lower than your vehicle, is it really worth taking the chance? In the link provided by londonbusboy, you can see that the driver has clearly taken the idea of an allowance in the marked height and got stuck. Ultimately, it's him that'll have to answer for it. All for the sake of basically ignoring the markings. I did a vehicle movement once where the road away from the garage had a bridge that was marked by a 14'6" maximum clearance. Vehicle height? 14'6". Literally crawled under that one! In that situation of a bridge being 14"6 and it being the same height of your bus do bus height measurements include things such as iBus pods, tree bar protectors that protrude from the roof? Sorry to get into the fine details but i was simply wondering as if i ever met a 14"6 bridge i dont think id go under it.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jun 7, 2017 1:13:28 GMT
The ADEs at Hounslow (and the VPs before them) show 14' 6" in the cab, and every day they go under the bridges of the same heights at Hounslow Central and Hounslow East stations without issue. They do look very close going under them if you're sitting upstairs at the front! Good job L B Hounslow were on the ball last year and didn't put a hump on the crossing immediately next to the bridge at Hounslow Central, despite a junction further down getting it when traffic calming and 20mph was introduced. Years ago, didn't the W8 have to become single deck for a time after the road under a bridge was resurfaced too high and deckers started touching the bridge while going after it?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 7, 2017 1:48:36 GMT
The ADEs at Hounslow (and the VPs before them) show 14' 6" in the cab, and every day they go under the bridges of the same heights at Hounslow Central and Hounslow East stations without issue. They do look very close going under them if you're sitting upstairs at the front! Good job L B Hounslow were on the ball last year and didn't put a hump on the crossing immediately next to the bridge at Hounslow Central, despite a junction further down getting it when traffic calming and 20mph was introduced. Years ago, didn't the W8 have to become single deck for a time after the road under a bridge was resurfaced too high and deckers started touching the bridge while going after it? Yep, at the time, it was using TP's IIRC and had to temporarily converted to single deck until it was sorted
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 7, 2017 5:58:05 GMT
Worth adding to this discussion... Irrespective of how the bridges are measured, if the marked safe height is lower than your vehicle, is it really worth taking the chance? In the link provided by londonbusboy, you can see that the driver has clearly taken the idea of an allowance in the marked height and got stuck. Ultimately, it's him that'll have to answer for it. All for the sake of basically ignoring the markings. I did a vehicle movement once where the road away from the garage had a bridge that was marked by a 14'6" maximum clearance. Vehicle height? 14'6". Literally crawled under that one! In that situation of a bridge being 14"6 and it being the same height of your bus do bus height measurements include things such as iBus pods, tree bar protectors that protrude from the roof? Sorry to get into the fine details but i was simply wondering as if i ever met a 14"6 bridge i dont think id go under it. Yes, marked height should be top of highest point and always rounded up E.g. If roof is 14' 3" and pods are 2 and quarter inches extra should show 14' 6" The measurements should be taken unladen (without fuel and load) so there is no depression on suspension. Adjustable air suspension (if fitted) should be at maximum height
|
|
|
Post by greeny253 on Jun 7, 2017 6:45:22 GMT
Worth adding to this discussion... Irrespective of how the bridges are measured, if the marked safe height is lower than your vehicle, is it really worth taking the chance? In the link provided by londonbusboy, you can see that the driver has clearly taken the idea of an allowance in the marked height and got stuck. Ultimately, it's him that'll have to answer for it. All for the sake of basically ignoring the markings. I did a vehicle movement once where the road away from the garage had a bridge that was marked by a 14'6" maximum clearance. Vehicle height? 14'6". Literally crawled under that one! In that situation of a bridge being 14"6 and it being the same height of your bus do bus height measurements include things such as iBus pods, tree bar protectors that protrude from the roof? Sorry to get into the fine details but i was simply wondering as if i ever met a 14"6 bridge i dont think id go under it. The marked height on the bridge is the safe height. That said, in that particular instance, the vehicle I was driving wasn't fitted with tree deflectors but had been retro fitted with iBus equipment. All the same I still took it slowly! Worth remembering that the buses that come with it from the factory are still marked at 14'6" so the positioning of the iBus pod probably doesn't make a great deal of difference. Most bus roofs are curved so they'd be measured from the highest point In that situation of a bridge being 14"6 and it being the same height of your bus do bus height measurements include things such as iBus pods, tree bar protectors that protrude from the roof? Sorry to get into the fine details but i was simply wondering as if i ever met a 14"6 bridge i dont think id go under it. Yes, marked height should be top of highest point and always rounded up E.g. If roof is 14' 3" and pods are 2 and quarter inches extra should show 14' 6" The measurements should be taken unladen (without fuel and load) so there is no depression on suspension. Adjustable air suspension (if fitted) should be at maximum height Best adjustable air suspension vehicles I've driven were Volvo's. Air suspension front and back because the ones we had were fitted with a ferry lift. It was great just pressing that button and lowering the whole bus at a stop!
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Jun 7, 2017 9:14:57 GMT
Where would be the lowest bridges in London under which deckers still pass? 282 has a 4.4m bridge it goes under. I believe 202 and 160 also go under one that is marked as a 4.4m - though the clearance looks larger than marked for that one. And sorry, I don't have a slightest idea what it is in imperial, I'm used to the metric system. Hence if I see a marking that goes something like “14'6”, I have no idea what the height is
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 7, 2017 9:36:09 GMT
Where would be the lowest bridges in London under which deckers still pass? 282 has a 4.4m bridge it goes under. I believe 202 and 160 also go under one that is marked as a 4.4m - though the clearance looks larger than marked for that one. And sorry, I don't have a slightest idea what it is in imperial, I'm used to the metric system. Hence if I see a marking that goes something like “14'6”, I have no idea what the height is 4.45m rough rule - 3 and a bit (3.28) feet in a metre.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jun 7, 2017 10:04:02 GMT
The Volvos we used to drive on the 196 from Stockwell were 14 ft 9, the same height i believe marked on a bridge in Norwood going towards Norwood Junction. Norwood High Street does indeed have a 14'9'' bridge towards Norwood Junction - interesting that the VC's were 14'9'' as I'd always assumed they were 14'5''. I believe the NV class Volvos may've been 14'5 but the VC versions were definitely taller.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jun 7, 2017 10:18:44 GMT
The ADEs at Hounslow (and the VPs before them) show 14' 6" in the cab, and every day they go under the bridges of the same heights at Hounslow Central and Hounslow East stations without issue. They do look very close going under them if you're sitting upstairs at the front! Good job L B Hounslow were on the ball last year and didn't put a hump on the crossing immediately next to the bridge at Hounslow Central, despite a junction further down getting it when traffic calming and 20mph was introduced. Years ago, didn't the W8 have to become single deck for a time after the road under a bridge was resurfaced too high and deckers started touching the bridge while going after it? Reminds me of a bridge at Acton Lane where the N11 goes under, that bridge being 14 ft 6 which was the height stated on our PDL Tridents. One of the E routes under Firstbus also used their Plaxton Tridents under there. Even as a driver it did feel kind of concerning despite the fact that the road dips a bit going under the bridge if I remember correctly from the early noughties. Regarding the W8 scratching the bridge, I often used to wonder what would happen if a bus happened to bounce a bit whilst driving over a bumpy section of road under such heighted bridges, which was why I used to slow the OLD down whilst going under that Acton Lane Bridge.
|
|