Lorry stuck under Walkden bridge

Lorry stuck under Walkden Road bridge. Photo by Cllr Iain Lindley

Lorry stuck under Walkden Road bridge. Photo by Cllr Iain Lindley

First published in News
Last updated
This Is Lancashire: Photograph of the Author by , news feature writer

A LORRY got stuck under a low bridge in Walkden for nearly two hours this afternoon.

Traffic was blocked in both directions and Walkden Road was closed southbound at Walkden railway station.

Police confirmed that the 14 tonne HGV, which got stuck under the railway bridge in Walkden Road at 12.30pm, was finally removed by about 2.15pm.

The police corden has now been removed and the road has now been re-opened.

Nobody was injured during the incident.

The latest live traffic and travel news is available here.


MORE:


Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:34pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

14 tonne ?
It must be empty
14 tonne ? It must be empty mr.mark.c
  • Score: 6

3:44pm Thu 16 Jan 14

duggie67 says...

that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!!
that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!! duggie67
  • Score: 9

4:22pm Thu 16 Jan 14

wild one says...

These reporters need a pay rise?
These reporters need a pay rise? wild one
  • Score: 4

4:39pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

duggie67 wrote:
that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!!
Or even 44 tonne so could be a typo.
[quote][p][bold]duggie67[/bold] wrote: that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!![/p][/quote]Or even 44 tonne so could be a typo. mr.mark.c
  • Score: 4

5:02pm Thu 16 Jan 14

english n proud says...

No excuse for going under bridge, should know his bridge heights and wagon height, should be sacked!!
No excuse for going under bridge, should know his bridge heights and wagon height, should be sacked!! english n proud
  • Score: 9

5:24pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Julian Thorpe says...

mr.mark.c wrote:
duggie67 wrote:
that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!!
Or even 44 tonne so could be a typo.
The police say it's 14 tonnes.
[quote][p][bold]mr.mark.c[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duggie67[/bold] wrote: that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!![/p][/quote]Or even 44 tonne so could be a typo.[/p][/quote]The police say it's 14 tonnes. Julian Thorpe
  • Score: -9

5:39pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

Julian Thorpe wrote:
mr.mark.c wrote:
duggie67 wrote:
that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!!
Or even 44 tonne so could be a typo.
The police say it's 14 tonnes.
The police are wrong :-)
[quote][p][bold]Julian Thorpe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr.mark.c[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duggie67[/bold] wrote: that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!![/p][/quote]Or even 44 tonne so could be a typo.[/p][/quote]The police say it's 14 tonnes.[/p][/quote]The police are wrong :-) mr.mark.c
  • Score: 10

5:46pm Thu 16 Jan 14

BWFC71 says...

english n proud wrote:
No excuse for going under bridge, should know his bridge heights and wagon height, should be sacked!!
err look at the photo - the truck does fit under and the actual load he was carrying actually fits under, if you see the back end of the trailer - it seems that the trailer itself was not done properly back at the base and the load has lifted slightly and got stuck under the bridge!!

That is not the drivers fault but the company, itself, for not doing a good enough job!
[quote][p][bold]english n proud[/bold] wrote: No excuse for going under bridge, should know his bridge heights and wagon height, should be sacked!![/p][/quote]err look at the photo - the truck does fit under and the actual load he was carrying actually fits under, if you see the back end of the trailer - it seems that the trailer itself was not done properly back at the base and the load has lifted slightly and got stuck under the bridge!! That is not the drivers fault but the company, itself, for not doing a good enough job! BWFC71
  • Score: -12

5:53pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

BWFC71 wrote:
english n proud wrote:
No excuse for going under bridge, should know his bridge heights and wagon height, should be sacked!!
err look at the photo - the truck does fit under and the actual load he was carrying actually fits under, if you see the back end of the trailer - it seems that the trailer itself was not done properly back at the base and the load has lifted slightly and got stuck under the bridge!!

That is not the drivers fault but the company, itself, for not doing a good enough job!
14'6" is the lowest part of the bridge and it clearly did not fit.
[quote][p][bold]BWFC71[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]english n proud[/bold] wrote: No excuse for going under bridge, should know his bridge heights and wagon height, should be sacked!![/p][/quote]err look at the photo - the truck does fit under and the actual load he was carrying actually fits under, if you see the back end of the trailer - it seems that the trailer itself was not done properly back at the base and the load has lifted slightly and got stuck under the bridge!! That is not the drivers fault but the company, itself, for not doing a good enough job![/p][/quote]14'6" is the lowest part of the bridge and it clearly did not fit. mr.mark.c
  • Score: 4

5:56pm Thu 16 Jan 14

boltonnut says...

Duck.
Duck. boltonnut
  • Score: 5

6:38pm Thu 16 Jan 14

davidjb says...

well he made in under the first one, the height for the bridge on the side he came up is probably for the first bridge so he wont know the height of the second one
well he made in under the first one, the height for the bridge on the side he came up is probably for the first bridge so he wont know the height of the second one davidjb
  • Score: 2

6:48pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

davidjb wrote:
well he made in under the first one, the height for the bridge on the side he came up is probably for the first bridge so he wont know the height of the second one
That doesnt make sense as its single access.
[quote][p][bold]davidjb[/bold] wrote: well he made in under the first one, the height for the bridge on the side he came up is probably for the first bridge so he wont know the height of the second one[/p][/quote]That doesnt make sense as its single access. mr.mark.c
  • Score: 3

7:32pm Thu 16 Jan 14

wsw69 says...

That truck with trailer and a load is either a minimum 38 tonne up to a max 44 tonne. Having been in the motor trade since 1978, as well as working on these types of vehicles, I've a good idea what I'm on about.

The police are wrong.

Either way, it ended up stuck, so the driver will almost certainly be done for driving without due care and attention and 4 points.
That truck with trailer and a load is either a minimum 38 tonne up to a max 44 tonne. Having been in the motor trade since 1978, as well as working on these types of vehicles, I've a good idea what I'm on about. The police are wrong. Either way, it ended up stuck, so the driver will almost certainly be done for driving without due care and attention and 4 points. wsw69
  • Score: 12

7:37pm Thu 16 Jan 14

wsw69 says...

And having made it under bridge number one, if I were the driver of that 'rig' I'd be making sure I had it independently measured from initial entry under the first bridge to the actual exit under the second.
And having made it under bridge number one, if I were the driver of that 'rig' I'd be making sure I had it independently measured from initial entry under the first bridge to the actual exit under the second. wsw69
  • Score: 10

7:47pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

wsw69 wrote:
And having made it under bridge number one, if I were the driver of that 'rig' I'd be making sure I had it independently measured from initial entry under the first bridge to the actual exit under the second.
It says 14'6"
Are you saying the driver should measure the exit to see if its less than that ?
[quote][p][bold]wsw69[/bold] wrote: And having made it under bridge number one, if I were the driver of that 'rig' I'd be making sure I had it independently measured from initial entry under the first bridge to the actual exit under the second.[/p][/quote]It says 14'6" Are you saying the driver should measure the exit to see if its less than that ? mr.mark.c
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Thu 16 Jan 14

wsw69 says...

Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6".

If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck.

Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage.

I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on.

I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.
Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6". If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck. Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage. I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on. I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself. wsw69
  • Score: 14

8:52pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

wsw69 wrote:
Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6".

If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck.

Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage.

I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on.

I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.
Agreed and to be honest it should be slightly higher than the signage to allow for a vehicle that high to drive through in safety.
and yes, its a single sign, and yes if the vehicle should have fit through then the driver is not at fault at all, if that was the case then the haulage company have a case against who is responsible for the bridge.
I wonder what buses if any take that route.
[quote][p][bold]wsw69[/bold] wrote: Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6". If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck. Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage. I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on. I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.[/p][/quote]Agreed and to be honest it should be slightly higher than the signage to allow for a vehicle that high to drive through in safety. and yes, its a single sign, and yes if the vehicle should have fit through then the driver is not at fault at all, if that was the case then the haulage company have a case against who is responsible for the bridge. I wonder what buses if any take that route. mr.mark.c
  • Score: 6

9:23pm Thu 16 Jan 14

wsw69 says...

mr.mark.c wrote:
wsw69 wrote:
Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6".

If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck.

Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage.

I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on.

I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.
Agreed and to be honest it should be slightly higher than the signage to allow for a vehicle that high to drive through in safety.
and yes, its a single sign, and yes if the vehicle should have fit through then the driver is not at fault at all, if that was the case then the haulage company have a case against who is responsible for the bridge.
I wonder what buses if any take that route.
It's some time since I've been down that neck of the woods, but having a gander on Google maps shows a sign of 14' 6" on a post prior to the painted roundabout and also the one on the first bridge.

There are bus stops on both sides of the roads heading from and towards the East Lancs Road. Possibly a single-deck service only?
[quote][p][bold]mr.mark.c[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wsw69[/bold] wrote: Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6". If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck. Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage. I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on. I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.[/p][/quote]Agreed and to be honest it should be slightly higher than the signage to allow for a vehicle that high to drive through in safety. and yes, its a single sign, and yes if the vehicle should have fit through then the driver is not at fault at all, if that was the case then the haulage company have a case against who is responsible for the bridge. I wonder what buses if any take that route.[/p][/quote]It's some time since I've been down that neck of the woods, but having a gander on Google maps shows a sign of 14' 6" on a post prior to the painted roundabout and also the one on the first bridge. There are bus stops on both sides of the roads heading from and towards the East Lancs Road. Possibly a single-deck service only? wsw69
  • Score: 4

9:50pm Thu 16 Jan 14

oftbewildered2 says...

wsw69 wrote:
Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6".

If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck.

Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage.

I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on.

I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.
good point very well presented
[quote][p][bold]wsw69[/bold] wrote: Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6". If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck. Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage. I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on. I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.[/p][/quote]good point very well presented oftbewildered2
  • Score: 8

9:54pm Thu 16 Jan 14

BWFC71 says...

wsw69 wrote:
mr.mark.c wrote:
wsw69 wrote:
Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6".

If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck.

Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage.

I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on.

I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.
Agreed and to be honest it should be slightly higher than the signage to allow for a vehicle that high to drive through in safety.
and yes, its a single sign, and yes if the vehicle should have fit through then the driver is not at fault at all, if that was the case then the haulage company have a case against who is responsible for the bridge.
I wonder what buses if any take that route.
It's some time since I've been down that neck of the woods, but having a gander on Google maps shows a sign of 14' 6" on a post prior to the painted roundabout and also the one on the first bridge.

There are bus stops on both sides of the roads heading from and towards the East Lancs Road. Possibly a single-deck service only?
Nope double deckers use that route! (route 68 to Trafford Centre and more recently Route 31 to Manchester)
[quote][p][bold]wsw69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr.mark.c[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wsw69[/bold] wrote: Mark, I'm saying before I take points on my class one licence I'd make sure there were no areas when driving under those bridges that were below the marked signage stating a minimum height of 14'6". If there is anywhere less than 14'6" and there is only one sign, which I am guessing was on the first bridge, then a driver can not and should not be held responsible for his/her rig getting stuck. Someone else is to blame in not maintaining the signage. I'd be down there myself with a couple of laser measures and making sure that the signage stating a minimum height is correct and that nowhere under those bridges fall less than that height. It's mitigating circumstances and no doubt the boys in blue will just wanna make sure someones hat is nailed on. I'd trust nobody and would check all facts and figures myself.[/p][/quote]Agreed and to be honest it should be slightly higher than the signage to allow for a vehicle that high to drive through in safety. and yes, its a single sign, and yes if the vehicle should have fit through then the driver is not at fault at all, if that was the case then the haulage company have a case against who is responsible for the bridge. I wonder what buses if any take that route.[/p][/quote]It's some time since I've been down that neck of the woods, but having a gander on Google maps shows a sign of 14' 6" on a post prior to the painted roundabout and also the one on the first bridge. There are bus stops on both sides of the roads heading from and towards the East Lancs Road. Possibly a single-deck service only?[/p][/quote]Nope double deckers use that route! (route 68 to Trafford Centre and more recently Route 31 to Manchester) BWFC71
  • Score: -1

9:56pm Thu 16 Jan 14

wsw69 says...

Cheers.

I thought they did but as I say, it's almost 10 years since I was last down there.
Cheers. I thought they did but as I say, it's almost 10 years since I was last down there. wsw69
  • Score: 5

10:26pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

I have just been talking to a good friend and it seems the road is not fit and has a bump that will throw a vehicle up if you dont slow to a snails pace.
I have just been talking to a good friend and it seems the road is not fit and has a bump that will throw a vehicle up if you dont slow to a snails pace. mr.mark.c
  • Score: 2

10:34pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Wolfie190 says...

Its a main road out of Walkden to the A580/M60 just surprised ive not heard of other incidents I thought double decker buses went under there.
Its a main road out of Walkden to the A580/M60 just surprised ive not heard of other incidents I thought double decker buses went under there. Wolfie190
  • Score: 2

10:42pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Jackael says...

mr.mark.c wrote:
I have just been talking to a good friend and it seems the road is not fit and has a bump that will throw a vehicle up if you dont slow to a snails pace.
I thought it was strange that the driver managed to navigate through
the first part of the bridge, people need to start suing the council over
the pathetic condition of our roads either that or we should stop paying our
road tax en masse !!
[quote][p][bold]mr.mark.c[/bold] wrote: I have just been talking to a good friend and it seems the road is not fit and has a bump that will throw a vehicle up if you dont slow to a snails pace.[/p][/quote]I thought it was strange that the driver managed to navigate through the first part of the bridge, people need to start suing the council over the pathetic condition of our roads either that or we should stop paying our road tax en masse !! Jackael
  • Score: 2

10:49pm Thu 16 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

I'm not saying the truck was the OK height but.
From a Bus driver
There is a road deviation where he hit as he passed the first fork of the bridge, its a Highways issue, Our deckers launch at that point if we dont slow down.
I'm not saying the truck was the OK height but. From a Bus driver There is a road deviation where he hit as he passed the first fork of the bridge, its a Highways issue, Our deckers launch at that point if we dont slow down. mr.mark.c
  • Score: 1

9:36am Fri 17 Jan 14

HOOSIER says...

Heres some facts for you all.
1. The bridge is marked in metres and also infeet and inches.
2. It says low bridge in in bright yellow (reflective for night time) on it.
3. The height on the plate refers to lowest point of the bridges as there are two side by side.
4. Theres signs on the a6 before you turn.
5. That trailer is too tall for that bridge and it should have a ride height on it and driver should adjust the height warning in the cab to suit.
Heres some facts for you all. 1. The bridge is marked in metres and also infeet and inches. 2. It says low bridge in in bright yellow (reflective for night time) on it. 3. The height on the plate refers to lowest point of the bridges as there are two side by side. 4. Theres signs on the a6 before you turn. 5. That trailer is too tall for that bridge and it should have a ride height on it and driver should adjust the height warning in the cab to suit. HOOSIER
  • Score: 1

9:47am Fri 17 Jan 14

HOOSIER says...

Further to previous post.
As a professional driver he should have checked for a. Height b. Width c. Weight restrictions.
What you see in the picture is the aftermath and has nothing to do with loading. If he was going too fast the trailer bulkhead would have folded . The tractor units off side rea wheel wer of the floor along with the first off side rear of the tri-axle trailer.
So in my eyes it' s driver error the only thing he can try is to measure the lowest point of the bridge to see if it's marked correctly and if it is then he will get driving without due care and attention.
Further to previous post. As a professional driver he should have checked for a. Height b. Width c. Weight restrictions. What you see in the picture is the aftermath and has nothing to do with loading. If he was going too fast the trailer bulkhead would have folded . The tractor units off side rea wheel wer of the floor along with the first off side rear of the tri-axle trailer. So in my eyes it' s driver error the only thing he can try is to measure the lowest point of the bridge to see if it's marked correctly and if it is then he will get driving without due care and attention. HOOSIER
  • Score: 0

11:10am Fri 17 Jan 14

JOHN HIGHAM says...

duggie67 wrote:
that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!!
Only fully loaded
[quote][p][bold]duggie67[/bold] wrote: that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!![/p][/quote]Only fully loaded JOHN HIGHAM
  • Score: -2

12:01pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Julian Thorpe says...

mr.mark.c wrote:
Julian Thorpe wrote:
mr.mark.c wrote:
duggie67 wrote:
that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!!
Or even 44 tonne so could be a typo.
The police say it's 14 tonnes.
The police are wrong :-)
It has been known : )
[quote][p][bold]mr.mark.c[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Julian Thorpe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr.mark.c[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]duggie67[/bold] wrote: that's a 38 tonne lorry not a 14 tonne one!![/p][/quote]Or even 44 tonne so could be a typo.[/p][/quote]The police say it's 14 tonnes.[/p][/quote]The police are wrong :-)[/p][/quote]It has been known : ) Julian Thorpe
  • Score: 3

2:16pm Fri 17 Jan 14

HOOSIER says...

Ha ha how can people give me a minus rating when I have stated true facts and i saw it as the police were turning up. Oh and not to mention I am a truck driver with a class 1 licence
Ha ha how can people give me a minus rating when I have stated true facts and i saw it as the police were turning up. Oh and not to mention I am a truck driver with a class 1 licence HOOSIER
  • Score: 1

5:16pm Fri 17 Jan 14

mr.mark.c says...

HOOSIER wrote:
Heres some facts for you all.
1. The bridge is marked in metres and also infeet and inches.
2. It says low bridge in in bright yellow (reflective for night time) on it.
3. The height on the plate refers to lowest point of the bridges as there are two side by side.
4. Theres signs on the a6 before you turn.
5. That trailer is too tall for that bridge and it should have a ride height on it and driver should adjust the height warning in the cab to suit.
I had to go that way last night and was shocked at the size of the 'LOW BRIDGE' sign, the letters must be 2ft high and in your face as you drive down.
[quote][p][bold]HOOSIER[/bold] wrote: Heres some facts for you all. 1. The bridge is marked in metres and also infeet and inches. 2. It says low bridge in in bright yellow (reflective for night time) on it. 3. The height on the plate refers to lowest point of the bridges as there are two side by side. 4. Theres signs on the a6 before you turn. 5. That trailer is too tall for that bridge and it should have a ride height on it and driver should adjust the height warning in the cab to suit.[/p][/quote]I had to go that way last night and was shocked at the size of the 'LOW BRIDGE' sign, the letters must be 2ft high and in your face as you drive down. mr.mark.c
  • Score: 3

12:50am Sun 19 Jan 14

BoltonLancs says...

I've driven 14' 6" buses down there many a time in the past. Sh1t a brick every time tbh, always at 1 mph tight to the kerb where the camber is lowest.
The photo of the truck gives the impression that the trailer lifted after it cleared the front of the bridge - uneven road, wind, acceleration could all play a part.

I too would be measuring the bridge height and road condition to see if any relaying of tarmac had happened recently if I was the driver. Those rigs are usually shorter than a decker bus...
I've driven 14' 6" buses down there many a time in the past. Sh1t a brick every time tbh, always at 1 mph tight to the kerb where the camber is lowest. The photo of the truck gives the impression that the trailer lifted after it cleared the front of the bridge - uneven road, wind, acceleration could all play a part. I too would be measuring the bridge height and road condition to see if any relaying of tarmac had happened recently if I was the driver. Those rigs are usually shorter than a decker bus... BoltonLancs
  • Score: 3

12:51am Sun 19 Jan 14

BoltonLancs says...

Correction - 14' 5" buses...
Correction - 14' 5" buses... BoltonLancs
  • Score: 3

7:29pm Wed 22 Jan 14

JustBecause says...

Very odd one this, from the image he has not struck the bridge, there is zero damage to the roof section of the trailer???
Very odd one this, from the image he has not struck the bridge, there is zero damage to the roof section of the trailer??? JustBecause
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Wed 22 Jan 14

HOOSIER says...

JustBecause wrote:
Very odd one this, from the image he has not struck the bridge, there is zero damage to the roof section of the trailer???
The trailer is wedged up in the bridge. I have pics from the other side.
[quote][p][bold]JustBecause[/bold] wrote: Very odd one this, from the image he has not struck the bridge, there is zero damage to the roof section of the trailer???[/p][/quote]The trailer is wedged up in the bridge. I have pics from the other side. HOOSIER
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree