| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:55:29 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,071 |
In message <107ih7k$vb3$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:15:32 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107idnl$2m8$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:15:49 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107hkv5$1vug8$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:13:10 on Wed, 13 Aug >>>>> 2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As >>>> referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have the >>>> right.
All the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then? >>>>>> Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description. >>>>
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how >>> it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported
case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only >>> putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights?
IAm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal right. There >>are reasons why they donAt exercise that right. But you keep on insisting >>it is illegal. ItAs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
In message <4tip9k1i01ma5449n79aaoo63ffjr84a7u@4ax.com>, at 18:37:22 on
Wed, 13 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 17:37:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <107idnl$2m8$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:15:49 on Wed, 13 Aug >>>2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:You have answered it yourself. Having the legal ability to do
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107hkv5$1vug8$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:13:10 on Wed, 13 Aug >>>>> 2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As >>>>referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have the >>>>right.
All the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then? >>>>>> Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description. >>>>
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how >>>it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only >>>putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights?
something can still be frustrated by the inability to obtain a
suitable location for it.
Putting a protective section on a bridge is not a "loophole", it is
simply modifying the structure with a protective device; there is no >>circumvention of a measure whose intention would tend to prevent it.
I regard that as a loophole, because a similar free-standing beam an
inch away from the bridge wouldn't be allowed.
In message <6bjp9k5qjgels6fp6at21ol14jdc0q35so@4ax.com>, at 18:43:27 on
Wed, 13 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 17:57:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <1kcp9kldg8ovjtbg6trgpju2jra1md6ggl@4ax.com>, at 16:47:03 on >>>Wed, 13 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>Your words not mine. Have you ever considered a job in politics ?
remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 09:05:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>wrote:
In message <52rm9kh73k3r36n6erjvk479juan4m14tr@4ax.com>, at 17:45:24 on >>>>>Tue, 12 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>remarked:Why would they ?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:00:53 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>wrote:
In message <1075gcu$siqm$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:41:34 on Fri, 8 Aug >>>>>>>2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:You will be disappointed. BT and other operators have general rights >>>>>>to run overhead lines over roads and properties
I wonder why they need to specifically state that telecoms >>>>>>>>>companies areI think the practical reality is if NR attach the beam to their own >>>>>>>>structure they donAt need to deal with (and pay) anyone else.
Statutory Undertakers, when they are already accepted as such. >>>>>>>>>
I wonder if BT could erect a CPB somewhere, just because they felt like
it? Or are there other documents defining to scope of their excepted >>>>>>>>> activities.
and for this purpose the Civil Aviation Authority
[F2, a person who holds a licence under Chapter I of Part I of the >>>>>>>>>> Transport Act 2000 (to the extent that the person is carrying out >>>>>>>>>> activities authorised by the licence),] and [F3[F4a universal service
provider in connection with the provision of a universal >>>>>>>>>>postal service]
and the operator of [F5an electronic communications code >>>>>>>>>>network][F6or a
driver information [F7network]] are to be deemed to be statutory >>>>>>>>>> undertakers].
The question often asked locally is: "Why would they bother?" A dozen or >>>>>>>so slightly overheight vans have been hitting the Ely bridge each year >>>>>>>for decades, and it doesn't interrupt the trains, and NR don't bother to >>>>>>>repair the cosmetic damage more often than once a decade.
Telecoms are exempted because they string cables across roads.
Charles will tell you they can erect an obstruction of any kind >>>>>>>whatsoever.
So not structures of any kind at all?
"Because they can" according to you.
I have had a career advising politicians. Thanks.
They could even offer to erect CPBsYou seem to be coming up with some imaginative use of
near railway bridges as an outsourced supplier by NR.
telecommunications legislation.
No, it was you who said any statutory undertakers was exempt from the
rules about CPBs.
Time to stop digging, I think.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2The expression does not require such attribution.Chalk and cheese.but subject to clearances
So not with very low clearances, like many CPB's would be at railway >>>>>bridges.
Please explain. Which is the chalk, and which the cheese.
Where ?I haven't U-turned.(which vary by date of installation and what they are
over/near), any necessary notifications etc.
Presumably there's a document you can cite which justifies this >>>>>incredible u-turn you've just made?
Of course you have. You asserted any statutory undertaker could do >>>anything they wanted.
That is not an expectation where I drive apart from the odd car park.Neither have I barrelled on down the road with no expectation of >>>>something being allowed to be in the way.
Not even if there's a sign saying "You commit a road traffic offence if >>>you go further than this with a vehicle that's more than (say) 6ft 6" >>>tall" ??
In message <6bjp9k5qjgels6fp6at21ol14jdc0q35so@4ax.com>, at 18:43:27 on
Wed, 13 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
That is not an expectation where I drive apart from the odd car park.Neither have I barrelled on down the road with no expectation of >>>>something being allowed to be in the way.
Not even if there's a sign saying "You commit a road traffic offence if >>>you go further than this with a vehicle that's more than (say) 6ft 6" >>>tall" ??
Such signs are prominent on very many railway bridges. Including the >much-bashed Ely one.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:12:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <107ih7k$vb3$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:15:32 on Wed, 13 AugThat is a bit different from just plain wrong and might be the case if
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107idnl$2m8$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:15:49 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107hkv5$1vug8$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:13:10 on Wed, 13 Aug >>>>>> 2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As >>>>> referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have the
All the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then? >>>>>>> Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description. >>>>>
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how >>>> it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported
case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only >>>> putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights?
IrCOm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal right. There >>>are reasons why they donrCOt exercise that right. But you keep on insisting >>>it is illegal. ItrCOs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
it seriously infringed on people's lives without good reason. It could
occur if e.g. a more restrictive barrier was poorly located and
instead of just restricting access to the road under the bridge, it
also restricted the only access to a village or industrial estate,
maybe even e.g. a single farm if nothing was done to mitigate the side >effects.
NoYou seem to be coming up with some imaginative use of
telecommunications legislation.
No, it was you who said any statutory undertakers was exempt from the
rules about CPBs.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:09:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <6bjp9k5qjgels6fp6at21ol14jdc0q35so@4ax.com>, at 18:43:27 on >>Wed, 13 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>The offence you describe occurs when associated mandatory signs on the
remarked:
That is not an expectation where I drive apart from the odd car park.Neither have I barrelled on down the road with no expectation of >>>>>something being allowed to be in the way.
Not even if there's a sign saying "You commit a road traffic offence if >>>>you go further than this with a vehicle that's more than (say) 6ft 6" >>>>tall" ??
Such signs are prominent on very many railway bridges. Including the >>much-bashed Ely one.
way to the bridge are disobeyed.
If you reach the bridge and manage to pass the sign on the bridge then
a different offence will usually be applied;
in some cases the only offence available if there are no
round signs (Coppermill Lane in Walthamstow apparently).
In message <107idnl$2m8$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:15:49 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107hkv5$1vug8$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:13:10 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
All the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which
last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then? >>>> Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description.
Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As
referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have the >> right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how
it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported
case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights?
Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As
referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have the >>> right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how
it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported
case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only
putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights?
If I were to offer the location of a recently-installed example (within the >last year, certainly within the last two years), would that alter the >argument?
Question: might Wales have different rules on the matter?--
A situation, incidentally, quite similar to Ely, although the crossing
isn't closed.
Might that, also, influence the situation? On the grounds that the road
isn't (fsvo) actually obstructed?
In message <gelu9kdfujj6f4mgrqinrronh223mmupgc@4ax.com>, at 16:54:06 on
Fri, 15 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:12:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <107ih7k$vb3$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:15:32 on Wed, 13 Aug >>>2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:That is a bit different from just plain wrong and might be the case if
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107idnl$2m8$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:15:49 on Wed, 13 Aug >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107hkv5$1vug8$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:13:10 on Wed, 13 Aug >>>>>>> 2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As >>>>>> referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have the
All the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then? >>>>>>>> Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description. >>>>>>
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how >>>>> it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>>> case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only >>>>> putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights?
IAm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal right. There >>>>are reasons why they donAt exercise that right. But you keep on insisting >>>>it is illegal. ItAs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
it seriously infringed on people's lives without good reason. It could >>occur if e.g. a more restrictive barrier was poorly located and
instead of just restricting access to the road under the bridge, it
also restricted the only access to a village or industrial estate,
maybe even e.g. a single farm if nothing was done to mitigate the side >>effects.
Regardless of all that you'll not get permission to install one,
anywhere (on a public Highway).
I'm growing very weary of this "flat earth society" debate, so won't be >responding to any more of your postings on the topic, from tomorrow
onwards.
In message <jnmu9klo9devd0m45tvmjbp531v12eq3og@4ax.com>, at 17:10:59 on
Fri, 15 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
NoYou seem to be coming up with some imaginative use of >>>>telecommunications legislation.
No, it was you who said any statutory undertakers was exempt from the >>>rules about CPBs.
Yes you did.
In message <v1nu9k51tq348p4esusjds84m0itl61jbj@4ax.com>, at 17:22:12 on
Fri, 15 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:09:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <6bjp9k5qjgels6fp6at21ol14jdc0q35so@4ax.com>, at 18:43:27 on >>>Wed, 13 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>The offence you describe occurs when associated mandatory signs on the
remarked:
That is not an expectation where I drive apart from the odd car park.Neither have I barrelled on down the road with no expectation of >>>>>>something being allowed to be in the way.
Not even if there's a sign saying "You commit a road traffic offence if >>>>>you go further than this with a vehicle that's more than (say) 6ft 6" >>>>>tall" ??
Such signs are prominent on very many railway bridges. Including the >>>much-bashed Ely one.
way to the bridge are disobeyed.
Yes, and??? That's what everyone who bashes the bridges in question
does.
If you reach the bridge and manage to pass the sign on the bridge then
a different offence will usually be applied;
Such as?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2in some cases the only offence available if there are no
round signs (Coppermill Lane in Walthamstow apparently).
Some bridges only have triangular signs, however I'm discussing the ones >which have circular ones. (And the Queen Adelaide bridge was upgraded a >couple of years ago from triangular to circular).
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 11:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107eim4$32gu5$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:15:48 on Tue, 12 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
There is a world outside of Ely, as are other bashed bridges which do >>>> need
protection beams.
Strangely enough, even in that world outside Ely (a city whose bridge
often ranks as first o second most-bashed, so it's just because I lived >>> there) no-one is erecting free-standing protection beams, because they
to all intents and purposes (a) aren't allowed and (b) extensive studies >>> by traffic engineers have concluded they are more trouble than they are >>> worth.
I think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting
free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the
*world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples
include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside
Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights, >illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate
from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing >vehicles.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 08:50:10 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped people
On 12/08/2025 11:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107eim4$32gu5$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:15:48 on Tue, 12 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
There is a world outside of Ely, as are other bashed bridges which do >>>>> need
protection beams.
Strangely enough, even in that world outside Ely (a city whose bridge >>>> often ranks as first o second most-bashed, so it's just because I lived >>>> there) no-one is erecting free-standing protection beams, because they >>>> to all intents and purposes (a) aren't allowed and (b) extensive studies >>>> by traffic engineers have concluded they are more trouble than they are >>>> worth.
I think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting
free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the
*world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples
include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside
Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights,
illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate
from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing >> vehicles.
hitting it.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped peopleI think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting
free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the
*world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples
include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside >>>> Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights,
illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate >>> from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing >>> vehicles.
hitting it.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the >collisions? :-)
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped peopleI think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting
free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the
*world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples
include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside >>>>> Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights,
illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate >>>> from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing >>>> vehicles.
hitting it.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the
collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m,
by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even
thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped peopleI think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting
free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the >>>>>> *world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples >>>>>> include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside >>>>>> Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights,
illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate >>>>> from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing
vehicles.
hitting it.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the
collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m,
by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even
thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Another foot, then?
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped peopleI think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting >>>>>>> free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the >>>>>>> *world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples >>>>>>> include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside >>>>>>> Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights, >>>>>> illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate >>>>>> from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing
vehicles.
hitting it.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the
collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m, >>> by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even
thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Another foot, then?
2rCY, surely?
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug >>>> 2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped people >>>>>> hitting it.I think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting >>>>>>>> free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the >>>>>>>> *world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples >>>>>>>> include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside >>>>>>>> Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights, >>>>>>> illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate
from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing
vehicles.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the >>>>> collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m, >>>> by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even
thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Another foot, then?
2rCY, surely?
1 1/5, actually or 2 1/5 in total - my brain got its 30 mm and 30 cm confused.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug >>>>> 2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped people >>>>>>> hitting it.I think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting >>>>>>>>> free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the >>>>>>>>> *world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples >>>>>>>>> include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside
Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights, >>>>>>>> illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate
from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing
vehicles.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the >>>>>> collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m, >>>>> by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even >>>>> thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Another foot, then?
2rCY, surely?
1 1/5, actually or 2 1/5 in total - my brain got its 30 mm and 30 cm
confused.
True, but I didnrCOt think 30mm would be enough to stop wedgies, so rounded it up to 2rCY (I know Roland thinks in inches, not mm).
On 18/08/2025 10:08, Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug >>>>>> 2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped people >>>>>>>> hitting it.I think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting >>>>>>>>>> free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the >>>>>>>>>> *world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples >>>>>>>>>> include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside
Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights, >>>>>>>>> illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate
from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing
vehicles.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the >>>>>>> collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m, >>>>>> by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even >>>>>> thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Another foot, then?
2rCY, surely?
1 1/5, actually or 2 1/5 in total - my brain got its 30 mm and 30 cm
confused.
True, but I didnrCOt think 30mm would be enough to stop wedgies, so rounded >> it up to 2rCY (I know Roland thinks in inches, not mm).
I believe that a popular model of van is a few mm higher than the bridge
so a small increase might make many (illegal) moves more successful.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 18/08/2025 10:08, Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug >>>>>>> 2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>> I think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting >>>>>>>>>>> free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the >>>>>>>>>>> *world* outside Ely.
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped people >>>>>>>>> hitting it.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples >>>>>>>>>>> include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside
Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights, >>>>>>>>>> illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial beam separate
from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the tops of passing
vehicles.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the >>>>>>>> collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m, >>>>>>> by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even >>>>>>> thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Another foot, then?
2rCY, surely?
1 1/5, actually or 2 1/5 in total - my brain got its 30 mm and 30 cm
confused.
True, but I didnrCOt think 30mm would be enough to stop wedgies, so rounded >>> it up to 2rCY (I know Roland thinks in inches, not mm).
I believe that a popular model of van is a few mm higher than the bridge
so a small increase might make many (illegal) moves more successful.
Roland believes that too, but werCOve been unable to find evidence. ItrCOs still possible that the fact that slightly overheight vehicles get wedged
is just confirmation bias. If you have data on the heights of various
models of van, and if Roland has kept a log of which models have got
wedged, that might settle the matter.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug >>>>> 2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped people >>>>>>> hitting it.I think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting >>>>>>>>> free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the >>>>>>>>> *world* outside Ely.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples >>>>>>>>> include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway bridge outside
Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic
illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial >>>>>>>>beam separate from the bridge structure, and still regularly >>>>>>>>removes the tops of passing vehicles.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the >>>>>> collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m, >>>>> by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even >>>>> thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Another foot, then?
2rCY, surely?
1 1/5, actually or 2 1/5 in total - my brain got its 30 mm and 30 cm
confused.
True, but I didnrCOt think 30mm would be enough to stop wedgies, so rounded >it up to 2rCY
(I know Roland thinks in inches, not mm).
If we are talking about Ely, the extra 0.03m (3cm, one inch) would stop
most of the wedgies, because the type of van which gets wedged is a
popular model from at least three manufacturers. And their next size up
would be proper bash - or even a turn round and go another way because
the vehicle would be much more obviously too tall.
If it is a private road then why does TfL possess it as a HighwayAs we are discussing railway bridges, and at a guess 99% of >>>>sacrificial beams are attached to railway bridges (rather than other >>>>sorts of bridge), "existing structure" is effectively "existing >>>>railway bridges".
Road tunnel entrances?
Maybe you can find them, but there must be 500 railway bridges for every >>tunnel entrance. And no, I don't count Blackwall Tunnel, because that's
a private road.
Authority?
A "loophole" still there after several decades ? A loophole is a
mistake.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 18/08/2025 10:08, Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107t7ar$2h15e$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:03 on Sun, 17 Aug >>>>>>> 2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>> I think you mean even in *the UK* outside Ely no-one is erecting >>>>>>>>>>> free-standing protection beams. Because they certainly are in the >>>>>>>>>>> *world* outside Ely.
11' 8" was raised to 12' 4" in 2019 but that hasn't stopped people >>>>>>>>> hitting it.
They're standard form in Romania. Off the top of my head examples >>>>>>>>>>> include the Bucharest Unirii underpass, and the railway >>>>>>>>>>>bridge outside
Timisoara station:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6wUJHSSaZMdBytoD9
And famously the 11foot8 bridge in Durham, NC, has traffic lights, >>>>>>>>>> illuminated warning signs and a yellow-painted sacrificial >>>>>>>>>>beam separate
from the bridge structure, and still regularly removes the >>>>>>>>>>tops of passing
vehicles.
https://11foot8.com/raising-11foot8/
Roland, do you think if they raised it another inch it would stop the >>>>>>>> collisions? :-)
Probably not. It's increasing the clearance at Ely from 2.85m to 2.88m, >>>>>>> by lowering the road, which would prevent most of the "bashes", even >>>>>>> thought the mandatory height limit is 2.7m
Another foot, then?
2rCY, surely?
1 1/5, actually or 2 1/5 in total - my brain got its 30 mm and 30 cm
confused.
True, but I didnrCOt think 30mm would be enough to stop wedgies, so rounded >>> it up to 2rCY (I know Roland thinks in inches, not mm).
I believe that a popular model of van is a few mm higher than the bridge
so a small increase might make many (illegal) moves more successful.
Roland believes that too, but werCOve been unable to find evidence.
ItrCOs still possible that the fact that slightly overheight vehicles
get wedged is just confirmation bias. If you have data on the heights
of various models of van, and if Roland has kept a log of which models
have got wedged, that might settle the matter.
On 21 Aug 2025 08:52, Roland Perry wrote:
[snip]
If we are talking about Ely, the extra 0.03m (3cm, one inch) would stop
most of the wedgies, because the type of van which gets wedged is a
popular model from at least three manufacturers. And their next size up
would be proper bash - or even a turn round and go another way because
the vehicle would be much more obviously too tall.
The way roads are made hasn't changed since the last time you made this >stupid suggestion or the one before.
There are plenty of sources you can go to which will explain the way a
road is made up of courses. Take the top course off and it won't last.
Even for emergency reinstatement the minimum thickness is 40mm. So
taking off 3cm isn't going to fly.
In message <gtcd9k1k9rfrj6kdi8a2jsdffug5rkr0j6@4ax.com>, at 03:48:22 on
Sat, 9 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
A "loophole" still there after several decades ? A loophole is a
mistake.
You are really out of your depth now. There's plenty of loopholes older
than that. And no, they aren't "mistakes", they are matters which the >original drafters didn't foresee.
Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As >>>>> referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have theAll the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then? >>>>>>> Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description. >>>>>
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how >>>> it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported
case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only >>>> putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights?
IrCOm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal right. There
are reasons why they donrCOt exercise that right. But you keep on insisting >>> it is illegal. ItrCOs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
Then substantiate your belief.
IrCOve referenced the relevant highways act that exempts statutory >undertakings. You just assert.
In message <107infi$2jn5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:02:10 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As >>>>>> referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have theAll the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then? >>>>>>>> Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description. >>>>>>
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how >>>>> it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>>> case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only >>>>> putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights?
IrCOm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal right. There
are reasons why they donrCOt exercise that right. But you keep on insisting
it is illegal. ItrCOs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
Then substantiate your belief.
I have, in the past, with chapter and verse.
IrCOve referenced the relevant highways act that exempts statutory
undertakings. You just assert.
It doesn't exempt them from **EVERYTHING** for example a telco couldn't
put a beam made of enriched uranium over a road, resulting in four foot clearance.
In message <mgo2o1Fh4gbU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:12:48 on Thu, 21this
Aug 2025, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
On 21 Aug 2025 08:52, Roland Perry wrote:
[snip]
If we are talking about Ely, the extra 0.03m (3cm, one inch) would stop
most of the wedgies, because the type of van which gets wedged is a
popular model from at least three manufacturers. And their next size up
would be proper bash - or even a turn round and go another way because
the vehicle would be much more obviously too tall.
The way roads are made hasn't changed since the last time you made
stupid suggestion or the one before.
There are plenty of sources you can go to which will explain the way a
road is made up of courses. Take the top course off and it won't last.
Even for emergency reinstatement the minimum thickness is 40mm. So
taking off 3cm isn't going to fly.
I have no idea why you think the road isn't suitable for planing. I've
seen the drawings and am pretty sure it is (suitable). There are
numerous utilities under the road, not least the pumps and drains for
the rainwater which runs into the dip.
Thos plans were drawn up when one proposal for closing the level
crossing was to lower the road (and all the utilities) by several feet
to provide the 16ft (or whatever) clearance for double decker buses and
HGVs. Wasn't dismissed as impossible, just easier to build the bypass (although it turned out not to be easier, because they'd "forgotten" it
was going to be built on a swamp).
It would be entirely possible to remove some of the surface, replace it
with steel sheets, then tarmac over the top, the resulting surface being
3cm lower. Or are you happy for these vans to be impaled on the bridge
in perpetuity?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107infi$2jn5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:02:10 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
IrCOm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal right. TherePlease stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As >>>>>>> referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have theAll the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then?
Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description. >>>>>>>
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how >>>>>> it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>>>> case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only >>>>>> putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights? >>>>>
are reasons why they donrCOt exercise that right. But you keep on insisting
it is illegal. ItrCOs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
Then substantiate your belief.
I have, in the past, with chapter and verse.
IrCOve referenced the relevant highways act that exempts statutory
undertakings. You just assert.
It doesn't exempt them from **EVERYTHING** for example a telco couldn't
put a beam made of enriched uranium over a road, resulting in four foot
clearance.
No, as far as I recall, you have never substantiated your claims about it being illegal, only asserted.
And as has been stated before, in the context of your other silly example
of children embedded in concrete,
On 21/08/2025 12:20, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107infi$2jn5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:02:10 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
IrCOm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal right. ThereAll the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then?
Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description.
Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As
referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking does have the
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how
it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>>>>> case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only
putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights? >>>>>>
are reasons why they donrCOt exercise that right. But you keep on insisting
it is illegal. ItrCOs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
Then substantiate your belief.
I have, in the past, with chapter and verse.
IrCOve referenced the relevant highways act that exempts statutory
undertakings. You just assert.
It doesn't exempt them from **EVERYTHING** for example a telco couldn't
put a beam made of enriched uranium over a road, resulting in four foot
clearance.
No, as far as I recall, you have never substantiated your claims about it
being illegal, only asserted.
And as has been stated before, in the context of your other silly example
of children embedded in concrete,
To be fair to Roland, he was referring to bollards outside a number of schools to prevent parents driving onto the pavement to park. These
bollards are made to look like children.
In message <l3ed9kheath51bqmlmjor6ist7f5o7f4i3@4ax.com>, at 04:11:09 on
Sat, 9 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
If it is a private road then why does TfL possess it as a Highway >>Authority?As we are discussing railway bridges, and at a guess 99% of >>>>>sacrificial beams are attached to railway bridges (rather than other >>>>>sorts of bridge), "existing structure" is effectively "existing >>>>>railway bridges".
Road tunnel entrances?
Maybe you can find them, but there must be 500 railway bridges for every >>>tunnel entrance. And no, I don't count Blackwall Tunnel, because that's
a private road.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107infi$2jn5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:02:10 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
IrCOm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal >>>>>right. TherePlease stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As >>>>>>> referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking >>>>>>>does have theAll the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then?
Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description. >>>>>>>
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how >>>>>> it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>>>> case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only >>>>>> putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights? >>>>>
are reasons why they donrCOt exercise that right. But you keep on >>>>>insisting
it is illegal. ItrCOs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
Then substantiate your belief.
I have, in the past, with chapter and verse.
IrCOve referenced the relevant highways act that exempts statutory
undertakings. You just assert.
It doesn't exempt them from **EVERYTHING** for example a telco couldn't
put a beam made of enriched uranium over a road, resulting in four foot
clearance.
No, as far as I recall, you have never substantiated your claims about it >being illegal, only asserted.
And as has been stated before, in the context of your other silly example
of children embedded in concrete,
other legislation would preclude an enriched uranium beam. There are >countless things we are allowed to do by law, but the way these rights
are exercised are constrained (note constrained, not necessarily
forbidden) by other laws.
To be fair to Roland, he was referring to bollards outside a number of
schools to prevent parents driving onto the pavement to park. These
bollards are made to look like children.
No he wasnrCOt. His recent post was about bollards near bridges made of real >children embedded in concrete.
On 21/08/2025 12:20, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107infi$2jn5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:02:10 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
IrCOm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal >>>>>>right. ThereAll the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to >>>>>>>>>>you, then?
Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description.
Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As
referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking >>>>>>>>does have the
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how
it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>>>>> case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only
putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights? >>>>>>
are reasons why they donrCOt exercise that right. But you keep on >>>>>>insisting
it is illegal. ItrCOs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
Then substantiate your belief.
I have, in the past, with chapter and verse.
IrCOve referenced the relevant highways act that exempts statutory
undertakings. You just assert.
It doesn't exempt them from **EVERYTHING** for example a telco couldn't
put a beam made of enriched uranium over a road, resulting in four foot
clearance.
No, as far as I recall, you have never substantiated your claims
about it being illegal, only asserted. And as has been stated
before, in the context of your other silly example of children
embedded in concrete,
To be fair to Roland, he was referring to bollards outside a number of >schools to prevent parents driving onto the pavement to park. These
bollards are made to look like children.
TfL would not own a private roas as a highway authority but as theIf it is a private road then why does TfL possess it as a Highway >>>Authority?As we are discussing railway bridges, and at a guess 99% of >>>>>>sacrificial beams are attached to railway bridges (rather than other >>>>>>sorts of bridge), "existing structure" is effectively "existing >>>>>>railway bridges".
Road tunnel entrances?
Maybe you can find them, but there must be 500 railway bridges for every >>>>tunnel entrance. And no, I don't count Blackwall Tunnel, because that's >>>>a private road.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
property of the local government body which it is. Local authorities
and their officers can have multiple legal characters.
In any case I posted the relevant S.I information a few days ago which >confirms the tunnel roads as highways.
But you can't get away from the fact that everyone who understands the subject (and works for councils, Network Rail etc) agrees, which is why you only see a handful of new beams installed, and those are the "loophole"
ones attached to the existing bridge structure.
In message <1086vd8$tfbh$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:20:08 on Thu, 21 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107infi$2jn5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:02:10 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
IrCOm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legalAll the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which >>>>>>>>>>> last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to you, then?
Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description.
Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As
referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking
does have the
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how
it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>>>>> case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only
putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights? >>>>>>
right. There
are reasons why they donrCOt exercise that right. But you keep on >>>>>> insisting
it is illegal. ItrCOs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
Then substantiate your belief.
I have, in the past, with chapter and verse.
IrCOve referenced the relevant highways act that exempts statutory
undertakings. You just assert.
It doesn't exempt them from **EVERYTHING** for example a telco couldn't
put a beam made of enriched uranium over a road, resulting in four foot
clearance.
No, as far as I recall, you have never substantiated your claims about it
being illegal, only asserted.
I have, but the reaction was "I'm gong to ignore those documents because they are too long to read, and even if I did they probably don't say
what you think". Which after about two days works was sufficient slap in
the face not to want to repeat the exercise.
But you can't get away from the fact that everyone who understands the subject (and works for councils, Network Rail etc) agrees, which is why
you only see a handful of new beams installed, and those are the
"loophole" ones attached to the existing bridge structure.
And as has been stated before, in the context of your other silly example
of children embedded in concrete,
So you *have* read some of my earlier postings...
other legislation would preclude an enriched uranium beam. There are
countless things we are allowed to do by law, but the way these rights
are exercised are constrained (note constrained, not necessarily
forbidden) by other laws.
And why don't you think there's "other legislation" which debunks the oft-made assertion that obstructions of any description are allowed (in
this case in the context of CPBs)?
Part of the problem with barrack-room lawyers is they have blinkers. And don't read all of an Act, let alone any associated Code of Practice or caselaw.
On 22/08/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
But you can't get away from the fact that everyone who understands the
subject (and works for councils, Network Rail etc) agrees, which is
why you only see a handful of new beams installed, and those are the
"loophole" ones attached to the existing bridge structure.
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/newport-bridge-earns- unwanted-top-spot-as-network-rail-urges-drivers-to-take-better-care-at- railway-bridges
On 22/08/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
But you can't get away from the fact that everyone who understands
the subject (and works for councils, Network Rail etc) agrees, which
is why you only see a handful of new beams installed, and those are
the "loophole" ones attached to the existing bridge structure.
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/newport-bridge-earns-unwan >ted-top-spot-as-network-rail-urges-drivers-to-take-better-care-at-railwa >y-bridges
In message <1089842$1domr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:07 on Fri, 22 Aug
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 22/08/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
-aBut you can't get away from the fact that everyone who understands the >>> subject (and works for councils, Network Rail etc) agrees, which is why >>> you-a only see a handful of new beams installed, and those are the
"loophole"-a ones attached to the existing bridge structure.
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/newport-bridge-earns-unwan
ted-top-spot-as-network-rail-urges-drivers-to-take-better-care-at-railwa
y-bridges
That raises more questions than it answers. If they have succeeded in installing the so-called "goalposts", why is the bridge *still* being bashed? Maybe they aren't as effective as claimed?
On 22/08/2025 10:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1089842$1domr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:07 on Fri, 22
Aug 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 22/08/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
aBut you can't get away from the fact that everyone who understands >>>>the subject (and works for councils, Network Rail etc) agrees,https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/newport-bridge-earns-unwan >>> ted-top-spot-as-network-rail-urges-drivers-to-take-better-care-at-railwa >>> y-bridges
which is why youa only see a handful of new beams installed, and >>>>those are the "loophole"a ones attached to the existing bridge structure. >>>
That raises more questions than it answers. If they have succeeded
in installing the so-called "goalposts", why is the bridge *still*
being bashed? Maybe they aren't as effective as claimed?
What is the evidence that the bridge is *still* being bashed ?
The goalposts etc. are visible on Streetview.
In message <1089f5i$1domq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:23 on Fri, 22 Aug
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 22/08/2025 10:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1089842$1domr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:07 on Fri, 22 Aug >>> 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 22/08/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
-aBut you can't get away from the fact that everyone who understands >>>>> the-a-a subject (and works for councils, Network Rail etc) agrees, which >>>>> is why-a you-a only see a handful of new beams installed, and those are >>>>> the-a "loophole"-a ones attached to the existing bridge structure.
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/newport-bridge-earns-unwan >>>> ted-top-spot-as-network-rail-urges-drivers-to-take-better-care-at-railwa >>>> y-bridges
-aThat raises more questions than it answers. If they have succeeded in >>> installing the so-called "goalposts", why is the bridge *still* being
bashed? Maybe they aren't as effective as claimed?
What is the evidence that the bridge is *still* being bashed ?
The article implies it's still an often-bashed bridge?
The goalposts etc. are visible on Streetview.
Date of the view?
In message <1089f5i$1domq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:23 on Fri, 22 Aug
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 22/08/2025 10:43, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1089842$1domr$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:07 on Fri, 22
Aug-a 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 22/08/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
-aBut you can't get away from the fact that everyone who understands >>>>> the-a-a subject (and works for councils, Network Rail etc) agrees,
which is why-a you-a only see a handful of new beams installed, and >>>>> those are the-a "loophole"-a ones attached to the existing bridge
structure.
https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/newport-bridge-earns-
unwan
ted-top-spot-as-network-rail-urges-drivers-to-take-better-care-at-
railwa
y-bridges
-aThat raises more questions than it answers. If they have succeeded
in-a installing the so-called "goalposts", why is the bridge *still*
being-a bashed? Maybe they aren't as effective as claimed?
What is the evidence that the bridge is *still* being bashed ?
The article implies it's still an often-bashed bridge?
In message <1087e0f$1100q$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:19 on Thu, 21 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 21/08/2025 12:20, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107infi$2jn5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:02:10 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
IAm not arguing the supplementary points. They have the legal >>>>>>>right. ThereAll the reference in this thread have been to UK legislation, which
last time I looked didn't apply to Romania.
So some exciting new definition of "world" that's unique to >>>>>>>>>>>you, then?
Par for the course.
The world in the UK outside East Cambs. Not a very unique description.
Please stop asserting that legislation prevents free standing beams. As
referenced upthread, Network Rail as a statutory undertaking >>>>>>>>>does have the
right.
It doesn't have an absolute right. And have you also forgotten about how
it might acquire the land to put the legs on?
And if it did have the right, can you explain why there's no reported >>>>>>>> case of it happening since the current law was passed (~40yrs ago). Only
putting CPBs on its bridges under the "loophole" grandfather rights? >>>>>>>
are reasons why they donAt exercise that right. But you keep on >>>>>>>insisting
it is illegal. ItAs not.
Except I believe it is unlawful, if that's a better adjective.
Then substantiate your belief.
I have, in the past, with chapter and verse.
IAve referenced the relevant highways act that exempts statutory
undertakings. You just assert.
It doesn't exempt them from **EVERYTHING** for example a telco couldn't >>>> put a beam made of enriched uranium over a road, resulting in four foot >>>> clearance.
No, as far as I recall, you have never substantiated your claims
about it being illegal, only asserted. And as has been stated
before, in the context of your other silly example of children
embedded in concrete,
To be fair to Roland, he was referring to bollards outside a number of >>schools to prevent parents driving onto the pavement to park. These >>bollards are made to look like children.
I wasn't, in fact. I've only recently seen an installation like that**.
The assertion by Charles
was that barriers to close lanes/roads (thus
nothing at all to do with CPBs) are allowed to be constructed from
anything at all. When that's clearly absurd.
** And not wishing to drift the thread too much, I think they are very >distracting because the stretch of road is already overwhelmed by--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
signage, and the portable bollards in question are present 24x7, not
just when there are children being delivered to/from school.
In message <cnieakhtm51fhp689b9n3r2kfp1pbeb3op@4ax.com>, at 17:43:36 on
Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
TfL would not own a private roas as a highway authority but as theIf it is a private road then why does TfL possess it as a Highway >>>>Authority?As we are discussing railway bridges, and at a guess 99% of >>>>>>>sacrificial beams are attached to railway bridges (rather than other >>>>>>>sorts of bridge), "existing structure" is effectively "existing >>>>>>>railway bridges".
Road tunnel entrances?
Maybe you can find them, but there must be 500 railway bridges for every >>>>>tunnel entrance. And no, I don't count Blackwall Tunnel, because that's >>>>>a private road.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
property of the local government body which it is. Local authorities
and their officers can have multiple legal characters.
In any case I posted the relevant S.I information a few days ago which >>confirms the tunnel roads as highways.
It doesn't matter, the road is privately owned, but also described in
some literature as "A Highway". The collision protection apparatus stems >initially from an Act of Parliament giving special powers to install
them due to the unique threat of large vehicles striking those
particular portals.
The assertion by CharlesNot an assertion. A reference to and quoted text from
Part VII Bollards and Other Obstructions in the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984.
was that barriers to close lanes/roads (thus"(a)shall include obstructions of any description whatsoever;
nothing at all to do with CPBs) are allowed to be constructed from
anything at all. When that's clearly absurd.
(b)may be either fixed or moveable; and
(c)may be placed so as to prevent the passage of vehicles at all times
or at certain times only."
Maybe it is your interpretation that is absurd, failing to consider
the context of good sense and (re cemented in children) the various
other bits of legislation and other law which would have a limiting
effect and the possibility (certainty?) of judicial review if your
ideas were adopted. You also missed the provision for the Sectretary
of State to require any relevant barrier in general to be removed.
s.92(2)c would imply a prevention of anything done which exceeds what
is necessary to achieve the purpose of a barrier.
In message <s2phak5bnsgo05el89udcdfj00kfhf0jt2@4ax.com>, at 22:56:44 on
Fri, 22 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
The assertion by CharlesNot an assertion. A reference to and quoted text from
Part VII Bollards and Other Obstructions in the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984.
was that barriers to close lanes/roads (thus"(a)shall include obstructions of any description whatsoever;
nothing at all to do with CPBs) are allowed to be constructed from
anything at all. When that's clearly absurd.
(b)may be either fixed or moveable; and
(c)may be placed so as to prevent the passage of vehicles at all times
or at certain times only."
Maybe it is your interpretation that is absurd, failing to consider
the context of good sense and (re cemented in children) the various
other bits of legislation and other law which would have a limiting
effect and the possibility (certainty?) of judicial review if your
ideas were adopted. You also missed the provision for the Sectretary
of State to require any relevant barrier in general to be removed.
s.92(2)c would imply a prevention of anything done which exceeds what
is necessary to achieve the purpose of a barrier.
Charles, please give this one up. You are hopelessly wrong, and
repeating yourself over and over again isn't going to convince anyone.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <s2phak5bnsgo05el89udcdfj00kfhf0jt2@4ax.com>, at 22:56:44 on
Fri, 22 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
The assertion by CharlesNot an assertion. A reference to and quoted text from
Part VII Bollards and Other Obstructions in the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984.
was that barriers to close lanes/roads (thus"(a)shall include obstructions of any description whatsoever;
nothing at all to do with CPBs) are allowed to be constructed from
anything at all. When that's clearly absurd.
(b)may be either fixed or moveable; and
(c)may be placed so as to prevent the passage of vehicles at all times
or at certain times only."
Maybe it is your interpretation that is absurd, failing to consider
the context of good sense and (re cemented in children) the various
other bits of legislation and other law which would have a limiting
effect and the possibility (certainty?) of judicial review if your
ideas were adopted. You also missed the provision for the Sectretary
of State to require any relevant barrier in general to be removed.
s.92(2)c would imply a prevention of anything done which exceeds what
is necessary to achieve the purpose of a barrier.
Charles, please give this one up. You are hopelessly wrong, and
repeating yourself over and over again isn't going to convince anyone.
And you think you are doing any better?
He could be wrong, you could be wrong ,both of you could be wrong.
An expert on the relevant legislation might be more convincing if they
could prove their credentials but are unlikely to be found on this group.
GH
On 21 Aug 2025 11:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mgo2o1Fh4gbU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:12:48 on Thu, 21this
Aug 2025, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
On 21 Aug 2025 08:52, Roland Perry wrote:
[snip]
If we are talking about Ely, the extra 0.03m (3cm, one inch) would stop >>>> most of the wedgies, because the type of van which gets wedged is a
popular model from at least three manufacturers. And their next size up >>>> would be proper bash - or even a turn round and go another way because >>>> the vehicle would be much more obviously too tall.
The way roads are made hasn't changed since the last time you made
stupid suggestion or the one before.
There are plenty of sources you can go to which will explain the way a >>>road is made up of courses. Take the top course off and it won't last.
Even for emergency reinstatement the minimum thickness is 40mm. So
taking off 3cm isn't going to fly.
I have no idea why you think the road isn't suitable for planing. I've
seen the drawings and am pretty sure it is (suitable). There are
numerous utilities under the road, not least the pumps and drains for
the rainwater which runs into the dip.
What thickness are the courses? I guess you could go all the way down
and thin them all. Are any thicker than the DMRB and what traffic
volume are you working from?
Thos plans were drawn up when one proposal for closing the level
crossing was to lower the road (and all the utilities) by several feet
to provide the 16ft (or whatever) clearance for double decker buses and
HGVs. Wasn't dismissed as impossible, just easier to build the bypass
(although it turned out not to be easier, because they'd "forgotten" it
was going to be built on a swamp).
It would be entirely possible to remove some of the surface, replace it
with steel sheets, then tarmac over the top, the resulting surface being
3cm lower. Or are you happy for these vans to be impaled on the bridge
in perpetuity?
The surface is unlikely the be thick enough to be able to be removed, >replaced with steel sheets, resurfaced and still be 3cm lower. Which
courses are you going to remove and will the lower ones copes with the
new approach?
In message <mgof1aFj4i3U1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, 21way a
Aug 2025, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
On 21 Aug 2025 11:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mgo2o1Fh4gbU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:12:48 on Thu, 21this
Aug 2025, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
On 21 Aug 2025 08:52, Roland Perry wrote:
[snip]
If we are talking about Ely, the extra 0.03m (3cm, one inch) would stop >>>>> most of the wedgies, because the type of van which gets wedged is a
popular model from at least three manufacturers. And their next size up >>>>> would be proper bash - or even a turn round and go another way because >>>>> the vehicle would be much more obviously too tall.
The way roads are made hasn't changed since the last time you made
stupid suggestion or the one before.
There are plenty of sources you can go to which will explain the
last.road is made up of courses. Take the top course off and it won't
Even for emergency reinstatement the minimum thickness is 40mm. So >>>>taking off 3cm isn't going to fly.
I have no idea why you think the road isn't suitable for planing. I've
seen the drawings and am pretty sure it is (suitable). There are
numerous utilities under the road, not least the pumps and drains for
the rainwater which runs into the dip.
What thickness are the courses? I guess you could go all the way down
and thin them all. Are any thicker than the DMRB and what traffic
volume are you working from?
I've tried looking for those plans I saw, but to no avail. The general principle still stands though. Traffic volume is single-alternate
working, in batches of about a dozen vehicles. None is very heavy
because of the height limit, and also virtually every van will be a
maximum of 3.5t loaded for driving licence purposes.
Thos plans were drawn up when one proposal for closing the level
crossing was to lower the road (and all the utilities) by several feet
to provide the 16ft (or whatever) clearance for double decker buses and
HGVs. Wasn't dismissed as impossible, just easier to build the bypass
(although it turned out not to be easier, because they'd "forgotten" it
was going to be built on a swamp).
It would be entirely possible to remove some of the surface, replace it
with steel sheets, then tarmac over the top, the resulting surface being >>> 3cm lower. Or are you happy for these vans to be impaled on the bridge
in perpetuity?
The surface is unlikely the be thick enough to be able to be removed, >>replaced with steel sheets, resurfaced and still be 3cm lower. Which >>courses are you going to remove and will the lower ones copes with the
new approach?
It's not just the surface tarmac, but what's immediately beneath it.
On 29 Aug 2025 08:44, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mgof1aFj4i3U1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:33 on Thu, 21way a
Aug 2025, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
On 21 Aug 2025 11:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mgo2o1Fh4gbU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:12:48 on Thu, 21this
Aug 2025, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
On 21 Aug 2025 08:52, Roland Perry wrote:
[snip]
If we are talking about Ely, the extra 0.03m (3cm, one inch) would stop >>>>>> most of the wedgies, because the type of van which gets wedged is a >>>>>> popular model from at least three manufacturers. And their next size up >>>>>> would be proper bash - or even a turn round and go another way because >>>>>> the vehicle would be much more obviously too tall.
The way roads are made hasn't changed since the last time you made
stupid suggestion or the one before.
There are plenty of sources you can go to which will explain the
last.road is made up of courses. Take the top course off and it won't
Even for emergency reinstatement the minimum thickness is 40mm. So >>>>>taking off 3cm isn't going to fly.
I have no idea why you think the road isn't suitable for planing. I've >>>> seen the drawings and am pretty sure it is (suitable). There are
numerous utilities under the road, not least the pumps and drains for
the rainwater which runs into the dip.
What thickness are the courses? I guess you could go all the way down
and thin them all. Are any thicker than the DMRB and what traffic
volume are you working from?
I've tried looking for those plans I saw, but to no avail. The general
principle still stands though. Traffic volume is single-alternate
working, in batches of about a dozen vehicles. None is very heavy
because of the height limit, and also virtually every van will be a
maximum of 3.5t loaded for driving licence purposes.
Thos plans were drawn up when one proposal for closing the level
crossing was to lower the road (and all the utilities) by several feet >>>> to provide the 16ft (or whatever) clearance for double decker buses and >>>> HGVs. Wasn't dismissed as impossible, just easier to build the bypass
(although it turned out not to be easier, because they'd "forgotten" it >>>> was going to be built on a swamp).
It would be entirely possible to remove some of the surface, replace it >>>> with steel sheets, then tarmac over the top, the resulting surface being >>>> 3cm lower. Or are you happy for these vans to be impaled on the bridge >>>> in perpetuity?
The surface is unlikely the be thick enough to be able to be removed, >>>replaced with steel sheets, resurfaced and still be 3cm lower. Which >>>courses are you going to remove and will the lower ones copes with the >>>new approach?
It's not just the surface tarmac, but what's immediately beneath it.
I'm glad you agree that planing is not the whole story and that the
lower courses would all need digging out,
two and the whole lot
lowered. That is a lot of work. Who would fund it?