Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 30th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

'Windshield' idea to protect lorries on Forth crossing



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 June 2008
By ALASTAIR DALTON
THE installation of protective barriers on the Forth Road Bridge to prevent lorries being blown over by sudden gusts of wind is to be considered by bridge officials.
A "name-and-shame" campaign against drivers repeatedly flouting crossing restrictions during strong winds may also be introduced.

The moves follow widespread traffic disruption caused by two lorries being blown on to their sides on the bridge within six weeks of each other earlier this year.

They were hit by a sudden increase in wind speed around the bridge's towers after driving on to the crossing when winds were just below the 50mph limit for such vehicles. The bridgemaster, Barry Colford, told The Scotsman that windshielding would be considered for around the towers, which could damp down sudden gusts.

It could involve 7ft-high solid translucent barriers on the edge of the bridge deck.

Mr Colford said the bridge would be unable to take the strain of complete windshielding, but it would be looked at for the most vulnerable parts of the bridge.

He said a 30mph limit on approach roads to the bridge during strong winds was also planned to make it easier to halt wind-susceptible vehicles.



The full article contains 205 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 June 2008 9:41 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

truthsleuth,

13/06/2008 00:29:53
Yet another cost caused by heavy goods vehicles that others will have to pay.
And they ask for diesel tax for the heavies to be halved whilst we motorists have to keep on paying the full amount.

This subsidy to the already most subsidised business should be stopped and they should be made pay their full costs.
2

The Trossachs Hasher,

13/06/2008 01:49:39
Truth - why don't you go up to a lorry driver and try that theory on him.

Grapes or flowers?
3

Guga II,

Rockall 13/06/2008 02:51:24
Has anyone actually calculated the increased wind load from these proposed wind shields? Is the bridge capable of taking such an increased load?
4

Douglas,

Bathgate 13/06/2008 08:21:33
Trucks could cross the Forth in all weathers if the new crossing was a tunnel.
5

Al D,

South Queensferry 13/06/2008 08:52:58
Perhaps this is just a trial run to try and avoid major embarassment when the new bridge is fitted with the "magic windshield" and it fails, decisions so far do not instill confidence
6

It's me!,

13/06/2008 09:11:48
A big sail to catch the wind and put even more strain on the rusting wires holding the bridge up? Doesn't sound like a good idea to this non engineer.
7

Mist001,

Marseille 13/06/2008 09:42:42
Maybe they should put wind sails on HGV trucks? That woulf put an end to them complaing sbout the high cost of deisel, since they wouldn't have to use any. It might cause a slight problem with low bridges, but I'm sure there are ways around that.

Michael.
8

alex paterson,

embra 13/06/2008 10:24:00
Keep the lorries safe,i doubt it,it will act like a sail and topple the lot into the water.
9

Al D,

South Queensferry 13/06/2008 11:28:28
I've heard old tollbooths make excellent windshields!
10

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/06/2008 11:44:21
"He said a 30mph limit on approach roads to the bridge during strong winds was also planned to make it easier to halt wind-susceptible vehicles."

How rediculous. Surely he can't be serious about that? Can he?

Guga makes a good point. I personally think that any added wind resistance around the support towers is almost certainly going to cause problems. They were never designed to be wind-breaks.

Of course, enforcing the bridge by-laws, hauling the offenders over the coals and making an example of them is completely out of the question. Isn't it?
11

Al D,

South Queensferry 13/06/2008 12:04:56
There already is a 30MPH speed limit on approach. Scary the bridgemaster doesn't know whats going on, then again they are the people who resided over the removal of the tollbooths causing daily tailbacks, greater emmissions, lack of control of HGV access, etc,etc. The fiasco continues
12

Vincent-W,

13/06/2008 12:40:31
It's so obvious that engineers would have to ok such an idea before installation that any comment is redundant!
13

Annoyingboi,

Edinburgh 13/06/2008 13:28:03
Why bother? The bridge is going to fall down soon anyway!
14

Heretic_,

13/06/2008 16:15:10
#3 I think the Bridgemaster is proposing a study to determine exactly that.

I say fair play to him for exploring all the options thoroughly, rather than dismissing it out of hand like you seem to want.
15

Heretic_,

13/06/2008 16:19:39
#11 Al D

Why so negative? It sounds like you are upset that FETA removed the tollbooths. Are you one of those strange people who enjoyed paying a toll?
16

D Napier,

13/06/2008 16:34:23
#6 As you say, you are not an engineer, so please leave it to the engineers to decide.

#11. The 30mph limit is only northbound and it is temporary.

#13. Says who??????

#15. Al D might not have enjoyed pay the toll, but maybe he didn't have a problem paying it, just like the majority of the population.
17

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/06/2008 17:11:35
#6:

The strain will almost certainly be mainly on the bridge pillars, not the wires. The problem is that the bridge pillars' foundations were designed to support the weight of the pillars and the bridge---in other words, mainly down-force but with relatively small varying sideways and rotating components.

Adding wind-breaks to the pillars would dramatically increase the sideways and turning moments and may be likely to weaken the foundations. This would be compounded by the variable nature of the wind-thrust which would in turn tend to try to rock the pillars side to side. This generally has a greater effect than a constant force.
18

Broomagebairn,

13/06/2008 18:12:24
Do you have the same problem in a tunnel ?
NO ! that's why a tunnel was the best option for the new crossing
19

Upbeat,

13/06/2008 20:34:17
Regular UK and European motorway travellers will already notice that the UK is the only country in Europe that is silly enough to permit over high HGV's on the road. While it is not impossible for lower vehicles t be blown over, the number of occasions when this occurs is tiny compared with UK experience. The uk is als the most windy of European nations. It defies logic.

Eleshwere in Europe the standard bridge /tunnel height would chop the top off many of the British wagon park .

Any vehicle on trans European routes, that is over 4 meters high will trigger roadside sensors on approach to tunnels everywhere, and red lights on Gantries will stop the whole motorway . The truck operator will be fined on the spot. As a result few operators will use anything higher than 4 metres.

Only in Britain are such top heavy vehicles permitted,up to 5 mtres is not unusual. This represents a 20% increase in " sail area" regardless of the length of the truck. These vehicles cannot even dock at most modern transport hubs without casuing damage to the loading bay of the building.

It is time all HGV vehicles over 4 metres high were denied roadworthiness certificates. Any operator requiring an overhigh vehcile should be required to conform to exceptional load restrictions.

No need to modify the bridge at all.
20

truthsleuth,

14/06/2008 00:49:19
#2 The Trossachs Hasher

Depends on whether he is bigger than me.
His lorry may be

Justs proves my point - bullies.

21

truthsleuth,

14/06/2008 00:51:02
#17 Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Absolutely correct
Unless you work for the D(a)fT who would find some way of ignoring any damaging (cost) to the haulier.
22

truthsleuth,

14/06/2008 00:55:24
#5 Al D

Only if the tunnel was of great enough height.
What about the possibility of an Esso Fuel Tanker

catching fire in the tunnel in the rush hour.
Remote maybe but such happens.
23

truthsleuth,

14/06/2008 00:57:17
# A "name-and-shame" campaign against drivers repeatedly flouting crossing restrictions during strong winds may also be introduced.

Its lucky none has blown over and killed a few motorists.
Professinals these truckers.

Definition of Professional - One who plays games for money.
24

truthsleuth,

14/06/2008 00:57:56
# A "name-and-shame" campaign against drivers repeatedly flouting crossing restrictions during strong winds may also be introduced.

Its lucky none has blown over and killed a few motorists.
Professinals these truckers.

Definition of Professional - One who plays games for money.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.