Buses and bridge height restrictions

[Stu]

I recently published an article on my website speculating about the future of the 27 route due to the low bridge on Bournville Lane.

What future for the 27 route in Bournville?
https://wmbu.org.uk/2024/05/what-future-for-the-27-route-in-bournville/

The gist of the article was basically that as the bridge has a height restriction of 2.9m, and there aren't any zero-emission single decks less than 3.0m in height*, at some point in the future the 27 would have to be rerouted away from this bridge.

*I have since learned that the Switch Metrocity EV is 2.85m high


Since writing that article, I have actually paid some attention while travelling on these Scania OmniLinks, and I did note with interest the other day that the cab notice specifies the vehicle height as 3.2m (or 10ft 6in).

So what gives? I notice from looking on Google Maps that the restriction shown on the bridge appears to have changed between 2017 and 2018 from 10ft to 9ft 9in.

Is it a case of "erring on the side of caution", or have the OmniLinks been lowered somehow? They do somehow manage to fit under, just about!

Just curious really, as technically even the OmniLinks shouldn't be able to fit under this bridge.

Anyone know of any other such anomalous examples?

[Sandy Lane]

I recently published an article on my website speculating about the future of the 27 route due to the low bridge on Bournville Lane.

What future for the 27 route in Bournville?
https://wmbu.org.uk/2024/05/what-future-for-the-27-route-in-bournville/

The gist of the article was basically that as the bridge has a height restriction of 2.9m, and there aren't any zero-emission single decks less than 3.0m in height*, at some point in the future the 27 would have to be rerouted away from this bridge.

*I have since learned that the Switch Metrocity EV is 2.85m high


Since writing that article, I have actually paid some attention while travelling on these Scania OmniLinks, and I did note with interest the other day that the cab notice specifies the vehicle height as 3.2m (or 10ft 6in).

So what gives? I notice from looking on Google Maps that the restriction shown on the bridge appears to have changed between 2017 and 2018 from 10ft to 9ft 9in.

Is it a case of "erring on the side of caution", or have the OmniLinks been lowered somehow? They do somehow manage to fit under, just about!

Just curious really, as technically even the OmniLinks shouldn't be able to fit under this bridge.

Anyone know of any other such anomalous examples?

Height clearance can reduce when a road is resurfaced.

[Stu]

Height clearance can reduce when a road is resurfaced.

Yes, that is true, but doesn't explain how a 3.2m high vehicle can still fit under a bridge with a restriction of 2.9m!

[Lukeee]

Yes, that is true, but doesn't explain how a 3.2m high vehicle can still fit under a bridge with a restriction of 2.9m!

They always put a slightly lower height on the restriction than what the actual height is in reality, for example there's a railway bridge by blackwell adventure park near bromsgrove marked at 12ft 3 but have seen taller coaches fit under