Acocks Green Garage

[winston]

This is ridicoulous - there's been no problems before so why all of sudden have they (not NX - whoever decides on the bridges!) decided to implement this. Suppose easiest solution would be for AG to have around 10 Scanias from YW and YW have 10 MMCs from AG - would mean both the 5 and 27 are then compliant?

But the MMC's were purchased for the 37, 71/72.

AG is already having to put some of their MMC allocation on the 5 now as well.

[Ronnoc]

The Scania's have much bigger roof mounted pods making them taller, compared with Eclipse 2's.

NX may now need more new single deckers after all

They've always fitted under that bridge.

[Stu]

The Scania's have much bigger roof mounted pods making them taller, compared with Eclipse 2's.

NX may now need more new single deckers after all

Or they could just swap some of the Scanias (if not all, to keep things consistent) with other single decks from elsewhere, such as Eclipse 2 B7RLEs from BC?

Or just reroute both routes to avoid the low bridges?

[Liberator9]

Actually the 27 could if necessary be rerouted down Mary Vale Road and join the A441 one street down from Bournville Lane - I know the bridge Mary Vale has goes over the railway, and should be wide enough for a single decker?

That would be an easier solution.

[winston]

They've always fitted under that bridge.

Edit:

Doesn't matter whether they've always fitted under that bridge, the max vehicle height that can use the bridge can now not be exceeded, meaning they don't fit anymore!

The signage can only have been reduced to allow even more clearance & reduce risk of a bridge strike further, it's probably boils down to new Health & Safety rulings & may have been imposed by Network Rail

[Tony]

Doesn't matter whether they've always fitted under that bridge, the max vehicle height that can use the bridge has now been reduced, meaning they don't fit anymore!

The height can only have been reduced to allow even more clearance & reduce risk of a bridge strike further, it's probably boils down to new Health & Safety rulings & may have been imposed by Network Rail

The height in the signs hasn't changed, but when a height is in a triangular sign it is only advisory, so you are not committing a road traffic offence by driving through if you don't hit it. When it is in a circle you are then committing an offence if the vehicle is taller than that given in the road sign

[Cheese]

Actually the 27 could if necessary be rerouted down Mary Vale Road and join the A441 one street down from Bournville Lane - I know the bridge Mary Vale has goes over the railway, and should be wide enough for a single decker?

That would be an easier solution.

Tridents have been used on the 27 in the past, happened once or twice, and were rerouted along Mary Vale Road, can remember seeing one a few years ago when walking home from Bournville station.  Have also been over that bridge on a diverted 45 when the Pershore Road was shut for resurfacing between Stirchley and Cotteridge.

[D10]

Actually the 27 could if necessary be rerouted down Mary Vale Road and join the A441 one street down from Bournville Lane - I know the bridge Mary Vale has goes over the railway, and should be wide enough for a single decker?

That would be an easier solution.

Expect plenty of complaints from Mary Vale residents if all the 27's get diverted down there disturbing their peace and quiet. At the moment only the 38 goes down there not every often!  ;D

[BK63 YWP]

Could the mmc's that currently branded for 37 be rebranded for the 5 and the Gemini coming back in crimson be branded for the 37?

[Ronnoc]

Could the mmc's that currently branded for 37 be rebranded for the 5 and the Gemini coming back in crimson be branded for the 37?

That'd kinda be a downgrade for one and an upgrade for one.

[Stu]

Thinking outside the box here, so please feel free to shoot me down as I'm not a civil engineer, but would it be feasible to lower the road (by digging away and resurfacing) even by a few inches under these bridges? Or is that a crazy expensive idea (even by BCC standards)?

[Liberator9]

Tridents have been used on the 27 in the past, happened once or twice, and were rerouted along Mary Vale Road, can remember seeing one a few years ago when walking home from Bournville station.  Have also been over that bridge on a diverted 45 when the Pershore Road was shut for resurfacing between Stirchley and Cotteridge.

Ahh right - didn't know that - so Scanias could be put down there if required.

[Tony]

Thinking outside the box here, so please feel free to shoot me down as I'm not a civil engineer, but would it be feasible to lower the road (by digging away and resurfacing) even by a few inches under these bridges? Or is that a crazy expensive idea (even by BCC standards)?

A far easier solution would be for bridges to actually be labelled at their real clearance

[Dom]

A far easier solution would be for bridges to actually be labelled at their real clearance

Yes, but @Tony we live in the UK

[Stu]

A far easier solution would be for bridges to actually be labelled at their real clearance

Very true, as has been suggested already maybe Network Rail are covering their arses, so to speak, in the eventuality that some prat does come a cropper by driving underneath when they clearly shouldn't.