Interesting pictures...

[Broithe]

30 minutes ago, Broithe said:

The Shap derailment.

Looks to have hit a small landslip on the bend in the distance above.

[Mol_PMB]

Fortunately pendos are pretty robust. Even more fortunately, the driver was able to make an emergency broadcast on the radio which stopped the approaching northbound train…

[Broithe]

Enniscorthy.

During the flood event - and after a good clean-up.

[Broithe]

And the process in between...

[spudfan]

From yesteryear. Summer , somewhere up here. Can never remember where this is!

[Broithe]

Pulled by the cops on the M6 (on the Big Island).

Glenfield,  a crane tank, with the crane bits removed.

Two worn tires on the trailer and not being moved inline with the paperwork.

[Mol_PMB]

2 minutes ago, Broithe said:

Pulled by the cops on the M6 (on the Big Island).

Glenfield,  a crane tank, with the crane bits removed.

Two worn tires on the trailer and not being moved inline with the paperwork.

The machine alongside looks quite a beast too! 

[Horsetan]

On 9/2/2026 at 7:09 PM, Broithe said:

Pulled by the cops on the M6 (on the Big Island).

Glenfield,  a crane tank, with the crane bits removed.

Two worn tires on the trailer and not being moved inline with the paperwork.

Andrew Barclay works no.880.

[Andy Cundick]

I assume the jib was removed for clearance reasons,it being shes a crane tank,it used to be at Cranmore back in the day Andy

[spudfan]

[Galteemore]

Latest info from Rapido. Definite Irish possibilities https://rapidotrains.co.uk/ly-class-25-ironclad/

[Broithe]

Hopefully, I have managed to report this without creating an emergency.

Somebody has probably just caught the bottom of the sign with the top of a turf load, or it might have just fallen off on its own.

The bits of wood that the sign was screwed to have seen better days - and the track is only bog access, there no buildings beyond it to generate any traffic that isn't aware of the bridge.

There was no evidence of any impact to the bridge itself, and two 201s passed over whilst I was there, without incident.

[jhb171achill]

On 22/3/2026 at 3:34 PM, Galteemore said:

Latest info from Rapido. Definite Irish possibilities https://rapidotrains.co.uk/ly-class-25-ironclad/

I'm trawling the McMahon Bibles right now to see what might be a possibility for this loco! Certainly, with a different cab of some sort, dropped into a bucket of dark grey paint it would certainly look Irish. Some 50% of ALL types of steam locomotives which ever ran on all of the Irish railways put together, were of the 0.6.0 wheel arrangement. 

[Broithe]

2 hours ago, Broithe said:

Hopefully, I have managed to report this without creating an emergency.

Somebody has probably just caught the bottom of the sign with the top of a turf load, or it might have just fallen off on its own.

The bits of wood that the sign was screwed to have seen better days - and the track is only bog access, there no buildings beyond it to generate any traffic that isn't aware of the bridge.

There was no evidence of any impact to the bridge itself, and two 201s passed over whilst I was there, without incident.

Mmm, thinking about this, it occurs to me that, after the exceptionally wet winter and the state the road was in after it, a 'good load' of stone was added, to improve the surface, which could, perhaps,  be a good bit higher that it has been - or was, whenever the clearance was last assessed.

I'll see if I can remember to take the means to measure it, whenever we next go there.

The reason for being so concerned about not provoking an emergency goes back to a time on the Big Island, when I found a chap in need of an ambulance, collapsed under a bridge on a disused railway, through the middle of an urban cemetery.

As is common there now, I ended up talking to a controller who had no real local knowledge and just wanted a Postcode for the location, which didn't have one, of course, even if I would have known it. I knew where I was, but he just didn't understand. I gave him the number of the A-road that ran over the bridge and described the location again, making it clear that we were under the bridge on a disused railway, in the main cemetery, within the town itself.

He typed things into his system and came to the alarming conclusion that we were under a different railway bridge, about two and a half miles away. Despite my protests, he convinced himself that I was actually under a bridge on a four-track section of the electrified West Coast Main Line, with the casualty, and we were both about to be electrocuted and run over. It was as much as I could do to stop him turning the power off.

I remember saying to him "The last train was in 1976 and there aren't even any rails here now!"

I nearly needed treatment when the yellow van turned up...

[Broithe]

On 4/8/2026 at 7:32 PM, Broithe said:

Mmm, thinking about this, it occurs to me that, after the exceptionally wet winter and the state the road was in after it, a 'good load' of stone was added, to improve the surface, which could, perhaps,  be a good bit higher that it has been - or was, whenever the clearance was last assessed.

I'll see if I can remember to take the means to measure it, whenever we next go there.

Well, it wasn't when we next went there, or even the twice after, but I finally managed to remember the laser today.

The signs suggest that 3.39m or 11'1" should be regarded as the maximum height and I didn't find anywhere under 12' or 3.65m, even on the uncrushed stone in the centre, there would be a good 2" or 50mm where the wheels of any large vehicles would have to be running.

There is about 4" or 100mm of a drop on the sign, below the actual structure of the bridge itself, but still plenty of leeway above the stated allowance.

All seems well.

 

I do wonder what the other side of this rivetted structure looks like, though.

[Barl]

27 minutes ago, Broithe said:

Well, it wasn't when we next went there, or even the twice after, but I finally managed to remember the laser today.

The signs suggest that 3.39m or 11'1" should be regarded as the maximum height and I didn't find anywhere under 12' or 3.65m, even on the uncrushed stone in the centre, there would be a good 2" or 50mm where the wheels of any large vehicles would have to be running.

There is about 4" or 100mm of a drop on the sign, below the actual structure of the bridge itself, but still plenty of leeway above the stated allowance.

All seems well.

 

I do wonder what the other side of this rivetted structure looks like, though.

I'm glad you took a picture of the good bearing shelf! From memory, if that is UBC194, the other side has timber sleepers supporting the span, which aren't in great condition! 

That structure is known as a steel trough and the other side is basically a mirror image. There's normally weep holes for drainage in the lower troughs. They're fairly robust but do tend to rust where the trough sits on the bearer/abutments in particular. 

I don't recall seeing anything about a bridge strike there but I'll have to look back and see. 

There's normally a bit of 'leeway' in the minimum height signage to account for the "I'll chance it" drivers! 

Edited 8 hours ago by Barl

[Broithe]

I don't think there was a bridge strike in the real sense.

Somebody may have caught the sign - or it may have just fallen off. The mounting arrangements are a bit degraded with time and exposure.

If it is going to be fixed, it might be as well to do the other side, too, or at least look at it, although that is less likely to be hit in a manner that would pull the sign off, as loaded vehicles depart the bog. The other sign has been hit, but would be knocked towards the real structure, rather than pulled off it.

IÉ have been aware of it for a while now, but there will be very little traffic now

 

It is 194.

Would we know how old the current trough is? It doesn't look like a modern technique.

Edited 8 hours ago by Broithe

[Barl]

38 minutes ago, Broithe said:

I don't think there was a bridge strike in the real sense.

Somebody may have caught the sign - or it may have just fallen off. The mounting arrangements are a bit degraded with time and exposure.

If it is going to be fixed, it might be as well to do the other side, too, or at least look at it, although that is less likely to be hit in a manner that would pull the sign off, as loaded vehicles depart the bog. The other sign has been hit, but would be knocked towards the real structure, rather than pulled off it.

IÉ have been aware of it for a while now, but there will be very little traffic now

 

It is 194.

Would we know how old the current trough is? It doesn't look like a modern technique.

Normally, any instance where a vehicle hits any part of a bridge, even the warning chevrons, should be reported and is recorded as a 'bridge strike' by IÉ. This then triggers a follow up structural inspection outside of the normal cycle. It could have just fallen off though as you said.

The height signs and chevrons are normally fairly lightly fixed with timber, so that they will give way if hit, and not damage the bridge itself. 

The few times I've been there I have seen turf loads coming in and out (for personal use only of course ) but it is a very lightly used road as you say. 

I'm not sure what age the bridge is. Steel troughing bridges are very common throughout the network as they were relatively quick and cheap to install without requiring large machinery. The concrete bearing shelf over the masonry abutment, does suggest that the bridge may have been raised in height at some point in its history - the original deck could have been replaced at this point.

[Broithe]

I know that it was reported about a fortnight before I did - by someone who noticed the fallen sign and doesn't have the means to have struck it. Whether it was actually struck, or the sign just fell off from the state of the wooden supports, is a moot point.

The stonework looks 'in the style' of the original bridges, but without the usual arch span.

There is a much more modern concrete bridge a bit up from there, where the Coolowley level crossing was replaced - in the 80s (?).