Forums Forums Traffic Signs TSRGD 2016 Depth Gauge – 826/826.1

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3412
    JulieW
    Participant

    I’ve just discovered that the above depth gauge is no longer permitted under TSRGD 2016. Does anyone know why, I can’t find any discussion about it? Is there a replacement gauge I am missing?
    Thanks

    #4037

    SimonMorgan
    May 2017 edited November 2018

    I asked this very question at the DfT’s Traffic Signs Technical Working Party in June 2016. The answer I got (as it appears in the official minutes) was: “WD [DfT] replied that it could possibly be installed using the Planning Regulations, whilst MY [Highways England] thought that the Environment Agency had their own powers to install these”.

    More recently, a draft of the new Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 4 has been given a limited circulation for ‘peer review’. Whilst discussing fords, it makes no mention of depth gauges. The IHE made strong representations that they should be included, as their omission from Chapter 4 implies that DfT thinks these devices are no longer necessary and that authorities may remove them. The IHE considers that would be dangerous and could lead to lives being lost.

    #4038

    SimonMorgan
    November 2018

    I am pleased to say that the water depth indicator is illustrated in the newly published version of TSM Chapter 4, with a note that it needs to be authorised by the relevant national authority.

    That’s great news, but a somewhat backward step for a previously prescribed signs to now need site authorisation. Also, it’s a pity that DfT didn’t accede to IHE’s other suggestion for this sign – to replace “M” with “m” as the correct international abbreviation for metres.

    #4039

    BrynBuck
    December 2018

    I hope the logic was *new* sites requiring depth indicators should not be built; hopefully replacement of existing ones will not require site specific authorisation.

    Likewise I suppose where flooding happens under bridges the argument is “well fix the flooding”?

    Hopefully a future TSRGD will undo what appears to be a blunder.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.