An unusual London traffic incident today. A tall ship, the Lord Nelson,
struck Tower Bridge in an unsuccessful attempt to do a U-turn when the
skipper realised the bridge wasn't going to open.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3717685.stm:
"The operators of the Lord Nelson thought they had requested the bridge
open for its journey from Southampton to West India Dock."

Hmm. They seem to have gone a couple of miles past the entrance to West
India Dock.

"Andy Spark, from the Jubilee Sailing Trust, said: 'We believed the
bridge was booked, but it didn't open - we don't know why yet.' ... But
the Corporation of London, which owns Tower Bridge, said: 'No lifting of
the bridge had been booked in.' ... The Lord Nelson, a training vessel
for both able-bodied and disabled people, has now moored at West India
Dock."

Did they perhaps confuse Tower Bridge with the lifting bridge over
Prestons Road that provides entry to West India Dock?

Anyway, I'm surprised that any sailing vessel would carry on towards the
bridge just hoping that it might lift, though to be fair the incoming
tide would have carried her towards the bridge. (Crossposted to
uk.rec.sailing for more informed comments on this aspect.)
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:06:41 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:


Richard J. wrote:
An unusual London traffic incident today. A tall ship, the Lord Nelson,
struck Tower Bridge in an unsuccessful attempt to do a U-turn when the
skipper realised the bridge wasn't going to open.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3717685.stm:
"The operators of the Lord Nelson thought they had requested the bridge
open for its journey from Southampton to West India Dock."


That link is dead,

Due to a trailing colon in the orginal message, try
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3717685.stm

and there are no search results for this on the BBC news site.

But there's a report on it he
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...52&p=yx43x6558

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
An unusual London traffic incident today. A tall ship, the Lord
Nelson, struck Tower Bridge in an unsuccessful attempt to do a
U-turn when the skipper realised the bridge wasn't going to open.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3717685.stm:
"The operators of the Lord Nelson thought they had requested the
bridge open for its journey from Southampton to West India Dock."


That link is dead, and there are no search results for this on the BBC
news site.

But there's a report on it he
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...52&p=yx43x6558

Andy

The link worked for me.

Richard J. wrote:
An unusual London traffic incident today. A tall ship, the Lord Nelson,
struck Tower Bridge in an unsuccessful attempt to do a U-turn when the
skipper realised the bridge wasn't going to open.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3717685.stm:
"The operators of the Lord Nelson thought they had requested the bridge
open for its journey from Southampton to West India Dock."


That link is dead, and there are no search results for this on the BBC
news site.

But there's a report on it he
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...52&p=yx43x6558

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
An unusual London traffic incident today. A tall ship, the Lord
Nelson, struck Tower Bridge in an unsuccessful attempt to do a
U-turn when the skipper realised the bridge wasn't going to open.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3717685.stm:
"The operators of the Lord Nelson thought they had requested the
bridge open for its journey from Southampton to West India Dock."


That link is dead, and there are no search results for this on the
BBC news site.

Did your newsreader include the punctuation in the link? (OE doesn't.)
Putting either "tall ship" or "Tower Bridge" in the BBC News search box
finds the report straight away. Not a good day for navigation, is it?
:-)

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3717685.stm:

That link is dead, and there are no search
results for this on the BBC news site.

Did your newsreader include the punctuation in the
link? (OE doesn't.) Putting either "tall ship" or "Tower
Bridge" in the BBC News search box finds the report
straight away. Not a good day for navigation, is it?

LOL.

I heard that the bridge was left down because the ship hadn't paid the
congestion charge.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Richard J. wrote:
An unusual London traffic incident today. A tall ship, the Lord
Nelson, struck Tower Bridge in an unsuccessful attempt to do a U-turn
when the skipper realised the bridge wasn't going to open.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3717685.stm:
"The operators of the Lord Nelson thought they had requested the
bridge open for its journey from Southampton to West India Dock."

Hmm. They seem to have gone a couple of miles past the entrance to
West India Dock.

"Andy Spark, from the Jubilee Sailing Trust, said: 'We believed the
bridge was booked, but it didn't open - we don't know why yet.' ...
But the Corporation of London, which owns Tower Bridge, said: 'No
lifting of the bridge had been booked in.' ... The Lord Nelson, a
training vessel for both able-bodied and disabled people, has now
moored at West India Dock."

Did they perhaps confuse Tower Bridge with the lifting bridge over
Prestons Road that provides entry to West India Dock?

Anyway, I'm surprised that any sailing vessel would carry on towards
the bridge just hoping that it might lift, though to be fair the
incoming tide would have carried her towards the bridge.
(Crossposted to uk.rec.sailing for more informed comments on this
aspect.)

Perhaps they didn't recognise the bridge.

Remove "nospam" from return address.

LOL.

I heard that the bridge was left down because the ship hadn't paid the
congestion charge.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped

Nice one, John!

Marc.

In message , Richard J.
writes
"Andy Spark, from the Jubilee Sailing Trust, said: 'We believed the
bridge was booked, but it didn't open - we don't know why yet.' ... But
the Corporation of London, which owns Tower Bridge, said: 'No lifting of
the bridge had been booked in.'

From having done a tour of the bridge I'm pretty sure that vessels
requiring it to lift have to call in on the radio, that all bigger
vessels have to carry. I wonder why the Tall Ship didn't (either have
such a radio, or use it).

The Thames bridges also have "traffic lights" for vessels, so this is
actually a SPAD as well!
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message ,
Richard J. writes
"Andy Spark, from the Jubilee Sailing Trust, said: 'We believed the
bridge was booked, but it didn't open - we don't know why yet.'
... But the Corporation of London, which owns Tower Bridge, said:
'No lifting of the bridge had been booked in.'

From having done a tour of the bridge I'm pretty sure that vessels
requiring it to lift have to call in on the radio, that all bigger
vessels have to carry. I wonder why the Tall Ship didn't (either
have such a radio, or use it).

One news report said that the Tower Pier lifeboat crew heard the Lord
Nelson on the radio asking for the bridge to be lifted, but all lifts
have to be booked in advance, and this one apparently wasn't.

The Thames bridges also have "traffic lights" for vessels, so this
is actually a SPAD as well!

I doubt it. AFAIK the lights are to show which bridge arches are
available for navigation. There was no reason to stop vessels passing
under the bridge, but it's the skipper's job to ensure he has enough
headroom.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)