Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Cumbrian Railways Association have taken up this case as other bridges further along the  old SD&LU/CK&PR line are seemingly also at risk.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Round of applause 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the reason given for doing that - as a bridge reinforcement it seems a  poor civil engineering solution so was it instead meant to create a  dam to help floodwaters back up and immerse the area?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?

 

The 'excuse' for Great Musgrave was bridge reinforcement. Apparently the British civil engineering community is horrified and shamed

  • Like 7
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The 'excuse' for Great Musgrave was bridge reinforcement. Apparently the British civil engineering community is horrified and shamed

Ashamed, not shamed!

 

Shame is due to HRE, who have spent 25 times more than the cost of repairs in the name of vandalism.

But a few contractors were paid well out it, no doubt.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After the widespread horror at the treatment of Great Musgrave bridge, it may be felt that Highways England are not fit custodians of the Historical Railways Estate. I, however, view this as more of a communications issue, to be solved by amending the HRE Group logo to reflect better what it does:

 

1917481879_HRENewLogo.jpg.7ee0fbaaf4df8ce865959102bc80821c.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?

 

The 'excuse' for Great Musgrave was bridge reinforcement. Apparently the British civil engineering community is horrified and shamed

 

It is good to see such economic prudence being demonstrated by Highway England.

 

Choice A: Infill with aggregate and concrete, £124,000.

 

Choice B: Repoint the bridge's brickwork to allow the load rating uprated from 17 to 40 Tonnes, £5000.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, rocor said:

 

It is good to see such economic prudence being demonstrated by Highway England.

 

Choice A: Infill with aggregate and concrete, £124,000.

 

Choice B: Repoint the bridge's brickwork to allow the load rating uprated from 17 to 40 Tonnes, £5000.

 

Ah, but governments and their agencies - and by extension their contractors - are spending someone else's money which, by definition, is not as valuable as normal money.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the extra £119,000 shoud come out of the Highways England salary budget that might just concentrate their thinking. Oh and a pro rata reduction in pension for any of the perpetrators that have retired,  tripled if they are now 'consultants' to the contractors.

 

Don

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn those frowns upside down and look on the bright side. Modelling bridges has become really easy, no tricky arched brickwork to scribe,  just needs a kg of plaster poured in a pile  and whack a bus on top.

Edited by monkeysarefun
  • Like 2
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Turn those frowns upside down and look on the bright side. Modelling bridges has become really easy, no tricky arched brickwork to scribe,  just needs a kg of plaster poured in a pile  and whack a bus on top.

Bus? You must be joking - you don't get those in the countryside any more.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ian said:

 

Ah, but governments and their agencies - and by extension their contractors - are spending someone else's money which, by definition, is not as valuable as normal money.

 

Indeed.

 

I dislike litigation against any form of public authority.  Without fail it is characterised by:

 

(1) An incredible self-righteousness ("we are the government/council/ statutory body etc, we are always the good guys and cannot be wrong')

 

(2) Far dirtier fighting and far less integrity than is usual with commercial opponents ('Because we are the good guys and must be right, whatever we do in defence of our decisions must also be good, or, at least, justified')

 

(3)  Doubling-down, destructively if necessary, rather than change position ('While you may think that we make our priority @rse covering by the mediocrities in our organisation responsible for this mess, we assure you that we are motivated only by the public interest.  Besides, we are the good guys, so our good is the public good')

 

(4)  No imperative to settle. They are playing with other people's money, so there are really no consequences for them ('We are the good guys, incapable of acting save in the public good, so we can justify all this money on defending what you consider indefensible.  Shame on you for suing us and making us spend so much money on digging our heels in')    

 

Commercial parties, on the other hand, have a scrap and then do a deal both sides can live with. And then get on with what they are actually supposed to be doing.

 

My experience has suggested to me that there are a number of government ministers and civil servants who are, to adopt a phrase 'f-cking hopeless' and who deserved to be 'sacked multiple times'

 

I know the Egregious Cummings is an arrogant so and so convinced he is the most intelligent bloke in the room, but I can quite believe that, whilst in government, much of the time he may in fact have been right about that. 

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

The below has just been posted on Facepest by the Stainmore Railway Company page:

 

We have an update for our followers regarding the infilling of Great Musgrave Bridge by Highways England.
This was infilled under Permitted Development Rights which only allows the work to remain in place for a limited period of time before it has to be removed unless Eden District Council give their permission for it to remain.
Eden District Council have NOT given such permission and thus Highways England now have to submit a retrospective planning application.
If that is subsequently rejected by the Council, then the infill all has to be dug out and the bridge restored.
We will obviously notify our followers when the application is submitted and hope that as many of you as possible will submit an objection to the application so that it is rejected and this appalling act of vandalism to our heritage will be reversed.
THANK YOU

 

Lets hope that sense prevails and the local council does not approve retrospectively. 
 

I also noted that there is a petition to stop Highways England from infilling any more railway bridges:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/588581?fbclid=IwAR1G9umXjhTnpzMHL1M-ewoTuOTpBbPKXuSDnK2XS6xqgdJ2jEZ_dXDqHcw
 

 

Edited by NeilHB
Edit to add link to petition.
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

My experience has suggested to me that there are a number of government ministers and civil servants who are, to adopt a phrase 'f-cking hopeless' and who deserved to be 'sacked multiple times'

I'm certain that all my bosses from the Lord Chancellor's Department, Court of Protection, are now dead, but as an example of the level of stupidity in the 70s I used to recieve documents relating to my caseload, which then had to be "sent up to be filed" (filing evidence is clearly important in legal matters). It took a day each way before the document was returned with its "filed" stamp and I could then action it if necessary. One day I had an urgent requirement to action something, so rather than wait two days I carried it up two floors to the evidence filing section. I handed it over and it was stamped and returned to me. "Don't you have to enter it in a ledger as filed?" I innocently asked. "Oh no. we just stamp it". I duly (and completely circumventing protocol) sent a note to the Master of the Court explaing how this was an unnecessary delay, and that maybe the case officers should stamp their own documents as recieved and filed. I was immediately summoned to the presence, and standing in front of the Master was told in no uncertain terms that filing evidence was of vital importance and I was too lowly to do it. Explaining that the procedure was an empty sham only got me in more trouble. I did not stay long.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Round of applause 4
  • Funny 5
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, NeilHB said:

 

I also noted that there is a petition to stop Highways England from infilling any more railway bridges:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/588581?fbclid=IwAR1G9umXjhTnpzMHL1M-ewoTuOTpBbPKXuSDnK2XS6xqgdJ2jEZ_dXDqHcw
 

 

 

Signed. I encourage all UK based parishoners to do likewise.

  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Indeed.

 

I dislike litigation against any form of public authority.  Without fail it is characterised by:

 

(1) An incredible self-righteousness ("we are the government/council/ statutory body etc, we are always the good guys and cannot be wrong')

 

(2) Far dirtier fighting and far less integrity than is usual with commercial opponents ('Because we are the good guys and must be right, whatever we do in defence of our decisions must also be good, or, at least, justified')

 

(3)  Doubling-down, destructively if necessary, rather than change position ('While you may think that we make our priority @rse covering by the mediocrities in our organisation responsible for this mess, we assure you that we are motivated only by the public interest.  Besides, we are the good guys, so our good is the public good')

 

(4)  No imperative to settle. They are playing with other people's money, so there are really no consequences for them ('We are the good guys, incapable of acting save in the public good, so we can justify all this money on defending what you consider indefensible.  Shame on you for suing us and making us spend so much money on digging our heels in')    

 

Commercial parties, on the other hand, have a scrap and then do a deal both sides can live with. And then get on with what they are actually supposed to be doing.

 

My experience has suggested to me that there are a number of government ministers and civil servants who are, to adopt a phrase 'f-cking hopeless' and who deserved to be 'sacked multiple times'

 

I know the Egregious Cummings is an arrogant so and so convinced he is the most intelligent bloke in the room, but I can quite believe that, whilst in government, much of the time he may in fact have been right about that. 

 

Oh so true the only real hope is if the national audit office or a select committee finds evidence of deliberate fraud which is probably very unlikely.

 

One point I would disagree on Cummings maybe rather clever but not in my book intelligent  there is a difference an intelligent person recognises that antagonising practically everyone is not the best way to get the result you want. As for MPs and Ministers do not have to be clever/ good at their job and being  hopeless to any degree is no bar to getting elected  or being made a minister. We only have ourselves to blame complete tossers rarely lose their seat at the next election. As for civil servants I am convinced that to get to the top in the civil service is amatter if CS politics and that being right about stupid descisions is probably a bar to further promotion. I have been a civil servant during part of my career good pension rights which we retained when sold off.

I would also suggest to Webb Compound that telling your boss that you have an insoluble opportunity doesn't go down well. One boss who would always tell you to prioritise if you suggested you hadn't enough time to complete all the jobs, was totally flummoxed when I responded ok then I choose which are the important ones and which can be left.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Petition signed and I've written to my MP!

 

Since she is one of the New Blues who skipped over the Red Wall by hanging into Bozza's coat tails, she might not be too inclined to take Mr Shaps to task!

 

I'll let you know whatever platitudinous guff I get back, if anything!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

You do not have to be UK based.  But if you are not, you do need to be a UK national - signed.

Thanks - done. I am no 3,034 (I am not a number, I am a free man - oh, wait...).

  • Like 4
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed petition and posted it on Twitter also, might get some relavant exposure.

 

Highways England:

Absolute Cock-Wombles.  :-/

 

Edited by Knuckles
  • Like 4
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ian said:

 

Signed. I encourage all UK based parishoners to do likewise.

I shall sign it as well, otherwise it might spread like a virus or Katie Hopkins and start happening to railway bridges here too and we wouldn't want that.

image.png.65413eb02be85c59d78e666ddf98b2eb.png

 

Edited by monkeysarefun
  • Like 5
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, ian said:

 

Ah, but governments and their agencies - and by extension their contractors - are spending someone else's money which, by definition, is not as valuable as normal money.

Yes. 
Ultimately my money,and yours, and his, and hers, and…

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...