Many old railway bridges under threat from demolition under new scheme

[sir douglas]

this is a direct copy and paste from the Isengard website http://www.isengard.co.uk/#News

 

There is a petition opposing the destruction of historic railway bridges which may be on trackbed with the potential to be reopened or reused as footpaths. The move could be seen as a Tory cost saving move rather than facing the ongoing cost of maintenance/repair these structures: Highways England Historic Railways Estate plans to rapidly expand their demolition programme of redundant railway structures. The list attached shows 135 structures in the first tranche as published by HRE Group:

https://twitter.com/theHREgroup/status/1343533070855643137

 

and a map:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=54.497867611651664%2C-2.141808848720559&z=10&mid=14uBPUTgoOoCWI0VKCAIDg-nc5zDHSE9M

 

Press reports this week:

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/railway-heritage-at-risk-from-highways-englands-wrecking-ball/

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/plan-to-demolish-and-infill-hundreds-of-unused-rail-bridges-and-tunnels-must-be-stopped-dft-told-06-01-2021/

 

Not only are some of these bridges on aspirational route extensions for heritage railways, others could be on lines suitable for reopening to extend the national network if the government is serious about extending public transport use, and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Others may be developable as cycleways.

Highways England appear hell bent on wholesale destruction of the nation’s heritage. A lot of these are masonry arches, skills of a bygone era and mostly 150 years old. Survived Beeching, but once they are gone, they will never be rebuilt in the same way. Analogous to demolition of Stonehenge. Other bridges that are not on the list are likely to follow in subsequent tranches. Local authority ‘protected railway route’ status may not be sufficient. Highways ‘England’ remit includes Scotland and Wales.

It is important to note:

‘It is understood that Highways England has already notified local planning authorities of their intention to progress 124 schemes under permitted development powers which are only applicable when there is a threat of “serious damage to human welfare” involving the potential for death or injury. This approach circumvents the need for planning permission’.

This means that the public will not necessarily be made aware of the proposals nor have any opportunity to object as would be the case with the normal planning consultation process. You won’t know until a contractor turns up on site, then it will be too late. This was the case with Chilcompton Bridge on the S&D mentioned in the Rail Engineer report.

There is also a petition that we could ask WHR Society members to sign up to:

www.change.org/theHREgroup

It is also important to note that the recent list is only the start. There are another 3000 bridges to go with the programme lasting up to ten years. Wales has got off lightly this time with only Peblig Mill in Caernarfon and another at Pont Llanio south of Tregaron of significance. The latter is on the former Carmarthen to Aberystwyth line (which WAG is proposing to be reopened as part of a North to South Wales Coast route.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by sir douglas
wrong paragraph added

[caradoc]

Of course it is a pity when remnants of old railways disappear, but somebody has to pay to inspect, maintain and if necessary repair them, and whether that is national or local government, public finances post-Covid will be under enormous pressure, no matter what colour party is in power. Realistically, how many of the bridges are likely to be required for future rail use, whether as part of the national network or preserved lines ? And bridge demolition does not prevent use of an old trackbed for foot or cycle path use, in fact it may actually provide easier access. 

 

[96701]

Just now, caradoc said:

Of course it is a pity when remnants of old railways disappear, but somebody has to pay to inspect, maintain and if necessary repair them, and whether that is national or local government, public finances post-Covid will be under enormous pressure, no matter what colour party is in power. Realistically, how many of the bridges are likely to be required for future rail use, whether as part of the national network or preserved lines ? And bridge demolition does not prevent use of an old trackbed for foot or cycle path use, in fact it may actually provide easier access. 

 

If a road over rail bridge is filled in, it makes it more difficult for local dog walkers and mountain bikers who may have got used to using the old track bed. They will have to go up and over instead of a guzunder.

[Mike_Walker]

Were a line subsequently be rebuilt and reopened, most bridge would in any case be replaced to bring them in line with modern standards.

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

I'm not sure how much value there is in preserving some of these structures. I have been involved in reopening lines in the 12" to the foot railway, not in terms of preservation schemes but as council or government backed and commercial projects. Repairing or completely rebuilding historical estate has been one of the most significant items in the budget. Many structures do not meet modern requirements in terms of structural strength, railway or highway clearances which have to be complied with as reopening a lifted line is likely to be considered new build in this context. In many cases we found it cheaper to demolish and rebuild rather than try to bring up to modern standards. 

[MarkC]

Always a tricky one, this. However, when you ask the die-hard "You MUST preserve everything because, you know, just in case..." brigade one simple question

 

"OK, so who will pay for upkeep/maintenance/insurance liability?"

 

There's usually either a stony silence or a rant about how you're not a true rail believer etc etc...

[Sheffield]

While clearly there are two sides to this question, it does seem the Highways England are abusing their powers to push this programme through. Before such structures are destroyed there should be an opportunity for those who have an interest to discuss and review the situation.

 

There does seem to be a hint of the 1960s, with the haste to remove closed railways to prevent any chance of re-opening, especially as the Government was recently talking of such reopenings.

[Oldddudders]

This is the 'Burdensome Estate' that BRPB talked about when I was lodging with them in 1996/7. As Mark C says, we love the old bits of railway because they reach out to our nostalgic side. But just as certain business parts of BR objected to many sales of former goods yards etc "Because we might have a customer there in the future", so reality needs to kick in on old artefacts that serve no purpose. 

[Wheatley]

I had a quick look on the map at some of the ones near me, they are almost all bridges on minor roads where HE are having to maintain a bridge over nothing to keep a road open. The only thing that suprises me about any of thiem is they are still there at all and weren't filled in years ago. 

 

The  contracts for this were let last year - as well as demolition and infill of some structures they also cover inspection, stabilisation and repair of others. There is no dastardly plan to eliminate every disused structure. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

33 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

The only thing that suprises me about any of thiem is they are still there at all and weren't filled in years ago. 

One I am familiar with last saw a revenue earning service in 1947 and the line was lifted in 1951. I tried to walk part of the line 30 years ago but failed

Edited January 10, 2021 by TheSignalEngineer
Fat finger syndrome

[Zomboid]

I suppose the question is how much of the former railway network is realistically going to be reopened in the next couple of decades? Keeping hundred year old bridges in use just because they might be useful in an unforeseen future scenario isn't necessarily a great way of spending public money.

 

Obviously if there's a credible prospect of rail making a comeback on that particular route then that's a different matter, but that's probably well under 1% of the total closed routes.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Zomboid

[Jeremy Cumberland]

I see two of the bridges are on the Penrith to Keswick line, one that might feasibly be reopened at some point many years hence, but which is a very likely candidate for conversion to a foot and cycle path, to extend the incredibly popular Keswick to Threlkeld section, just reopened after repairing the storm damage from 2015. Naturally I was concerned at first, but when I saw that these were just two bridges where (very) minor roads cross over the railway, my concerns vanished. One lane goes just to one isolated house, and the other is on a rural back lane I might have driven along once in all my explorations of the area. If the railway ever reopens as a railway, then the old bridges would probably be inadequate anyway, and if the railway opens as a cycleway, level access is surely better than a bridge, to provide a route on or off. Of course, things would be different if these were main roads, but they are not.

[RANGERS]

Much though I love to trace old rail remains, the fact that so much of the estate survives is down to the lack of any need to remove it, however as the structures age and the potential for structural decay, means they will need more frequent inspection which of course cost money.

 

Intriguing that some of these structures are on little used roads in pretty remote places, two of the three in Leics are on former ironstone lines with only country lanes above. Both are pretty substantial structures and the last time I visited in 2018 were showing little sign of any real deterioration, however demolition and infill would remove the potential hazard presented by relatively narrow bridges.

 

The third one is on a B road and spans the former LNWR-GNR joint line which is now inaccessible, private land. This one is a sizeable and impressive structure bridging a deep cutting but as such will inevitably come with substantial costs for inspections and potential upkeep in the future. The road is also narrow over the bridge so its removal would bring some benefit.

[TheSignalEngineer]

4 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

One I am familiar with last saw a revenue earning service in 1947 and the line was lifted in 1951. I tried to walk part of the line 30 years ago but failed

I checked out the bridge in question, it is on a dirt track which has been washed out completely by the river on the approach to a ford about a couple of hundred yards away. Except for the hump in the road and a weight limit sign you would be hard pressed to know there is a bridge there. The course of the railway has completely disappeared on one side, the other side is a line of trees and scrubland. The bridge gives access to two fields, both of which can be accessed in alternative places. Maintaining it would be a serious waste of resoures.

[Kris]

The 2 that are local to me are both bridges due to be infilled. The line has no hope of reopening and no purpose for a cycle track so why keep the bridges?

[TheSignalEngineer]

Conversion to a cycle track doesn't mean the old bridge will be retained. The Woodhead line crossing the A628 west of Penistone was replaced by a footbridge some years ago.

The Fallowfield Loop bridge over the A57 at Gorton was taken down last year for a road improvement scheme. It is being replaced by a longer footbridge. 

[MyRule1]

There are two local to me and both have potential issues. One is on a proposed cycle way which has received some funding from the government and the second is on the line of a tentative plan to extend a current preservation site.

 

It's not the overall proposal that is the issue rather Highways England seems to be undertaking this work without and local consultation.

[jeff mcghie]

The original post (not Sir Douglas but whomever he has quoted) is so over the top as to likely put potential supporters off. Comparing standard arch bridges to Stonehenge? Seriously someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. 

 

For those (very) few structures where a realistic preservation extension/cycle path is likely I'm sure HE would be delighted to sell the maintenance liability for a nominal £.

[John Harris]

I thought confused bus drivers were busy demolishing over bridges all over the country.

 

jch 

[Reorte]

7 hours ago, Kris said:

The 2 that are local to me are both bridges due to be infilled. The line has no hope of reopening and no purpose for a cycle track so why keep the bridges?

Infilling shouldn't be an issue surely? Solves the maintenance issue and they're still there, if there is any potential future use they can be dug out again. If a bridge is needed in the future but it's not suitable, well, worry about it then.

[Zomboid]

Depends if the bridge is demolished and then the gap filled in.

 

Looking at the map, there's nothing near me where there's any hope of trains coming back (and if they did, the purchase and demolition of many large houses required to make use of the old alignment would make the bridge a drop in the ocean), and many look like they're former occupation crossings, which serve absolutely no purpose now.

[Reorte]

11 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Depends if the bridge is demolished and then the gap filled in.

 

Looking at the map, there's nothing near me where there's any hope of trains coming back (and if they did, the purchase and demolition of many large houses required to make use of the old alignment would make the bridge a drop in the ocean), and many look like they're former occupation crossings, which serve absolutely no purpose now.

I'd assumed filling in just meant burying the bridge, although I'm not quite sure just why I assumed that.

 

[dagrizz]

I photographed the one at Cosford, near Rugby, 10 years ago. It carries a bridleway but the farmer has all but filled it in anyway.  

 

 

 

 

Graham

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, jeff mcghie said:

The original post (not Sir Douglas but whomever he has quoted) is so over the top as to likely put potential supporters off. Comparing standard arch bridges to Stonehenge? Seriously someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. 

 

I also found that bit rather over the top. I get the point that I think they’re trying to make (we shouldn’t disregard certain parts of our built heritage just because they’re more recent) but I can’t see that we need to preserve absolutely every bridge (many built to a standard design) on heritage grounds alone.

 

 I still signed the petition as it appears that Highways England’s powers are being overused if they are seriously claiming that there is ‘a threat of “serious damage to human welfare” involving the potential for death or injury,’ in addition to the extra costs that would seemingly be incurred in future by likely (or even planned) reopening schemes.

[Carl]

Poor/plain misleading reporting.  135 structures, 18 of which are to be demolished (and maybe two of those repaired instead.)

 

Of the five bridges near me, one is in such a poor state of repair I'm surprised it's not demolished itself by now - it really is a welfare issue.

 

Two others are small bridges over the old railway which provide access to a single house or field, and are to be infilled.  Both have some rather large brick bridges (railway over road), close-by which are to remain.

 

Removing some in-fill from under a bridge seems a trivial job compared to rebuilding a significant overbridge, so I don't see it as a barrier to even a footpath/cycle path should that ever happen (the lines themselves will 'never' re-open, there's just too much property on both alignments these days.)

 

So if it saves us some money, I'm all for it.