Many old railway bridges under threat from demolition under new scheme

[Wheatley]

8 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

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.

 

4 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

 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,’ 

The bridge I think TheSignalEngineer refers to was replaced by a footbridge because it was remodelled by a container lorry some years ago, the container landed on the car behind killing the driver. 

 

The 'death or serious injury risk' isn't just the structure falling down, it's completely pointless structures presentng an ongoing and unnecessary hazard. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

34 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

 

The bridge I think TheSignalEngineer refers to was replaced by a footbridge because it was remodelled by a container lorry some years ago, the container landed on the car behind killing the driver. 

 

The 'death or serious injury risk' isn't just the structure falling down, it's completely pointless structures presentng an ongoing and unnecessary hazard. 

Likewise the bridge bash on the Cromford and High Peak recently. A listed structure about 150 years old it had cast parts which shattered and it collapsed. Fortunately there was no other traffic close enough to hit or trail users crossing at the time.

[PatB]

No one is more inclined than me to hang on to stuff that might come in useful one day, and I always hate to see the permanent disposal of stuff, especially if it's old and/or difficult to replace. However, I have to recognise that the world is not my personal theme park or storage unit, and so, if things are no longer required or fit for purpose and, moreover, carry a cost, whether financial or in risk or opportunity, there needs to be a pretty compelling and specific argument for retention. Vague handwaving "it's old" and "a yet to be formed bunch of skint dreamers might want it" aren't really enough. 

 

On heritage grounds, I don't think there is any realistic prospect of the UK ever running out of masonry arch railway bridges, and so, unless a bridge has some specific historical significance, I'd say that isn't sufficient reason, in itself, to keep it. 

 

And, no, much as I like Victorian masonry, the bridges in question are not comparable, in any universe, to Stonehenge. 

[009 micro modeller]

This thread reminds me of one of the bridges on the Hatfield to St Albans branch. The bridge deck over the road has been removed for years, but the road dips to go under the bridge. Despite the fact that in the absence of a structure over the road it no longer needs to do this, the road has not been  smoothed out in any way to get rid of the dip, causing the road at that point to flood fairly frequently.

Edited January 12, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[melmerby]

I looked at one on the old Allandale branch at Saward Station

The Station area and house is now privately owned, most of the rest of the trackbed nearby has been obliterated through absorbtion into the farm land no other bridges survive.

So why keep a narrow crumbling bridge?)It's slated to be infilled.

 

IMHO the chances of the Keswick line re-opening are receding into the distance rapidly, year on year.

A while back I thought it had a chance but things are becoming more and more against it.

The floods in 2015 didn't help either.

[Zomboid]

5 hours ago, melmerby said:

IMHO the chances of the Keswick line re-opening are receding into the distance rapidly, year on year.

A while back I thought it had a chance but things are becoming more and more against it.

The floods in 2015 didn't help either.

I generally take the view that if places like Keswick deserve reconnection to the rail network, getting hung up on the Victorian alignment won't help much. It would be an all new railway at this point anyway, so just design and build a 21st century alignment rather than reintroduce 19th century limitations.

 

Though of course old alignments can be suitable starting points if they've not been built on, sold off and generally made unfeasible in the intervening time since closure.

[eastglosmog]

I think the map is a bit inaccurate.  It shows one bridge near me on the Great Rollright road to Hook Norton as due to be demolished.  It was knocked down at least 20 years ago!

[MyRule1]

16 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

I think the map is a bit inaccurate.  It shows one bridge near me on the Great Rollright road to Hook Norton as due to be demolished.  It was knocked down at least 20 years ago!

You may be correct but the proposals do include places where abutments etc remain. In your exmple is their an abutment on the left?

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I generally take the view that if places like Keswick deserve reconnection to the rail network, getting hung up on the Victorian alignment won't help much. It would be an all new railway at this point anyway, so just design and build a 21st century alignment rather than reintroduce 19th century limitations.

 

Though of course old alignments can be suitable starting points if they've not been built on, sold off and generally made unfeasible in the intervening time since closure.

Most of the Keswick line goes through the National Park, you might find it very hard to get any permission at all to do anything other than follow the original alignment, although probably the most awkward bit to deal with on the existing alignment isn't (I'm assuming it would still have to go along the Greta, you're probably talking very serious gradients or lots of tunnelling otherwise, which would be prohibitively expensive).

 

To be honest I'd often prefer nothing over a 21st century effort, but that's me.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Reorte

[Zomboid]

They weren't idiots when they built the routes to start with, so chances are they weren't far away from the optimal route. But that's not to say that it makes sense to be slaves to what was done then now that the old route is pretty much lost anyhow, they were designing and building for the traction capabilities and traffic requirements of the day, which bear almost no resemblance to what trains can do and need to do today. A crumbling bridge which would need rebuilding to be any use is neither here nor there in that context.

 

The national park authority will probably be able to make putting the old route back just as hard as a new alignment if they're minded to - though having better non-road access to the north lakes is something that they might be in favour of.

 

A rebuilt route on the old alignment will probably look very much like a 21st century railway anyway because it'll have to be built to modern standards no matter what. Oxford to Bicester doesn't look very Victorian, even though it's on the LNWRs alignment.

[Reorte]

The bit I was thinking of was around Flusco, a rather long loop and I think some of it's been developed on anyway. It's also not in the National Park, so it's probably the most likely candidate for diversion from the original alignment (and possibly whatever would work out easiest to get across the A66 a bit further along, the original route also cutting back and forth through a few other roads with not much trace left, all of which makes that part sound expensive). All in the rather unlikely event of it happening.

 

Like I said the (it has to be said very intense) dislike of anything new that gets built is just me. Probably why I regard the removal of the old a bit sadly, although in this particular case it has to be said I can't get too worked up about it.

[sir douglas]

i really must take the time to think things through before posting things. i fully admit i was taken in by the "destroying our heritage" slant by that website and posted here thinking that this view would be supported, then read and agree with all your replies.  i should also state that i have no connection to Isengard.co.uk and it isnt an official Ffestiniog or Welsh Highland website so doesnt reflect any views of the F&WHR.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

There's no need to regret posting. The subject is of interest to many of us, and it is only when we collectively look at the bridges listed in our own areas that we can see that there is nothing much to worry about (well, not for most of us at any rate). I don't know about others, but I for one quite like knowing about changes to the railway heritage near me, whether good or bad, so thank you for bringing this to my attention.

[TheSignalEngineer]

6 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

I think the map is a bit inaccurate.  It shows one bridge near me on the Great Rollright road to Hook Norton as due to be demolished. 

Your post got me looking again at Google Earth for the bridge I was referring to in my first post. It is on the Bearley to Alcester line near to Great Alne. The line is visible for much of its length on the aerial photos but completely obliterated at the Alcester end. The only other structure I know of is Great Alne station which has been a private house for many years. This is looking towards the location of the bridge in question, the only evidence I can find in favour of its existence is a weak bridge sign on the approach from the other side. The railway was somewhere just beyond the trees in the field to the left.

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

4 hours ago, sir douglas said:

i really must take the time to think things through before posting things. i fully admit i was taken in by the "destroying our heritage" slant by that website and posted here thinking that this view would be supported, then read and agree with all your replies.

I'm glad you posted as it prompted the discussion and drew attention to the present ownership of these assets, which is an organisation with no interest in promoting future railway use.

At face value the list seems harsh, but in reality many of the lines should never have been built and especially after the amount of spare road transport available at knock down prices after WW1 rarely if ever made a significant contribution to the railway profits. 

The line I was commenting on above closed in WW1 so the rails could be used elsewhere, was relaid in 1922, closed again in 1939 and was only reopened in 1941 because a shadow factory was built near to the terminus following the Coventry blitz. By 1947 traffic was slightly above zero.

[96701]

When working for BR we were given the job of infilling a road over rail bridge which led to a sawmill at Kings Cliffe, and the weight restriction on the bridge was giving the company some delivery difficulties. The only way to remove the weight limit was to earth up either side of the bridge, drill holes through the bridge deck and fill the void with concrete.

 

If anybody wishes to extend the Nene Valley Railway much further west , there will be a heck of a breakthrough to organise

[melmerby]

31 minutes ago, 96701 said:

 

 

If anybody wishes to extend the Nene Valley Railway much further west , there will be a heck of a breakthrough to organise

 

 

Probably just blow it up and start again!

The Bluebell northern extension involved some very some serious work to remove Imberhome tip.

The Great Central's new bridge over the Midland was hardly a simple job either.

[melmerby]

9 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I generally take the view that if places like Keswick deserve reconnection to the rail network, getting hung up on the Victorian alignment won't help much. It would be an all new railway at this point anyway, so just design and build a 21st century alignment rather than reintroduce 19th century limitations.

 

Though of course old alignments can be suitable starting points if they've not been built on, sold off and generally made unfeasible in the intervening time since closure.

The problem getting to Keswick is the Greta Gorge which doesn't leave much room for anything away from the current route.

IMHO From Penrith to Threlkeld is fairly easy with alternatves available to by-pass obstructions but once you get to the gorge after passing under the A66 it gets much more constrained and this is the section of about three miles, much of which was virtually oblterated by the 2015 storm, showing a very vunerable route.

[Zomboid]

I'm not saying that the old route is no good, just that a new railway shouldn't be constrained by it given that it'll need to be a totally new railway anyway.

 

Woodhead is another example - the old tunnels are now full of electricity and water, and the old route was a twisty turny hilly affair. If a new Manchester to Sheffield line is needed it's probably going to be better and not much more expensive to build a longer tunnel under the Woodhead pass at a lower elevation designed to allow trains to run at 125, rather than to reroute the 400kV cables to allow trains to run on a route constrained by Victorian designs at 70 or so.

 

[sir douglas]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

 

 

Probably just blow it up and start again!

The Bluebell northern extension involved some very some serious work to remove Imberhome tip.

 

 

didnt they also find an explosive charge still int he cutting side

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I'm not saying that the old route is no good, just that a new railway shouldn't be constrained by it given that it'll need to be a totally new railway anyway.

 

Woodhead is another example - the old tunnels are now full of electricity and water, and the old route was a twisty turny hilly affair. If a new Manchester to Sheffield line is needed it's probably going to be better and not much more expensive to build a longer tunnel under the Woodhead pass at a lower elevation designed to allow trains to run at 125, rather than to reroute the 400kV cables to allow trains to run on a route constrained by Victorian designs at 70 or so.

 

I would agree that any attempt at another cross Pennine route should be a new line and be to Channel Tunnel sizes to permit a lorry shuttle across the country. The original tunnels are now sealed up. The supergrid cables are now in the 1954 tunnel. That tunnel is said not to be compliant with current regulations for a new line. the alignment from Hadfield through Deepcar  to Sheffield is quite good, the curves and gradients were worse in the Worsborough area of the Wath line IIRC. Going from Penistone to Sheffield on the remaining line via Barnsley is a flask and sandwiches job, 12 miles as the crow flies, 24 miles at about 30mph by train.

Besides the old tunnel works problems east of Hadfield include Torside Crossing and Woodhead Dam, the level of which was raised after line closure. West of Hadfield the Dinting and Broadbottom viaducts would need replacing. The track and signalling at Dinting is arranged so that you can't even get two Class 323 units on the viaduct at the same time. There were a lot of people holding their breath a few years ago when somebody approved running a football special from Glossop with top & tail 47s. One was giving trouble and a Thunderbird was attached to one end in addition. It went over the viaduct at walking pace. 

[Northmoor]

I've had a look through the list and of the ones I recognise the locations, many of those lines were early closures, not just pre-Beeching but in some cases passenger services ceased not that long after the Grouping (e.g. the Wooler branch).  Hardly lines that thousands of people are campaigning to re-open to improve their commute.

Comparing these bridges with Stonehenge is nonsense as well, although since the Stonehenge we see now was actually partly restored by the Victorians, it's hardly an undisturbed Ancient Monument either.

[big jim]

i can think of one bridge near me which i fully expected to be on that list but no, its the first bridge out of nantwich on the whitchurch road A525 which is fully in situ with traffic lights on it, surely a candidate for demolishion and a new level road 

 

Dropped pin
Near 1 Baddington Ln, Nantwich
https://goo.gl/maps/hXTRPLgMmXF6e3oT8

 

 

its over the old market drayton to nantwich line which shut in 1967 and the track was lifted in 1970 so its stood there for 50 odd years unused, the road is now quite a busy route from the M6  for lorries heading to new big warehouses in whitchurch and ironically tankers going to muller dairy in market drayton (which used to be one of the main local produce carried by the railway on that line

 

 

[dagrizz]

11 hours ago, sir douglas said:

i really must take the time to think things through before posting things. 

 

As someone whose main sources of information are the BBC and RMweb, I appreciate posts such as yours that tell me what is going on in the world that I otherwise would not get to hear about, so please continue to flag them. It's good to know what is proposed, irrespective of whether you approve of it or not.

 

Thanks

Graham

[black and decker boy]

11 hours ago, big jim said:

i can think of one bridge near me which i fully expected to be on that list but no, its the first bridge out of nantwich on the whitchurch road A525 which is fully in situ with traffic lights on it, surely a candidate for demolishion and a new level road 

 

Dropped pin
Near 1 Baddington Ln, Nantwich
https://goo.gl/maps/hXTRPLgMmXF6e3oT8

 

 

its over the old market drayton to nantwich line which shut in 1967 and the track was lifted in 1970 so its stood there for 50 odd years unused, the road is now quite a busy route from the M6  for lorries heading to new big warehouses in whitchurch and ironically tankers going to muller dairy in market drayton (which used to be one of the main local produce carried by the railway on that line

 

 

It’s a murky world in terms of asset ownership. It’s possible that bridge has passed to the local Highway authority at some stage but they lack the funding to replace with a wider bridge (which would be a few £m).

 

I am be dealing with a scheme in Buckinghamshire where an arch bridge crosses a railway closed by Beeching. The track bed was sold off but the bridge asset is now with Highways England. There is a clause in the bridge agreement that if the local council want to change its form or change traffic either above or below, then HE will transfer ownership (and hence all future upkeep) to the council. Something as simple as adding traffic lights would trigger the transfer.