Jump to content
 

Many old railway bridges under threat from demolition under new scheme


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, John-Miles said:

Sorry but most of the maths on optimsation dates from WW2 onwards when Operations Research was started for managing things like convoys. It really took off from the 60s onwards when we had computers and more recently there have been advances such as Stochastic Search Algorithms (not to be confused with algorithms used for School grades which didn't deserve the bad press they got - blame the user not the algorithm).

Optimisation in the mathematical sense, but does that apply to the critieria over the best route for a railway? (probably has a lot of applications in terms of things like signalling).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple answer is yes. You can optimise for anything; it gets more complicated when you try to optimise for several things at the same time and there have to be compromises. Rather than thinking of optimal solutions, it's better to think and talk about good solutions.

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

  • 1 month later...
  • RMweb Premium

I've just been reading about this story again and am now even more convinced this is a lot of indignation over nothing.  One of the "controversial" locations is at Barcombe on the "Bluebell's potential Southern extension to Lewes".

 

Is this the same Southern extension that the Bluebell Railway generally plays down any real interest in, because it offers them nothing except a lot of extra expense?  Since the bridge South of Sheffield Park is already missing, presumably a replacement would need to be higher to meet modern regulations, so would require significant gradient increases for the railway on either side.

 

I do find myself irritated by another use of a certain BR Chairman's name to belittle what is being proposed, "Finishing off what Beeching started".  In absolutely no way did Beeching start railway closures; the Bluebell line closed the year before he was appointed while some on this list closed at least a decade before.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main reason people get up in arms about such bridges being replaced or removed is because they know it will be replaced with a bland and generic concrete slab. If any replacement bridges were to be faced with local stone and built to incorporate an arch or other classical architectural features, people wouldn't cling on to old redundant structures in the same way. If the GWML electrification project had used Brunelian architecture and local stone, people would be less perturbed about some old bridge in the middle of a field getting knocked down and filled in. Once beautiful wayside halts, with a small stone waiting room built to compliment the local architecture, lit by neoclassical style cast iron lamps, are now just a plexiglass box lit by LEDs on the end of anonymous steel tubes. Until companies rediscover the effect of beautiful architecture on the human psyche, we'll be doomed to a bland, cheap and generic world.

 

Regards,

 

Jack

Edited by Rods_of_Revolution
  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

I think the main reason people get up in arms about such bridges being replaced or removed is because they know it will be replaced with a bland and generic concrete slab.

 

I think this is less relevant in this case though - as far as I can tell it’s a list of redundant bridges which supposedly need to be removed and not replaced.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At lot - certainly all the ones in my area - are just being infilled, so aren’t being either removed or replaced.  Presumably that saves a load on annual checks and maintenance, at the expense of a few wagons full of hardcore and a few hours effort.

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

On 14/01/2021 at 20:21, Northmoor said:

On another thread maybe a year ago - sorry, can't remember which one - someone who had been involved in a drafting a business case into the Keswick re-opening, wrote some interesting detail.

 

If I remember rightly, the original line could not be used in its original form, as the line speed would have been too low.  This seriously impacted the point-to-point timings, so much so that a Carlisle to Keswick shuttle (hourly or whatever was considered necessary to be attractive) could only be achieved with three units instead of two.  It killed the business case, so significant realignment would have been required to allow up to perhaps 90mph.  I believe that further detailed design work wasn't done, but there is an assumption that building a brand new alignment isn't substantially more expensive, than restoring a formation that hasn't been maintained for nearly fifty years. 

As others have said, a modern DMU with over 1000hp available for 3 coaches will laugh at some of the gradients that an Ivatt Class 2 (or 1st Gen DMU) would have struggled to climb at 20mph.

 

Just catching up on this thread.  When I lived in Carlisle in the mid-2000's I was quite interested in the scheme to re-open the Keswick line, and in the local press at the time there seemed to be a lot of positivity that seemed to fly in the face of local and higher political opinion and will.  I vaguely remember someone high-up being quoted as saying the railway couldn't be reopened because an embankment had been undermined by rabbits, and that seemed to be his main reason for shooting down the scheme.  Weren't a number of the old bridges damaged or destroyed in floods too in more recent years?  Probably as good an excuse as any opponents to the scheme would need to shoot it down.

 

Is it easier to restore rails to an old route than build a new one?  Politically, rather than from an engineering viewpoint, I mean.  Given the restrictions on development in the Lakes, I could imagine people raising absolute hell over the idea of building a whole new line with massive earthworks, white-concrete retaining walls and bridges, and tunnels through the hills, and the vastly inflated cost of a new-build route, just to serve a market town in the middle of nowhere, would surely be a non-starter.

 

Sadly I can't see it ever being reopened, no matter what people say about railways bringing more people into the Lake District, to replace road use; Oxenholme-Windemere isn't exactly capitalised on, is it...  A terminus station like that ought to have a second platform and line to accept excursions alongside the usual DMU traffic, rather than the classic 'long siding to a bare platform' approach.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 13/03/2021 at 21:18, Ben B said:

Is it easier to restore rails to an old route than build a new one?  Politically, rather than from an engineering viewpoint, I mean. 

Yes. I expect environmental impact assessments need to be done just the same, but the fact that there used to be a railway there, and within living memory too, takes a lot of the sting out of whatever public objections there might be.

 

However, in the case of Penrith to Keswick, I imagine there would be considerable public support, should a serious proposal ever emerge. People will want to keep the footpath/cycleway between Keswick and Threlkeld, which was incredibly popular during the brief period over Christmas/New Year between its reopening following the 2015 storm damage and the subsequent Tier 4 and Lockdown restrictions, but cycleways alongside railways are nothing new. There would be plenty of local support for making the A66 dual carriageway, and this would have a far greater environmental impact.

 

I live west of Keswick, so unless they open it at least as far as Cockermouth, it won't be much use to me, but you never know, perhaps Boris will decide to build a tunnel to Northern Ireland from England rather than Scotland, so he'll want a shorter route to Whitehaven. Perhaps they could dig the new coal mine to UIC loading gauge...

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

  • 4 months later...

Truly horrific treatment of Great Musgrave bridge. Clearly Highways England are not fit custodians of the Historical Railways Estate.

 

Great-Musgrave-bridge-after-infilling-1024x683.jpg.e70d87606df8c8b7977d4e5519aa1a80.jpg

 

This is what has, effectively, been destroyed:

 

1897275542_GreatMusgraveBridge.jpg.a987e406f4e9741e376d108a043fbc24.jpg

 

1862. Last line to become part of the Stockton and Darlington before amalgamation with the NER.

 

Gone.

 

B*stards,

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 10/01/2021 at 16:27, Mike_Walker said:

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

 

 

This was taken to extremes in Co. Kerry recently when a railway bridge over a stream was rebuilt. The railway closed in the 70s, was used as a greenway since the 00s, and was upgraded for cyclists!

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Truly horrific treatment of Great Musgrave bridge. Clearly Highways England are not fit custodians of the Historical Railways Estate.

 

Great-Musgrave-bridge-after-infilling-1024x683.jpg.e70d87606df8c8b7977d4e5519aa1a80.jpg

 

This is what has, effectively, been destroyed:

 

1897275542_GreatMusgraveBridge.jpg.a987e406f4e9741e376d108a043fbc24.jpg

 

1862. Last line to become part of the Stockton and Darlington before amalgamation with the NER.

 

Gone.

 

B*stards,

It's called progress! It's the 21st century, no place for things like stone arches any more, cheer on the big heap of concrete rather than that archaic stuff! Got to have modern standards, and those appear to include "look as bloody awful as possible."

 

At least it looks like it's been buried rather than completely destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, Reorte said:

It's called progress! It's the 21st century, no place for things like stone arches any more, cheer on the big heap of concrete rather than that archaic stuff! Got to have modern standards, and those appear to include "look as bloody awful as possible."

 

At least it looks like it's been buried rather than completely destroyed.

 

How easy would that be to break up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

How easy would that be to break up?

Not easy, but harder things than that have been done - some canals have been restored that were filled in with concrete when closed.

 

To be fair a bridge with no actual function any more still carries a maintenance cost, so filling them in is understandable, although it's a crying shame that it can't be done in a less hamfisted fashion. It's not unreasonable, although I can't say I like it or have any enthusiasm and see it as yet another (small) practical yet depressing change.

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

6 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Truly horrific treatment of Great Musgrave bridge. Clearly Highways England are not fit custodians of the Historical Railways Estate.

 

Great-Musgrave-bridge-after-infilling-1024x683.jpg.e70d87606df8c8b7977d4e5519aa1a80.jpg

 

This is what has, effectively, been destroyed:

 

1897275542_GreatMusgraveBridge.jpg.a987e406f4e9741e376d108a043fbc24.jpg

 

1862. Last line to become part of the Stockton and Darlington before amalgamation with the NER.

 

Gone.

 

B*stards,

 

I am a person of centrist moderate political views but anyone who thinks this  is progress should be taken out into a public square and shot.

 

Provisional Wing of the John Betjeman Society.

  • Like 6
  • Agree 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
52 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Not easy, but harder things than that have been done - some canals have been restored that were filled in with concrete when closed.

 

To be fair a bridge with no actual function any more still carries a maintenance cost, so filling them in is understandable, although it's a crying shame that it can't be done in a less hamfisted fashion. It's not unreasonable, although I can't say I like it or have any enthusiasm and see it as yet another (small) practical yet depressing change.

 

Off the top of my head the estimated cost to repair and repoint to take normal weight was about £40k and the amount spent to make it look like an avelanche was about £200k. Madness.

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

I read this the other it looks to je someone in highways England is empire building 

Unfortunately it's trait of modern society where someone comes up with something which alleges that public safety is at risk shouts very loudly and no one will dare to oppose them 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing they've done wrong with the Great Musgrave bridge is miss the opportunity to knock the b****y thing down altogether, use it as hardcore to fill in the cutting and straighten the bend out. Because of the bridge it's an awful blind junction on a country lane which hasn't needed to be there since the line closed. 

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

4 hours ago, fezza said:

 

I am a person of centrist moderate political views but anyone who thinks this  is progress should be taken out into a public square and shot.

 

Provisional Wing of the John Betjeman Society.

Christ that's a hatchet job. Sorry for your loss.

 

Edited by Georgeconna
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

This was taken to extremes in Co. Kerry recently when a railway bridge over a stream was rebuilt. The railway closed in the 70s, was used as a greenway since the 00s, and was upgraded for cyclists!

Waterford Greenway lots of Concrete RTP boxes where the cattle runs were. Sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

The only thing they've done wrong with the Great Musgrave bridge is miss the opportunity to knock the b****y thing down altogether, use it as hardcore to fill in the cutting and straighten the bend out. Because of the bridge it's an awful blind junction on a country lane which hasn't needed to be there since the line closed. 

 

But it's on a trackbed that is hopefully going to be reused.  

I'm not the greatest fan of preserved railway and almost had an accident on a similar bridge over the north norfolk on Sunday but I don't want some over zealous idiot to come up with a plan to fill it in!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Wheatley said:

The only thing they've done wrong with the Great Musgrave bridge is miss the opportunity to knock the b****y thing down altogether, use it as hardcore to fill in the cutting and straighten the bend out. Because of the bridge it's an awful blind junction on a country lane which hasn't needed to be there since the line closed. 

Or they could change the priority of the junction so the main line is straight across the bridge. It's not as if we're talking fast roads where having to give way even if you're going with the main traffic flow is going to be a needless frustration. A bit of paint is cheaper than a lot of concrete. It's also not the type of road where corners get smoothed out anyway; even if there had never been a railway and a bridge there the actual layout would be the same and the road unlikely to be re-engineered. The problem isn't the bridge, the problem is the direction of priority through a T-junction.

 

edit: looking at it on Streetview (rather than just the aerial pictures) the sighting's probably better as it is, although turning right in to the smaller road, which I can't imagine gets very much traffic at all, looks a bit iffy.

Edited by Reorte
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "HRE Group", it turns out, has nothing to do with Highways England, who sent me the email below:   

 

Highways England’s Historical Railways Estate (HE HRE) team has been responsible for the maintenance what was formerly the burdensome estate on behalf of the Department for Transport, since BRB (Residuary) Ltd was abolished in September 2013.

 

A journalist started to call himself The HRE Group in December 2020 and has no role or responsibility.

 

HE HRE infilled the bridge at Great Musgrave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 10/01/2021 at 15:42, sir douglas said:

The move could be seen as a Tory cost saving move rather than facing the ongoing cost of maintenance/repair these structures.

All governments spend too much money (which we are forced to give them). Unless there is a material detriment experienced by a significant proportion of the population then I'm in favour. A bridge that hardly anyone uses(*) is not a bridge. It's a waste of resources and/or a potential danger due to neglect.

 

Mind you I'm a little sceptical of how much some old bridges cost to maintain. There's one at Brackley that has a public foot path over and under it - a well signed path to a local park in fact - that often has stones on the ground underneath it.

 

https://goo.gl/maps/gdxav9o48wodUFQZA

http://mkttransport.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/DSC_0012-1-1024x683.jpg

 

(http://mkttransport.co.uk/photography/disused-railways-in-focus-brackley/)

"Today the section of line west of Brackley high street has become a walking and cycling route, allowing it to be walked for a short distance up to the former Banbury Road bridge, where a new junction with the A422 bypass has cut off the route. "

 

It is a moderately interesting feature so it'd be a shame if it were removed. On the other hand it'd be an even bigger shame if someone got killed by falling masonry and I'd struggle to justify the cost of renovating it.

 

(*)I include 'a lot of people like to look at it' as 'usage'.

Edited by AndrueC
  • Like 1
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...