Many old railway bridges under threat from demolition under new scheme

[Wheatley]

12 hours ago, russ p said:

 

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

 

They've got a much bigger problem 50 yards south of the Musgrave bridge, there's an entire viaduct missing. 

 

Anyway - "However, Highways England says that it has ‘preserved the structure’ and will remove all the infill for free if the heritage rail plans ever come to anything." ( https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/highways-england-accused-of-rail-heritage-vandalism ). Personally I think their money is safe. 

 

11 hours ago, Reorte said:

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.

The road was realigned when the railway was built, albeit not hugely. Changing the priorities will just make it easier for traffic coming from Brough to hit you as you try to turn left from the Kirkby Stephen direction. 

Edited July 21, 2021 by Wheatley

[AndrueC]

On 17/01/2021 at 13:56, John-Miles said:

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.

I'm a computer programmer and agree with this sentiment. It's a problem I face frequently, especially when working on live/legacy systems. Add in the resources available for modification and 'It'll have to do as it is' is sadly sometimes the only option.

[AndrueC]

15 hours ago, russ p 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 

 

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Wheatley said:

The road was realigned when the railway was built, albeit not hugely. Changing the priorities will just make it easier for traffic coming from Brough to hit you as you try to turn left from the Kirkby Stephen direction. 

That's why I changed my mind a bit after having had a look on Streetview. In the very unlikely event any engineering of the road was done there just moving the junction a little to the east would probably be simpler than filling in the cutting and completely removing the bridge.

[Zomboid]

Well it's certainly not an aesthetic improvement. But in due course it'll probably green over with whatever local flora there is and be forgotten about, until one or other of the heritage outfits in the area overcomes the significant other obstacles they face to get to that bridge.

[009 micro modeller]

I just wondered why, if it needs to be infilled, it couldn’t have been done in a slightly neater way that gives it a bit more support while preserving the appearance of the structure? Perhaps with bricks or concrete blocks, in the style of this infilled doorway which I saw the other day in a medieval church:

 

[laurenceb]

On 20/07/2021 at 11:27, Edwardian said:

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

 

 

This is what has, effectively, been destroyed:

 

 

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

 

Gone.

 

B*stards,

Is that water in the background of the then shot?

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I just wondered why, if it needs to be infilled, it couldn’t have been done in a slightly neater way that gives it a bit more support while preserving the appearance of the structure? Perhaps with bricks or concrete blocks, in the style of this infilled doorway which I saw the other day in a medieval church:

 

That is a wall, pronbably less than a metre thick, so it makes sense to brick it up. This was a bridge, perhaps 10 metres wide, so it makes no sense to block up all that volume. The entire archway is filled with concrete, and it needs to extend all the way up to the crown of the arch to work properly.

 

Of course, HE did an appalling job here. There is a piece about it in today's Guardian, and they may have to remove it all:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jul/21/highways-england-may-have-to-reverse-act-of-cultural-vandalism

 

[009 micro modeller]

28 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

That is a wall, pronbably less than a metre thick, so it makes sense to brick it up. This was a bridge, perhaps 10 metres wide, so it makes no sense to block up all that volume. The entire archway is filled with concrete, and it needs to extend all the way up to the crown of the arch to work properly.

 

I know, it’s more the neatness of the job I was particularly thinking of, and the way that you can still see the arch on the church.

 

I don’t know that much about spray concrete, but I’m also a bit suspicious of the bit at the edge, where it looks like the concrete just sort of drips away with no shuttering.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 minute ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I don’t know that much about spray concrete, but I’m also a bit suspicious of the bit at the edge, where it looks like the concrete just sort of drips away with no shuttering.

Yes, I. too. wondered how good of an engineering job they actually did, aside from the aesthetics or anything else.

[009 micro modeller]

53 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

Yes, I. too. wondered how good of an engineering job they actually did, aside from the aesthetics or anything else.

 

It reminds me of when you see a model railway layout at an exhibition with partially-finished scenery, and there’s a bit of plaster at the edge that hasn’t been painted yet...

[Reorte]

The council's now getting involved, saying that if the work is permanent instead of a temporary emergency repair it needs retrospective planning permission.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-57927098

[davknigh]

Looking at the picture of the  Great Musgrave travesty one could be forgiven for thinking that the contractor got paid by the cubic metre of concrete. 
 

Cheers,

 

David

[melmerby]

Duplicate - removed

Edited July 24, 2021 by melmerby

[caradoc]

That's such a dreadful job one could almost think it was deliberate, to provoke a rethink......

 

[Re6/6]

Common sense seems to have prevailed.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9841159/Bridge-block-victory-Boris-Johnson-intervenes-stop-dozens-Victorian-bridges-filled-in.html

[ess1uk]

On 20/07/2021 at 11:27, Edwardian said:

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

 

 

This is what has, effectively, been destroyed:

 

 

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

 

Gone.

 

B*stards,

No engineer I know would put their name to that

[black and decker boy]

I’m not convinced that what is shown is concrete. It looks to be a granular aggregate which is how we normally infill such structures. It’s 1/3 the price of concrete per m3.

 

we lay it in layers & compact. Once you get to a certain height in the arch barrel, you fill the outside and then pump grout into the void. The photos are not of the finished product either whereby topsoil & landscaping would be added to hide the aggregate and blend back into the surroundings.

 

The problem that campaigners will have to overcome is the magnitude of the cost to take on these structures for perpetuity. There are legal requirements around inspections, liability in event of failures in an accident etc and the cost of maintenance and repair (closure or charging for use of the public highway isn’t an option either). That is the reason the local highway authority generally doesn’t want to take them on either. I doubt heritage railways (let alone private householders) have the deep pockets needed to prove they can own these structures long term and the necessary insurances..

 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by black and decker boy
Typo

[phil-b259]

49 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

I’m not convinced that what is shown is concrete. It looks to be a granular aggregate which is how we normally infill such structures. It’s 1/3 the price of concrete per m3.

 

we lay it in layers & compact. Once you get to a certain height in the arch barrel, you fill the outside and then pump grout into the void. The photos are not of the finished product either whereby topsoil & landscaping would be added to hide the aggregate and blend back into the surroundings.

 

The problem that campaigners will have to overcome is the magnitude of the cost to take on these structures for perpetuity. There are legal requirements around inspections, liability in event of failures in an accident etc and the cost of maintenance and repair (closure or charging for use of the public highway isn’t an option either). That is the reason the local highway authority generally doesn’t want to take them on either. I doubt heritage railways (let alone private householders) have the deep pockets needed to prove they can own these structures long term and the necessary insurances..

 

 

 

The issue here is the 'all or nothing' approach HE - not helped by the fact that they don't seem to have much of a clue about their assets in the first place* as the press release issued a couple of years ago about redundant bridge infilling / demolition included several examples of bridges that had actually been dealt with decades ago!

 

Some structures like the Great Musgrave Bridge or Queensbury tunnels have considerable potential to be reused in future - yet HE seem hell bent on destroying that potential simply to reduce liabilities as quickly as possible (it is rumoured so as to make it more suitable for privatisation in some form).

 

They key is to actually sit down with stakeholders and work through the potential re-use of structures. That takes time and in quite a lot of cases won't keep the lawyers / accountants happy as many cases will involve a fair degree of guesswork and separating out 'no hopers' from the 'some hopers' is tricky (i.e. Putting back the missing river bridge across the Eden is expensive (but perfectly straightforward / doable engineering wise) and there is no guarantee that either of the two Heritage Railways involved will be able to finance it within the next 50 years.

 

 

*To be honest HE don't seem to have much of a clue about their core duties on the road network either. Years of Government cutbacks / outsourcing have stripped it of any real engineering know-how ("we can just buy it in" being the prevailing attitude) with the organisation dominated by PR, finance and lawyers.

[black and decker boy]

21 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

*To be honest HE don't seem to have much of a clue about their core duties on the road network either. Years of Government cutbacks / outsourcing have stripped it of any real engineering know-how ("we can just buy it in" being the prevailing attitude) with the organisation dominated by PR, finance and lawyers.

That’s not the HE I engage with daily. There is certainly a cohort of managers without construction / engineering background but that is true of most public authorities due to poor wages on offer compared to private sector. Not all roles need to be engineering lead either.
 

However, there are also a lot of very good engineers who oversee their project delivery.

 

construction relies on global consultants for skilled design, planning & modelling engineers. It has done for a very long time. 

 

HE, like NR have to balance their organisation and their engineering  / construction programme against  their political masters & budget made available. That is why we have All Lane Running SMART motorways. It’s why we have bi-mode class 800s to the SW and Swansea.

 

My local Council is similar with a similar dilemma. It needs to widen one of these legacy rail arch bridges to facilitate a housing development. It will have to adopt the bridge from HE to do so. It has long term aspirations to reopen the track Bed as a cycle way but has no funding to do so.

 

it’s quandary is to adapt the bridge and maintain the passageway beneath will cost £1m that it doesn’t have. In filling the bridge now ensures the development can proceed within budget but adds cost later should the cycle way plans ever come forward. The engineers can solve both options but only the politicians can make the choice now. That is the reality of this debate.

Edited August 1, 2021 by black and decker boy
Typo

[rocor]

Some good news, as National Highways ordered is to remove infill of 1862 bridge arch near Kirkby Stephen.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/16/burying-of-victorian-bridge-in-cumbria-must-be-reversed-says-council

[BR traction instructor]

Even without the consideration of a potential railway route once more the current appearance of the bridge has a similar appeal to fly tipping.

 

BeRTIe

[russ p]

15 minutes ago, rocor said:

Some good news, as National Highways ordered is to remove infill of 1862 bridge arch near Kirkby Stephen.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/16/burying-of-victorian-bridge-in-cumbria-must-be-reversed-says-council

 

Excellent news, that will take some doing but HE deserve it as been so arrogant over the whole saga

[BR traction instructor]

Very tempting to suggest dumping the removed waste into the gardens of the National Highways management involved in the sorry affair.

 

BeRTIe

[SamThomas]

Yes, that was great news showing the Highways people that they cannot ride toughshod over people. Well done the local council !

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but if the structure is weak then surely a steel "cages" could be fabricated to support the structure as a tempory solution until the funds/willingness are available to do a decent restoration ?