Many old railway bridges under threat from demolition under new scheme

[Dagworth]

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jan/25/row-growing-after-third-historic-rail-bridge-filled-in-with-concrete

[Not Jeremy]

Looking on the slightly brighter side of the Highways Authority and what they have been doing with their inherited railway assets of late, they have recently taken down and poisoned the stumps of several trees that were most assuredly going to do for Plaister's Bridge, on the Camerton Branch. The work also included making good brickwork and a general tidying up.

 

https://governmentbuildings.co.uk/properties/view/830802

 

I can see things I would have done differently, we have now lost all of the lovely big Staffordshire blue capping bricks that were atop each wall, but nonetheless a good effort that ensures the bridge's survival for future generations to enjoy.

 

The bridge is "famous" in that it appears in the Titfield Thunderbolt.

 

A new book on this film, featuring Plaister's Bridge amongst much else, is shortly to be published by Wild Swan books.

 

[SR71]

Interesting article. In all instances I've seen of the work being carried out online the result is a fix that looks little better than fly tipping so I'm not surprised councils are demanding retrospective planning.

 

One I saw (possibly YouTube Paul & Rebecca Whitewick) that had already slumped causing a void under the arch which was worse than having left it. No access for inspection and structure now at greater risk of moisture damage.

 

A lot of these structures are redundant and there isn't a justifiable reason to keep them but that's no reason to circumnavigate proper consent. If it were we could have bypass Arundel years ago!

 

[Reorte]

15 minutes ago, SR71 said:

A lot of these structures are redundant and there isn't a justifiable reason to keep them but that's no reason to circumnavigate proper consent. If it were we could have bypass Arundel years ago!

Anything of any sort of interest or appeal should be kept until and unless there is a good reason to get rid of it, such as it genuinely becoming unsafe, with no reasonably cost-effective repair without a significant ongoing maintenance liability being possible. And the time for that is when that happens, not "will at some point in the future." IMO there needs to be a strong justifiable reason to get rid, it should not depend on a justifiable reason to keep.

 

I might feel a bit less strongly about it if I had a somewhat less negative feeling towards everything that gets built now... Even then this probably wouldn't have caused such a fuss if they hadn't been so hamfisted about it.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Reorte

[rocor]

On 17/06/2022 at 07:32, 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

 

A positive outcome, as it appears that the work to undo the damage is already underway.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/14/roads-agency-starts-to-undo-its-vandalism-of-victorian-bridge

[ess1uk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67698106
another one challenged

Edited December 14, 2023 by ess1uk
Spill chucker

[Michael Hodgson]

Looks like an arrogant attitiude on the part of the Highways Authorities - classic bad management.  They need to maintain the road, they perfectly reasonably wish to minimise cost and don't see a need for a disused bridge, but they think they can cut corners by acting pre-emptively without confirming the bridge really is no longer wanted. 

 

The remedial cost will be a lot higher than doing the job properly in the first place, but of course at the end of the day, the general public end up paying for this.  But will the highways managers who do this get fired?

[Wheatley]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Looks like an arrogant attitiude on the part of the Highways Authorities - classic bad management.  They need to maintain the road, they perfectly reasonably wish to minimise cost and don't see a need for a disused bridge, but they think they can cut corners by acting pre-emptively without confirming the bridge really is no longer wanted. 

 

Quote

 

Michael de Whalley, chairman of Congham Parish Council, said: "National Highways' actions were very frustrating. There are fantastic possibilities if it is reopened, but how do you maintain a bridge if it is encased in concrete?

"We want them to undo the work and maintain the bridge properly in the hope it can be used as something more constructive such as a cycleway or greenway."

 

 

If the best future need that the Parish Council can come up with is a hope of maybe some sort of footpath, or possibly cycle path or maybe a greenway or somesuch at some indeterminate time in the future using funding that they may or may not have, or be able to get, or maybe think about perhaps getting , then that doesn't sound like much of a plan. HE should have just let it fall down or close it as unsafe and let them all enjoy the 4 mile detour.  

[Reorte]

12 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

 

If the best future need that the Parish Council can come up with is a hope of maybe some sort of footpath, or possibly cycle path or maybe a greenway or somesuch at some indeterminate time in the future using funding that they may or may not have, or be able to get, or maybe think about perhaps getting , then that doesn't sound like much of a plan. HE should have just let it fall down or close it as unsafe and let them all enjoy the 4 mile detour.  

Price of everything and value of nothing thinking. It's caused plenty of damage already.

 

Obviously there comes a point sometimes where maintaining might become prohibitive and sadly there's no choice other than something like filling it in, but that's a last resort, not a first one if people value the bridge even just for its own sake.

 

The whole thing smacks of shouting "safety!" to drown out objections, which I find odious in its own right and leads to a tendency to dismiss genuine safety issue. Which I can't rule out is what I'm doing here of course, knowing nothing else about the bridge and not being a structural engineer, incidents like the Musgrave bridge though will naturally make people very sceptical about other examples.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Reorte

[jamie92208]

I believe that work to remove the concrete infill has now started. 

 

Jamie