ECML Morpeth viaduct parapet collapse.

[birdseyecircus]

Just seen this, not looking good.

https://yorkmix.com/rail-viaduct-parapet-collapse-will-cause-disruption-to-east-coast-main-line-until-next-month/

 

Paul

[Bucoops]

Collapse is a bit strong? I was expecting worse than the pictures I saw this morning 🙂

[Wickham Green too]

"moving the parapet back to its original location is not viable."  ........ obviously hasn't got a clue what he's talking about - no doubt he's right though !

[2mm Andy]

57 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

Collapse is a bit strong? I was expecting worse than the pictures I saw this morning 🙂

Photos from other sources show thing to be a little more serious;

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/engineers-undertake-urgent-work-on-crumbling-historic-rail-viaduct-in-northumberland-10-10-2023/

 

Andy

[Bucoops]

17 minutes ago, 2mm Andy said:

Photos from other sources show thing to be a little more serious;

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/engineers-undertake-urgent-work-on-crumbling-historic-rail-viaduct-in-northumberland-10-10-2023/

 

Andy

 

Ok yes that certainly shows it in a different light, thank you. 

[pH]

A serious (but probably naive) question - what is the main purpose of the parapets on a UK railway bridge? Is it:

 

- to restrain derailed trains?

- to contain ballast etc.?

- for the safety/convenience of railway staff crossing the bridge?

- or for some other purpose?

North American bridges can be much simpler, with no parapets:

 

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/838769/

 

and, yes, I have seen “Stand by me”.

Edited October 10, 2023 by pH

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

All things considered, due to it's age and the amount of traffic which has passed over it, it's done well to last this long.

 

Mike.

[russ p]

Surprised this doesn't happen more often . Frightening the amount of bridges and viaducts you see with trees and bushes growing out of them 

[Flying Fox 34F]

Possibly a combination of water ingress, frost and thaw over years and vibration from trains and track maintenance techniques.  
 

Paul

[APOLLO]

Build back better !!!!

 

Brit15

[Michael Hodgson]

Bridge structures are supposed to be inspected regularly.  If there is excessive vegetation where it sholdn't be, or signs of damage or slippage, that should be noticed.  When things get too bad, they repoint masonry or repair damage as necessary.

 

I would imagine this incident is considered serious enough to warrant an inquiry, and I would expect such an inquiry to review the thoroughness, appropriateness of inspections and compliance (or not) with existing procedures and adequacy of their frequency.

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

All things considered, due to it's age and the amount of traffic which has passed over it, it's done well to last this long.

Is there any particular reason why a well-built, well-maintained stone structure shouldn't last indefinitely (barring major damage such as bits being washed away)?

[Reorte]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Bridge structures are supposed to be inspected regularly.  If there is excessive vegetation where it sholdn't be, or signs of damage or slippage, that should be noticed.  When things get too bad, they repoint masonry or repair damage as necessary.

Surely the way to avoid excessive vegetation where it shouldn't be is to keep it under control in the first place. Waiting until it's got to that stage means damage is being caused and the fixes get more expensive. I've never believed there's any alternative to routine maintenance.

[Wickham Green too]

The running lines are sprayed on a regular basis so why not structures like this ? ............... obviously it can't be done by simply running a train along and would probably need a brief possession.

[Wheatley]

12 hours ago, pH said:

A serious (but probably naive) question - what is the main purpose of the parapets on a UK railway bridge? Is it:

 

- to restrain derailed trains?

- to contain ballast etc.?

- for the safety/convenience of railway staff crossing the bridge?

- or for some other purpose?

North American bridges can be much simpler, with no parapets:

 

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/838769/

 

and, yes, I have seen “Stand by me”.

 

Potentially all of those. This one was a low concrete parapet retaining the ballast, with a railing on top to stop PW staff falling over the edge. Brick/masonry parapets may be there to retain the ballast, to retain derailed vehicles (up to a point), to stop the company's servants falling off the edge, or to add weight above an arch to balance a force acting on it. 

 

There was a relaying job going on at the time which may or may not have had something to do with the parapet slipping off its footings.  

 

 

[Wickham Green too]

15 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

... parapet slipping off its footings.  

Comparing the photos ( from the same spot ) in the two links above , it's obvious that a fair bit of the original stonework has gone too ....... presumably not designed for a modern ballast load.

[Reorte]

I got the impression from the article that the parapet and some stonework below it hasn't gone as in fallen off but has been removed as part of the repair.

[Roddy Angus]

As the structure is listed, they will no doubt have removed the stonework for safe keeping until it can be used to rebuild the viaduct.

 

Roddy

[Southernman46]

19 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

Ok yes that certainly shows it in a different light, thank you. 

That photo quite simply illustrates the issue nicely - see the position of the vegetaion right on the "split" line - this viaduct hasn't crumbled - it has been damaged by NR's long-term poor "vegetation in structures" management. I personally whilst working for them on the SR in track roles had reported many many viaducts (particularly along the Clapham Junction - Putney section) with buddlia & elder growing from cracks in the brick / stonework and seen NOTHING done for months / years even until the stalks are inches thick and it is too late by then, the integrity of the structure is compromised - this situation and it will occur in other places too is exactly the same as their mis-management of earthworks and drainage (like again my personal experiences on the SWML) between Woking & Basingstoke and IMHO NR get everything they deserve for years of neglect. They don't seem to get sanctioned for this but it typically just the poor travelling public that suffered due to the enforced closures. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Southernman46

[Grovenor]

It is specifically mentioned in the article that maintenance resources have been reduced on instruction from the government.

[Oldddudders]

17 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

It is specifically mentioned in the article that maintenance resources have been reduced on instruction from the government.

In which case NR still deserves everything it gets. You tell HMG that you will shortly be publishing a public consultation document of permanent line closures, in order to safely maintain the rest. Or would HMG prefer to wait for the next Clapham or Potters Bar, both the result of inadequate inspection of finished works, as indeed may have been a number of other tragedies, whereupon relevant correspondence between HMG and NR will be published?

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

Is there any particular reason why a well-built, well-maintained stone structure shouldn't last indefinitely (barring major damage such as bits being washed away)?

Nope.

 

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

Is there any particular reason why a well-built, well-maintained stone structure shouldn't last indefinitely (barring major damage such as bits being washed away)?

It comes down to 'is it cheaper to maintain or replace it'? Assuming that it is currently sufficient for the traffic requirements. For instance many road bridges need more lanes or higher loadings, so must be replaced or duplicated.

A large railway bridge is unlikely to be replaced or duplicated, so should be cheaper to maintain. Modern techniques ought to mean that more is practical. After all Ribblehead Viaduct ended up being repaired and not demolished!

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Southernman46 said:

That photo quite simply illustrates the issue nicely - see the position of the vegetaion right on the "split" line - this viaduct hasn't crumbled - it has been damaged by NR's long-term poor "vegetation in structures" management. I personally whilst working for them on the SR in track roles had reported many many viaducts (particularly along the Clapham Junction - Putney section) with buddlia & elder growing from cracks in the brick / stonework and seen NOTHING done for months / years even until the stalks are inches thick and it is too late by then, the integrity of the structure is compromised - this situation and it will occur in other places too is exactly the same as their mis-management of earthworks and drainage (like again my personal experiences on the SWML) between Woking & Basingstoke and IMHO NR get everything they deserve for years of neglect. They don't seem to get sanctioned for this but it typically just the poor travelling public that suffered due to the enforced closures. 

I pass this every day - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3747235,-2.1114228,3a,75y,234.65h,97.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siMBR3XDNv9S0dvgPT0Ty1w!2e0!5s20230501T000000!7i16384!8i8192?ucbcb=1&entry=ttu

 

Go back to the earliest Streetview picture and there's considerably less vegetation. That line carries a reasonable amount of both passenger and freight traffic (albeit not at much of a speed). I'm sure there are similar examples in their hundreds up and down the country.

[Wickham Green too]

You can imagine the kerfuffle if any of THAT parapet fell onto those expensive looking motors !