Ghosts in the Machine.

[TheSignalEngineer]

This week's ride was Hindlow - Tissington nip across to Carsington for coffee then Hopton Incline and C&HPR back to the start. The old bridge at Longcliffe was demolished by an HGV about three years ago. During the replacement last year one of the original girders from the 1860s bridge that survived the accident has been cleaned up and mounted alongside the trail.

 

Next th the bridge there is an old gradient post.

 

The new bridge has been built to modern height but retaining the original abutments.

 

[eastglosmog]

11 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

GWR broad gauge bridge rail? In fact surprisingly common having been re-purposed into things such as fence posts.

I wonder how many miles of bridge rail remain as fence posts?

[Artless Bodger]

I don't know how much remains now since Clevedon Pier was restored, but it was originally built using a lot of redundant Barlow rail.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

I wonder how many miles of bridge rail remain as fence posts?

An awful lot of it has gone as the Western started renewing fencing with concrete posts a long time back and bridge rail  straining posts weren't always reused/. lots of boundary markers have also vanisg hed due to land sales and reducing teh width of the t railway's land take.

 

Undoubtedly stillsome around - there might be a straining post locally but it's under about 6 feet of brambles so I'm not going looking for it!.  I suspect that old boiler tubes reused as fencing have probably disappeared by now - which might encourage someone to come out with an example with a bit of luck.

[Wickham Green too]

25 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

... old boiler tubes reused as fencing have probably disappeared by now ...

It's at least 55 years since B.R. could have re-used any boiler tubes and they'd not have been in perfect condition then - so the tin worm has probably consumed them by now .... unless very well looked after.

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

It's at least 55 years since B.R. could have re-used any boiler tubes and they'd not have been in perfect condition then - so the tin worm has probably consumed them by now .... unless very well looked after.

The last boiler tube fence in Reading - which was the alst one I knew of - lasted several years into the present century and was only removed when teh area it fenced was cleared and surfaced with hardcore to provide site facilities as part of a bridge renewal scheme linked to the Reading remodelling scheme.  

 

From a cursory glance when driving past it wasn't in too bad a condition but apparently Swindon used to soak the tubes in hot pitch or bituman once they had been prepared and the fences were regularly repainted with bitumen.  i'd had a good look at it  back ij the '60s when i working just across the road from it and there were n soigns of any serious usting and by then it must have been at least 2o years old and probab;y dated back to when the road becan mea. through road between the wars

[PhilJ W]

14 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

I wonder how many miles of bridge rail remain as fence posts?

Quite a bit but a lot will be hidden by vegetation. There must have been a lot of it left laying about after the gauge conversion, just think how many miles of track was broad gauge.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

Quite a bit but a lot will be hidden by vegetation. There must have been a lot of it left laying about after the gauge conversion, just think how many miles of track was broad gauge.

Not all broad gauge was on bridge rails, sleepered track was also used (presumably later on)

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, melmerby said:

Not all broad gauge was on bridge rails, sleepered track was also used (presumably later on)

McDermott  states that cross sleepers - with double-headed rail - were used on lines converted from narrow gauge so taht would date their use from, at least, March 1867 when Mixed Gauge replaced Narrow Gauge on teh West Cornwall Railway main line from Truro to Penzance.

 

According to the same source from 1894 the GWR standardised on the use of bullhead rail for all new running line trackwork with bridge rail surviving later in sidings.  However the Clifton Maybank branch. (to the GWR freight yard on the Down side at Yeovil Jcn)  retained bridge rail on longitudinal sleepers throughout until is closure in 1937 (nineteen thirty seven).

[iands]

On 20/04/2023 at 09:39, iands said:

At least they removed a section of track in order to build the platform extension - which is more than they did at Sandy. 

On Thursday I mentioned Sandy and how NR didn't remove a section of track before they built the platform extension. Managed to dig out a photo.

[melmerby]

That's just sloppy.

[cctransuk]

48 minutes ago, iands said:

On Thursday I mentioned Sandy and how NR didn't remove a section of track before they built the platform extension. Managed to dig out a photo.

 

Unless those sleepers are concrete, I foresee problems in the future - though pressure-treated timber sleepers take a long time to decay.

 

How much effort is required to rip up a length of track?

 

CJI.

[Wickham Green too]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

That's just sloppy.

No it's not ....... they've been VERY CAREFUL to avoid building onto the rails ( I'm not convinced they've left enough clearance for the switch blade, though.)😮

[iands]

6 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

How much effort is required to rip up a length of track?

I suspect it was a lot more than just ripping up a length of track. Although I wasn't involved with the project, I assume the platform extension work was funded by the TOC and/or DfT, which would only be sufficient to cover the cost of the build itself. To rip out the track would involve the 'Network Change Process' which requires an awful lot of funding, quite possibly 4 or 5 times the actual build cost, not least because all the necessary associated signalling works that would be required (circuit correlation, redesign, implementation works, testing, documents update etc., etc.), and the impact that all this would have had on timescales. The DfT in particular (from my experience) never quite seemed to have a grasp on these realities when trying to push through these so called 'quick fix' projects.

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Unless those sleepers are concrete, I foresee problems in the future - though pressure-treated timber sleepers take a long time to decay.

 

How much effort is required to rip up a length of track?

 

CJI.

But also what is under the sleepers, normally ballast.......are we missing something or is it a WTF moment?

 

Anyway, here's Corringham, Essex, on a grey 22 January 2022, much of the old track to what were in the past various works and factories are still in situ https://goo.gl/maps/xoqWXWQ626aVkQFz6

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by ruggedpeak
added date of photos

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, iands said:

I suspect it was a lot more than just ripping up a length of track. Although I wasn't involved with the project, I assume the platform extension work was funded by the TOC and/or DfT, which would only be sufficient to cover the cost of the build itself. To rip out the track would involve the 'Network Change Process' which requires an awful lot of funding, quite possibly 4 or 5 times the actual build cost, not least because all the necessary associated signalling works that would be required (circuit correlation, redesign, implementation works, testing, documents update etc., etc.), and the impact that all this would have had on timescales. The DfT in particular (from my experience) never quite seemed to have a grasp on these realities when trying to push through these so called 'quick fix' projects.

 

So you are saying that burying track under structures does not constitute a "Network Change", whereas removing it does?

 

If that is the case, bureaucracy has gone mad!

 

Yet another example where the H&S culture is resulting in a  situation that has potential adverse safety implications for the future.

 

You couldn't make it up !! 😂

CJI.

Edited April 22, 2023 by cctransuk

[eastglosmog]

On 21/04/2023 at 11:20, The Stationmaster said:

An awful lot of it has gone as the Western started renewing fencing with concrete posts a long time back and bridge rail  straining posts weren't always reused/. lots of boundary markers have also vanisg hed due to land sales and reducing teh width of the t railway's land take.

 

Undoubtedly stillsome around - there might be a straining post locally but it's under about 6 feet of brambles so I'm not going looking for it!.  I suspect that old boiler tubes reused as fencing have probably disappeared by now - which might encourage someone to come out with an example with a bit of luck.

There are quite a few bridge rail straining posts round here, combined with the concrete fence posts on minor overbridges along the OWW.  The bridge rail posts are usually in much better condition than the newer concrete posts!.  As they are still doing their job, not really appropriate to  put a picture of them on this thread, so here is one from the Bourton-on-the-Water railway (later part of the Banbury and Cheltenham) which has strictly been redundant since 1964:

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

But also what is under the sleepers, normally ballast.......are we missing something or is it a WTF moment?

 

Anyway, here's Corringham, Essex, much of the old track to what were in the past various works and factories are still in situ https://goo.gl/maps/xoqWXWQ626aVkQFz6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Changed a bit now:

Edited April 22, 2023 by melmerby

[ruggedpeak]

14 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Changed a bit now:

It is the effect of the seasons on vegetation. The Google Earth image is dated October 2021, my photos were taken 22 January 2022 (will put the date on next time!).

 

I have a very similar gate and overgrowth behind my house and it is the same, most of the year overgrown with brambles and weeds, come winter it all disappears before coming back with a vengeance in the spring.

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by ruggedpeak

[rodent279]

53 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

So you are saying that burying track under structures does not constitute a "Network Change", whereas removing it does?

 

If that is the case, bureaucracy has gone mad!

 

Yet another example where the H&S culture is resulting in a  situation that has potential adverse safety implications for the future.

 

You couldn't make it up !! 😂

CJI.

It's easy and fashionable to deride it as "elf & safety", and put it down to naamby-paamby, woftee-softee nanny state, but I suspect it's easier (and cheaper) to just secure something oou, and adjust local operating instructions and practices, than it is to physically remove something. Perhaps a lot more common than you think, when you consider the amount of dock and harbour rails still in situ decades after the last train passed over them. Weymouth harbour railway springs to mind.

Edited April 22, 2023 by rodent279

[iands]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

So you are saying that burying track under structures does not constitute a "Network Change", whereas removing it does?

 

If that is the case, bureaucracy has gone mad!

 

Yet another example where the H&S culture is resulting in a  situation that has potential adverse safety implications for the future.

 

You couldn't make it up !! 😂

CJI.

Bureaucracy may well have gone mad (along with the rest of the world), but it is nothing to do with H&S in this context. It is how the  'privatisation rules/wording' were being implemented/interpreted/imposed on Railtrack (and subsequently Network Rail as the network owners) back in 1994. Although the platform extension has been built over the existing track and signalling assets, believe it or not, the 'network' has not been changed. If 'access' were required to the track/sidings again at some point in the future, it would be 'relatively straightforward' (and I use that term loosely) to reinstate by removing the platform extension build. All the track assets, signalling assets (including, crucially, the 'interlocking) all still being intact - thereby retaining the network unchanged.

[Artless Bodger]

Last time I passed by (pre Covid) the up loop at Ruscombe was still partly intact though disconnected, just gaps cut into one rail to install the OHL posts, seemed odd that the track hadn't been completely lifted. Rather surprised too that the metal fairies hadn't helped themselves to the bits left between.

[Wickham Green too]

15 minutes ago, iands said:

... thereby retaining the network unchanged.

Ah ..... so if I go out in the dead of night and stick a buffer stop in the middle of the adjacent running line - without shorting-out any track circuits of course - that would still not constitute a network change ??!?

[The Stationmaster]

19 minutes ago, iands said:

Bureaucracy may well have gone mad (along with the rest of the world), but it is nothing to do with H&S in this context. It is how the  'privatisation rules/wording' were being implemented/interpreted/imposed on Railtrack (and subsequently Network Rail as the network owners) back in 1994. Although the platform extension has been built over the existing track and signalling assets, believe it or not, the 'network' has not been changed. If 'access' were required to the track/sidings again at some point in the future, it would be 'relatively straightforward' (and I use that term loosely) to reinstate by removing the platform extension build. All the track assets, signalling assets (including, crucially, the 'interlocking) all still being intact - thereby retaining the network unchanged.

Precisely.  The network change rules were very carefully drafted - by members of BRB staff as it happens and were reviewed by experienced railway operators and engineers - specifically in order to constrain what was at that point likely to be Railtrack (although not even a privatised Railtrack).

 

And they were, and since have been (until the legal trade got involved), extremely effective at preserving infrastructure which the 'pull it up and flog the land brigade' would indeed havef pulled up without a by your leave to anyone.   In the early days of privatisation Railtrack chanced its arm on a few occasions and rapidly found itself in front of the industry committee which dealt with network change and it never won any of is cases before that committee. When it did do things properly in procedural terms it gave those of us in operating companies the chance to either prevent stupidities happening or indeed to pursue and achieve changes which we needed which 'the Trackies' were trying hard to stop happening.

 

On one occasion I nearly finished up at a committee hearing about some piece of Railtrack stupidity when they tried to get round the objections from every operating company that ran trains, or had an Access Contract, over the piece of infrastructure concerned.  But they duly crumbled once they knew that all the operators were intending to take the case to the committee.  A common Railtrack trick was to just stop maintaining the whatever was involved which could end up costing them a lot of money when an operator made it clear that they wonted to use it and were prepared to take the case to both the Timetabling Committee and the committee dealing with network change - both committees would inevitably rule in favour of the train operator if its contract allowed access to that piece of infrastructure or, particularly, was essential to its operations and track access .

[iands]

27 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Ah ..... so if I go out in the dead of night and stick a buffer stop in the middle of the adjacent running line - without shorting-out any track circuits of course - that would still not constitute a network change ??!?

Going out in the dead of night and installing a buffer stop on a running line would, in my opinion (and no doubt many others), constitute vandalism. 

I know what you are getting at, but 'Network Change' is a very complex issue.