Many old railway bridges under threat from demolition under new scheme

[BR traction instructor]

For weak you can usually substitute don’t want to maintain it to the standard required for lorries to use it. It’ll be surprising how quickly the structure is suitable for heavy vehicles once the infill has been removed and whatever running repairs that it needed are carried out, as part of a normal maintenance regime.

 

BeRTIe

Edited June 17, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, BR traction instructor said:

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

Don't assume that Eden District Council have any reason to protect this "possible" railway route as they have previous form in that regard.*

It will have been rejected on aesthetic grounds and the fact that HE didn't get permission in the first place.

 

*EDC have wilfully allowed development on the Penrith - Keswick route, one that has a greater chance of re-opening, contrary to voiced aims to support it for possible re-opening.

A few metres re-location of several approved structures would have allowed any railway to take up much of it's existing route without compromising the buildings use, whereas those few metres lost cause much more of a problem for rebuilding the railway.

 

 

[black and decker boy]

6 hours ago, BR traction instructor said:

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

The widely circulated photos were a work in progress and before topsoil & landscaping was done. It isn't an eyesore but merely a green embankment with a stone wall at the top. ITV had a later photo here: https://www.itv.com/news/border/2021-07-01/highways-england-accused-of-vandalism-after-bridge-infilled-with-concrete

5 hours ago, SamThomas said:

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 ?

Who and were is this money coming from? Local councils have no budgets and National Highways doesn't have a budget for ongoing inspection, Maintenance and unplanned repairs (eg impact or weather damage) for the next several decades either. Steel cages do not remove any of that and actually likely to increase the frequency of inspections by qualified engineers. 

 

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

The widely circulated photos were a work in progress and before topsoil & landscaping was done. It isn't an eyesore but merely a green embankment with a stone wall at the top. ITV had a later photo here: https://www.itv.com/news/border/2021-07-01/highways-england-accused-of-vandalism-after-bridge-infilled-with-concrete

Who and were is this money coming from? Local councils have no budgets and National Highways doesn't have a budget for ongoing inspection, Maintenance and unplanned repairs (eg impact or weather damage) for the next several decades either. Steel cages do not remove any of that and actually likely to increase the frequency of inspections by qualified engineers. 

 

 

Independent engineers inspected it beforehand and concluded it needed a bit of repointing and some other minor repairs. With it infilled, there is no way at all of monitoring its condition, and would be a water trap allowing structural decay to proceed unseen. The aesthetics are irrelevant, they created a ticking time bomb. 

[Mark Saunders]

16 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Independent engineers inspected it beforehand and concluded it needed a bit of repointing and some other minor repairs. With it infilled, there is no way at all of monitoring its condition, and would be a water trap allowing structural decay to proceed unseen. The aesthetics are irrelevant, they created a ticking time bomb. 

There is no such thing as an independent assessment with this government, the demolition of the Dorman Long tower on Teesside is proof as it was only superficially examined and the decision made for Demolition. Listed as a grade two but overturned within twenty four hours by Nadine Dorries on her first day in her new job. 

[BR traction instructor]

…another classic was the supposedly cracked Chinley East chord viaduct. The hopelessly inefficient & risky runrounds on a 1 in 100 gradient at Chinley west lasted around 10 years until common sense and a miraculous crack cure was found for the unused viaduct.

 

BeRTIe

[black and decker boy]

41 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

Independent engineers inspected it beforehand and concluded it needed a bit of repointing and some other minor repairs. With it infilled, there is no way at all of monitoring its condition, and would be a water trap allowing structural decay to proceed unseen. The aesthetics are irrelevant, they created a ticking time bomb. 

No need to monitor it, it has ceased to be a structure with the infill now bearing the load.

 

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

No need to monitor it, it has ceased to be a structure with the infill now bearing the load.

 

 

How do you know?

Was the concrete forced into all the gaps so as not to leave any voids?

[Bucoops]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

How do you know?

Was the concrete forced into all the gaps so as not to leave any voids?

 

Precisely - it's created a great unknown.

[Bucoops]

4 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

There is no such thing as an independent assessment with this government, the demolition of the Dorman Long tower on Teesside is proof as it was only superficially examined and the decision made for Demolition. Listed as a grade two but overturned within twenty four hours by Nadine Dorries on her first day in her new job. 

 

The Dorman Long tower was discgraceful behaviour and set the tone for Dorries' hopefully brief tenure. She of course is continuing so far to kill as much culture as she can with Channel 4... But I must stop as it's politics.

 

I didn't mean a Government sponsored assessment.

[black and decker boy]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

How do you know?

Was the concrete forced into all the gaps so as not to leave any voids?

Because it’s my profession and yes, the top of the arch will be filled with grout under pressure so no gaps. The infill therefore takes the load not the arch.

 

I’ve done quite a few of these in my career. 

[SamThomas]

11 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

Because it’s my profession and yes, the top of the arch will be filled with grout under pressure so no gaps. The infill therefore takes the load not the arch.

 

I’ve done quite a few of these in my career. 

So, you have a vested interest.

 

At the end of the day infilling is erroding more & more of our heritage.

 

In the case we are discussing it would have been cheaper to impose a weight limit on the structure, unless it would mean heavy vehicles could not access certain area's.

 

Would be quite funny if NR came along & said "hey, we've just noticed that we have a right of way under that bridge.

[chris p bacon]

11 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

Because it’s my profession and yes, the top of the arch will be filled with grout under pressure so no gaps. The infill therefore takes the load not the arch.

 

I’ve done quite a few of these in my career. 

Are you sure it was pressure grouted? I saw some interim pictures on a civil website and it looked nothing of the sort.

How the work was done is up to whoever was overseeing it. The real issue is that Highways England used permitted Development rather than full planning permission which rides roughshod over our planning system.

[black and decker boy]

18 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

So, you have a vested interest.

 

At the end of the day infilling is erroding more & more of our heritage.

 

In the case we are discussing it would have been cheaper to impose a weight limit on the structure, unless it would mean heavy vehicles could not access certain area's.

 

Would be quite funny if NR came along & said "hey, we've just noticed that we have a right of way under that bridge.

Now you are just making things up with no knowledge of what actually goes on.

 

My profession requires me to make an independent engineering judgment. A client / funder (such as DfT) would create a business case that frames what engineering is affordable. I have no vested interest in any outcome. I don’t expect this bridge to ever see trains again, infill or not. That’s not an engineering judgment, just my personal

opinion. There are thousands of such bridges across the U.K.

 

putting weight restrictions on the bridge would have caused more grief to locals and raised significantly more bad PR. I’ve seen that in my career too.

 

NH now manage the ‘BRB. Residual’ property estate - so all the non operational bits of railway that did not pass to NR and which haven’t been sold / transferred to landowners or other public bodies. They will know exactly who holds freehold (them) and all wayleaves and rights of access that exist. They don’t just put a pin in a map and despatch a gang with a lorry load of stone.

 

if these works are wholly within the highway boundary and not in conservation / AONB areas then they would normally be covered by Permitted Development rights and so not need planning consent. NH appear to have now said they will always apply (as NR now do) to try and avoid accusations of overriding democracy.

 

people seem to see this as NH being evil and targeting their favourite bridge as a personal slight. NH have strict procedures and business case policies to follow with DfT & Treasury directing and approving them.

[black and decker boy]

4 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

Are you sure it was pressure grouted? I saw some interim pictures on a civil website and it looked nothing of the sort.

How the work was done is up to whoever was overseeing it. The real issue is that Highways England used permitted Development rather than full planning permission which rides roughshod over our planning system.

Permitted Development being how most rail and road local improvements have been delivered and specifically written into the Planning Regs. So no riding roughshod but simply following the rules set by government 

 

Permitted Development is tightly controlled and scripted in law.

 

You as a householder will also be using Permitted Development when you add a shed to your garden, change the colour of your doors / windows, add aerials, replace your drive. So are you riding roughshod over democracy too?

[black and decker boy]

21 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

Are you sure it was pressure grouted? I saw some interim pictures on a civil website and it looked nothing of the sort.

How the work was done is up to whoever was overseeing it.

A few different ways to fill the final void but all amount to the same in ensuring the voids are filled.

[chris p bacon]

4 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Permitted Development is tightly controlled and scripted in law.

 

it is, and Highways Englands application of it in these instances is incorrect. If the bridge was to continue as a road over an active railway (that HE were responsible for) it could be construed as PD.

 

But HE were putting the bridge out of use for any further railway use and therefore had to apply for Full Planning Permission. 

15 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

if these works are wholly within the highway boundary and not in conservation / AONB areas then they would normally be covered by Permitted Development rights and so not need planning consent. NH appear to have now said they will always apply (as NR now do) to try and avoid accusations of overriding democracy.

 

Your application and understanding of planning law is incorrect (bold).  In this (and other cases) Not only did the local authorities tell HE that PP was required but also the Secretary of State.

 

18 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

You as a householder will also be using Permitted Development when you add a shed to your garden, change the colour of your doors / windows, add aerials, replace your drive. So are you riding roughshod over democracy too?

 

Householder and commercial PD rights are not the same and should not be confused.

[chris p bacon]

2 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

A few different ways to fill the final void but all amount to the same in ensuring the voids are filled.

There are different ways that an arch can be filled, but not all can carry the same loadings.

 

You stated in your response that as it's your profession you knew how it had been backfilled and how the loading would be taken.

 

12 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

Because it’s my profession and yes, the top of the arch will be filled with grout under pressure so no gaps. The infill therefore takes the load not the arch.

 

In reality you don't actually know but you've made a guess.

26 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

Now you are just making things up with no knowledge of what actually goes on.

I refer you to your earlier statement.

[black and decker boy]

14 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

it is, and Highways Englands application of it in these instances is incorrect. If the bridge was to continue as a road over an active railway (that HE were responsible for) it could be construed as PD.

 

But HE were putting the bridge out of use for any further railway use and therefore had to apply for Full Planning Permission. 

 

 

What railway? No ‘railway’ exists and presumably went through formal

closure process back in “the golden era” unless it’s been given a protected alignment / safeguarded status? Do we know if that’s the case?

 

as for method used, I can see what they’ve done and it will have sealed all voids at the crown of the arch making the infill load bearing. 
 

what none of us have asked or know is why NH have been set off on this course of action. Politics between DfT, NH, NR and local highway authorities is fierce due to the way funding is assessed and allocated and close cooperation is seldom seen in the projects I’ve been involved with due to the funding question.

[black and decker boy]

Some good extra insight here:

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/national-highways-stands-by-necessary-great-musgrave-bridge-infilling-22-10-2021/

 

“In the report, National Highways lists six reasons why engineers opted to infill the bridge. They are:

1) Weight restriction not applied since original recommendation in 1998 following bridge assessment failure. Cumbria County Council (CCC) noted that the bridge is on a diversion route if an emergency closure of the A66 is required – a weight restriction would remove this option.

2) Eden District Council’s Local Plan was reviewed and contained no policies specifically safeguarding former railway lines.

3) Condition worsened between 2017 and 2020 – pointing not sufficient on its own to provide full capacity and maintain long term integrity of the arch.

4) Infilling avoided any disruption to the highway and the services carried by the bridge and enables CCC to continue to use the route as an emergency diversion route without restriction.

5) Infilling has reduced the long term liability and removed the risk from traffic overloading.

6) Infilling has preserved the structure until a long term purpose is found.

 

Engineers working on the project explained to NCE that the decision to infill was deemed the most cost-effective and appropriate solution at the time.”

 

And also

 

”Infilling the bridge cost National Highways £123,580 and maintenance for the next 60 years is estimated to cost a further £4,000.

 

Comparatively, National Highways estimates that the cost of repairing the bridge would have been £50,000 plus an additional £120,000 to £225,000 for strengthening works. Additionally, the estimated maintenance costs if an infill had not been carried out are costed at £66,000; which takes the total estimated cost of repair and strengthening to between £236,000 and £341,000; more than twice as much as the cost of infilling.”

 

[Re6/6]

Thanks for that. Very informative. One has to wonder as an uninformed individual, in the main scheme of things, if the difference between repairing and infilling maybe isn't a lot.

 

This is also of concern https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/24-historic-railway-structures-that-face-demolition-or-infilling-by-highways-england-10-05-2021/

[black and decker boy]

6 minutes ago, Re6/6 said:

Thanks for that. Very informative. One has to wonder as an uninformed individual, in the main scheme of things, if the difference between repairing and infilling maybe isn't a lot.

 

No it’s not but in the context of public sector budgets & funding, the only way the higher cost could have got sign off was rules (from DfT) that allow all of the non tangible things to have a benefit value. That is a rare thing.

NH came to the conclusion it did due to the rules set for it when assessing cost vs benefit. Those rules have clearly now been changed and so different conclusions can be reached & funding secured in some cases. There will undoubtedly still be cases where infill or demolition remain the logical outcome and more -ve PR will happen but that’s just the daily reality of public infrastructure provision in the U.K. there is always a vociferous minority who will disagree and campaign against your plans.

[chris p bacon]

You only have to look at the complete c*ck up that NH have made of Queensbury tunnel to see where money is wasted. They couldn't even remember to pay for the pump so they could carry out their own works.  

 

4 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

”Infilling the bridge cost National Highways £123,580 and maintenance for the next 60 years is estimated to cost a further £4,000.

 

Comparatively, National Highways estimates that the cost of repairing the bridge would have been £50,000 plus an additional £120,000 to £225,000 for strengthening works. Additionally, the estimated maintenance costs if an infill had not been carried out are costed at £66,000; which takes the total estimated cost of repair and strengthening to between £236,000 and £341,000; more than twice as much as the cost of infilling.”

 

I've seen that before. I always note the amount of times 'estimated' is used in a comparison.

 

What it doesn't say in that comparison is that the cost of infilling was £123,500 but was originally only estimated at £50,000.  Also the estimated strengthening cost was to take to road to 38T which the infill hasn't.

As always figures are used to re-enforce a position and NH have taken the wrong path from day one.  in seeking to divest themselves of these 'assets' they have ignored planning and in some cases common sense.

 

I have several of these bridges near me. Some could easily be taken down, but others are on long planned path/cycle ways, NH are under an illusion that PD is all that is required but have since found that changes in open countryside requires planning permission.....you'd think they'd at least consult a planning lawyer first before wasting public money..but they didn't.

 

[SamThomas]

Interesting............

 

Nothing about my comment to impose a weight limit, possibly rendering the expensive works unnecessary. I don't know because I don't know the local area & what alternative routes are available for heavy vehicles.

 

NH may be legally allowed to apply different rules but are they morally allowed to ? Are they being responsible to our heritage ?

 

I can legally drive a 44T truck through a small village with centruries old buildings at the speed limit (whatever that may be), but I don't because, to me it neither morally correct or responsible.

 

It may be just one bridge in this case, but what about the next one & the one after that ?

[black and decker boy]

39 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

Interesting............

 

Nothing about my comment to impose a weight limit, possibly rendering the expensive works unnecessary. I don't know because I don't know the local area & what alternative routes are available for heavy vehicles.

 

NH may be legally allowed to apply different rules but are they morally allowed to ? Are they being responsible to our heritage ?

 

I can legally drive a 44T truck through a small village with centruries old buildings at the speed limit (whatever that may be), but I don't because, to me it neither morally correct or responsible.

 

It may be just one bridge in this case, but what about the next one & the one after that ?

Yes, see my post above with highlights of the NH report

 

1) Weight restriction not applied since original recommendation in 1998 following bridge assessment failure. Cumbria County Council (CCC) noted that the bridge is on a diversion route if an emergency closure of the A66 is required – a weight restriction would remove this option.