DfT Plan to Demolish Disused Bridges and Tunnels

[GuyGibsonVC]

[URL"]https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...-tunnels-must-be-stopped-dft-told-06-01-2021/[/URL]

The Department for Transport (DfT) has been urged to stop Highways England from demolishing and infilling hundreds of decommissioned railway assets that could instead be used by walkers and cyclists.

According to the HRE Group – an alliance of engineers, active travel campaigners and greenway developers – 135 structures are currently at risk of demolition or infilling by Highways England.

Some of those assets are already used by walkers, some are earmarked as potential walking and cycling routes...

An interesting development.

Of course, unsafe structures should be made safe. However, with all the 'Green' proposals that the Government are putting out, would it be worth exploring these as walking routes and heritage trails? I understand that not everyone is enamoured with old railway architecture and the history behind it, but there seems to be some opposition to this.

Thoughts?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, unsafe structures should be made safe. However, with all the 'Green' proposals that the Government are putting out, would it be worth exploring these as walking routes and heritage trails? I understand that not everyone is enamoured with old railway architecture and the history behind it, but there seems to be some opposition to this.

Thoughts?

Walking/cycling routes are certainly of considerable benefit, particularly where any parallel roads are of poor quality for cyclists. I'm sure Sustrans will show an interest, but usually these work just about as well by bringing the path down to ground level at each bridge as keeping unused abutments? Tunnels of course can be a maintenance issue.

 

[leytongabriel]

They might get a bit stuck with bat colonies in tunnels

 

[Lucan]

Highways England said :-

To maintain the safety of communities living near to Historic Railway Estate structures ...

... Ten of the 15 removals are abutments which had their bridge span removed several decades ago and no longer serve a purpose.

There cannot be much unsafe about abutments, or at least that cannot be relatively cheaply fixed.

 

[JKF]

Highways England said :-


There cannot be much unsafe about abutments, or at least that cannot be relatively cheaply fixed.

I think they like to widen out roads (or adjacent foot ways), or sometimes raise/lower the carriageways, abutment removal can facilitate this. Not a direct safety issue, but can make the general environment safer if road alignments can be improved or footways added.

 

[calopez]

There is a petition:

http://www.change.org/theHREgroup

 

[Nym]

So here's the dumb question.

Who pays to maintain these old and complex structures for the purposes of a footway, when demolishing it and fitting a new structure, if one is even required, is much less expensive?

 

[swt_passenger]

Highways England said :-


There cannot be much unsafe about abutments, or at least that cannot be relatively cheaply fixed.

They just took a bridge out on the former Bishops Waltham branch, AIUI because one of the abutments had been leaning towards the road for some years. There was no public path over the bridge, I really cannot see any significant issue with the removal.
Dropped pin

50°55'35.9"N 1°15'48.2"W

goo.gl

 

[bangor-toad]

Of course, unsafe structures should be made safe. However, with all the 'Green' proposals that the Government are putting out, would it be worth exploring these as walking routes and heritage trails? I understand that not everyone is enamoured with old railway architecture and the history behind it, but there seems to be some opposition to this.

Thoughts?

I had a few moments spare so I looked through the map produced by the HRE Group to see what was being considered.
It was certainly illuminating.

I only looked at the ones in the southern part of the UK but all of the sites proposed would be beyond almost every rail crayon dream. None of the sites mentioned could have any possible rail re-use, most of them are single track road bridges and they are obviously poor condition. If the Highways Agency think it's cheaper / better to remove them I could see no reason to try to preserve them. If they are to be resued as bike trails / walking routes then replacing them with ramps to the road level would be far more useful.

There are some fights worth having - but none of these would appear to get anywhere near that level of significance.
Mr Toad

 

[AndrewE]

So here's the dumb question.

Who pays to maintain these old and complex structures for the purposes of a footway, when demolishing it and fitting a new structure, if one is even required, is much less expensive?

I suspect that most disused railway bridges are not complex structures, and maintainance is negligable.
The petition article explains that if you demolish a bridge and infill a cutting to put the road on a new embankment then any further use of teh raila lignment is almost out of the question.
To bangor-toad I would say that he might like to comment on their assertion

This has revealed that 19 structures (14%) are already proposed for reuse, 22 (17%) have identified potential for future reuse, 54 (40%) have no obstructions to reuse and 39 (29%) have no realistic value.

Six proposed cycle paths would be blocked by Highways England’s infilling plans; extensions to heritage lines in Angus, Cumbria and Norfolk could also be affected, together with the reopening of a strategic north-south railway through west Wales and the Penrith-Keswick branch. In Dorset, the demolition of a bridge would impose additional costs of £750,000 on the construction of a new light railway and active travel route.

 

[WesternLancer]

There was a feature in Rail about this matter 2 or 3 editions ago - suggestion being HE are rushing this though, using loopholes to circumvent planning permission processes etc - and thus preventing local councils and communities objecting to closures where alternatives uses may be viable in near future. It sounds like their approach is dodgy (and circumventing the usual democratic planning processes etc).

HE took on responsibility for the structures after BRB was finally wound up a few years back and no doubt now wish to reduce cost liabilities.

 

[IanXC]

I suspect that most disused railway bridges are not complex structures, and maintainance is negligable.
The petition article explains that if you demolish a bridge and infill a cutting to put the road on a new embankment then any further use of teh raila lignment is almost out of the question.
To bangor-toad I would say that he might like to comment on their assertion

If only they'd demolish the 39 with no realistic value and consider it a win.

 

[bangor-toad]

To bangor-toad I would say that he might like to comment on their assertion:

This has revealed that 19 structures (14%) are already proposed for reuse, 22 (17%) have identified potential for future reuse, 54 (40%) have no obstructions to reuse and 39 (29%) have no realistic value.

Six proposed cycle paths would be blocked by Highways England’s infilling plans; extensions to heritage lines in Angus, Cumbria and Norfolk could also be affected, together with the reopening of a strategic north-south railway through west Wales and the Penrith-Keswick branch. In Dorset, the demolition of a bridge would impose additional costs of £750,000 on the construction of a new light railway and active travel route

I'll be diplomatic...
The HRE Group response is perhaps a mixture of hysterical and unrealistic. They really don't seem to have thought it through. Let's consider the 19 structures proposed for reuse.

Pugeston. Near Montrose. 1.7 miles east of terminus to Caledonian Railway. Arguably one that perhaps should be looked at.
3 by Uplawmoor. Route of proposed Uplawmoor-Neilston path. Ramps to and from road level would be more useful.
Crosshouse. B road over an existing cycle path. If cheaper to infill than maintain, why not? Ramps either side would work well.
2 by Alnwick Road. Route of a proposed greenway. Again, ramps to and from road level would be more useful. Both in poor repair with low weight limits.

2 by Hill Cottage Keswick. Proposed Keswick branch reopening. There's a house built on the route next to one of the bridges already.
Great Musgrave, Kirby Stephen. Would impact Eden Valley Railway extension but just 1/2mile further on is a missing bridge/viaduct over the River Eden. Can't see this making a difference.
Queensbury Tunnel, Bradford. Maybe one to think more about as undoing changes could be expensive.

Pont-Llanio overbridge. Carmarthen-Aberystwyth. Enough said...
Gateley Bridge, Dereham. 2 miles north of the Mid Norfolk railway. GoogleMaps images shows the parapets are rusting away and expensive repairs would be needed. What's best here and who would pay?
Lanteague Bridge, Perranporth-Newquay path. Again, ramps to and from road level would be more useful.
Horse Batch Bridge, Wells. Strawberry Line greenway extension. This is special - it's blocked in by buildings either side. A greenway would have divert round these and not use the bridge...
Barrowland Lane, Dorset. "Active scheme to open a 'heavy-duty narrow gauge railway with cycle path alongside, using 8.5 miles of the former branch." We've all seen this proposal on RF. It's never going to happen. Make a cycle path and ramps to and from road level would be useful.

East Brook Bridge, near Folkstone. Local plan for Lyminge-Etchinghill bridleway. Again ramps either side would work well instead.
Dukes Avenue, London. Part of Alexandra Palace’s conservation area. Much local opposition due to it being an “important historical feature”. Don't know much about this one so can't really comment.


These are the top ones HRE Group say have identifed uses and must be changed. The ones where they have idenfified potential uses are even more unrealistic.
Almost all the bridges could be infilled / demolished or replaced with ramps provided for access either side and then they would be more useful.

Campaigns like this annoy me as they are so easy to show they're meaningless and are looking at things that frankly don't matter. Some things are worth campaigning for and saving but this just dilutes thier messages and makes it harder to achieve well thought through plans and goals.
Mr Toad

 

[infobleep]

I'll be diplomatic...
The HRE Group response is perhaps a mixture of hysterical and unrealistic. They really don't seem to have thought it through. Let's consider the 19 structures proposed for reuse.

Pugeston. Near Montrose. 1.7 miles east of terminus to Caledonian Railway. Arguably one that perhaps should be looked at.
3 by Uplawmoor. Route of proposed Uplawmoor-Neilston path. Ramps to and from road level would be more useful.
Crosshouse. B road over an existing cycle path. If cheaper to infill than maintain, why not? Ramps either side would work well.
2 by Alnwick Road. Route of a proposed greenway. Again, ramps to and from road level would be more useful. Both in poor repair with low weight limits.

2 by Hill Cottage Keswick. Proposed Keswick branch reopening. There's a house built on the route next to one of the bridges already.
Great Musgrave, Kirby Stephen. Would impact Eden Valley Railway extension but just 1/2mile further on is a missing bridge/viaduct over the River Eden. Can't see this making a difference.
Queensbury Tunnel, Bradford. Maybe one to think more about as undoing changes could be expensive.

Pont-Llanio overbridge. Carmarthen-Aberystwyth. Enough said...
Gateley Bridge, Dereham. 2 miles north of the Mid Norfolk railway. GoogleMaps images shows the parapets are rusting away and expensive repairs would be needed. What's best here and who would pay?
Lanteague Bridge, Perranporth-Newquay path. Again, ramps to and from road level would be more useful.
Horse Batch Bridge, Wells. Strawberry Line greenway extension. This is special - it's blocked in by buildings either side. A greenway would have divert round these and not use the bridge...
Barrowland Lane, Dorset. "Active scheme to open a 'heavy-duty narrow gauge railway with cycle path alongside, using 8.5 miles of the former branch." We've all seen this proposal on RF. It's never going to happen. Make a cycle path and ramps to and from road level would be useful.

East Brook Bridge, near Folkstone. Local plan for Lyminge-Etchinghill bridleway. Again ramps either side would work well instead.
Dukes Avenue, London. Part of Alexandra Palace’s conservation area. Much local opposition due to it being an “important historical feature”. Don't know much about this one so can't really comment.


These are the top ones HRE Group say have identifed uses and must be changed. The ones where they have idenfified potential uses are even more unrealistic.
Almost all the bridges could be infilled / demolished or replaced with ramps provided for access either side and then they would be more useful.

Campaigns like this annoy me as they are so easy to show they're meaningless and are looking at things that frankly don't matter. Some things are worth campaigning for and saving but this just dilutes thier messages and makes it harder to achieve well thought through plans and goals.
Mr Toad

Would ramps work for those who are disabled or are these in locations where wheelchair users would not go?

I came across this after watching a video highlighting their campaign.

Edit: Someone kindly pointed out I'd not explained the link for the benefit of those visually impacted so I'm updating this to explain what the video is about.

Paul and Rebecca Whitewick, are YouTube creators, who cover disuse railway stations, bridges, tunnels and even canals. A campaign group contacted them to highlight the fact Highways England want to demolish or infill, claiming they are unsafe. Paul and Rebecca visit one of them, whilst also highlighting some of the other old structures that are deemed unsafe. The campaign group claim this will cost more than a simple repair and they are trying to do this underhand. They don't speak to Highways England but they do provide a link to the campaign Web Site, which is available at https://www.change.org/p/highways-e...ed_by_id=be72d160-42bd-11eb-a3fc-8fc851075b36

I am currently undecided whether to sign the petition. I actually came on here to see what other peoples opinions were.

One infill was blocked by council planning as it was due to be a Greenway. So some councils must be objecting somewhere.

If demolition and infill is the best value option, I still feel it should go through the right scrutiny channels rather than using loopholes to get around stuff.

As for former lines that don't have a bridge. Well, there isn't a viaduct on the Ardingly branch but they have a bridge which can be put in its place. The same could be said of any other line. So that shouldn't be a show stopper for a line extending

If they don't wish to maintain the structures, could they not sell them for £1vto interested parties to maintain themselves.

 

[IanXC]

Would ramps work for those who are disabled or are these in locations where wheelchair users would not go?

I came across this after watching a video highlighting their campaign.

I am currently undecided whether to sign the petition. I actually came on here to see what other peoples opinions were.

One infill was blocked by council planning as it was due to be a Greenway. So some councils must be objecting somewhere.

If demolition and infill is the best value option, I still feel it should go through the right scrutiny channels rather than using loopholes to get around stuff.

As for former lines that don't have a bridge. Well, there isn't a viaduct on the Ardingly branch but they have a bridge which can be put in its place. The same could be said of any other line. So that shouldn't be a show stopper for a line extending

If they don't wish to maintain the structures, could they not sell them for £1vto interested parties to maintain themselves.

In many ways, regardless of value for money, it would make a lot of sense if the Highways Agency demolished or infilled the structures which the pressure group have identified as having no further use. That's about 2/3rds of the structures I believe. Very much a case of take the low hanging fruit, on past performance, over the coming years a good portion of the remaining 1/3rd of structures will be taken over by others as part of various schemes and the whole problem goes away without the controversy the Highways Agency are currently whipping up.

I believe these details are correct, two preserved railways in the North West have a 5 mile gap between them, and the desire to link up. The Highways Agency have infilled a bridge on this section, at a cost of £124k due to 'the structure not being fit for 40 tonne trucks'. According to the same report as that they have cited for their actions state that the bridge would be suitable for 40t trucks after £5k of pointing works, and in any case the next (local authority) bridge on the route (over a river) is only fit for 18t anyway!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

HE already tried to make a start on Queensbury during lockdown 1, no doubt hoping to sneak it through while nobody was watching. For that reason alone I've signed the petition.

 

[Helvellyn]

Wolmar writes about this in the latest issue of RAIL, with the example of Great Musgrave Bridge in Cumbria that has been infilled with concrete. It's also made the Daily Mail with before and after pictures.

The bridge had a 17 tonne weight limit. Local roads had 18 tonnes. Yet £124,000 was spent infilling it in a very ugly fashion. It could have been repointed, repaired and maintained for less! The side walls still need maintained after infilling afterall.

 

[WesternLancer]

In many ways, regardless of value for money, it would make a lot of sense if the Highways Agency demolished or infilled the structures which the pressure group have identified as having no further use. That's about 2/3rds of the structures I believe. Very much a case of take the low hanging fruit, on past performance, over the coming years a good portion of the remaining 1/3rd of structures will be taken over by others as part of various schemes and the whole problem goes away without the controversy the Highways Agency are currently whipping up.

I believe these details are correct, two preserved railways in the North West have a 5 mile gap between them, and the desire to link up. The Highways Agency have infilled a bridge on this section, at a cost of £124k due to 'the structure not being fit for 40 tonne trucks'. According to the same report as that they have cited for their actions state that the bridge would be suitable for 40t trucks after £5k of pointing works, and in any case the next (local authority) bridge on the route (over a river) is only fit for 18t anyway!

seems like a classic case of having a budget to spend so find a way to spend it. Sadly a very typical public sector approach. They need to be called out. Campaigners are doing a good job IMHO.

 

[Ashley Hill]

If there's no hope of reopening to rail or bike or no historic interest then there's no issue. Should things change they can be dug out. Imberhorne cutting is a good example of this.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

For those saying that a cycle trail is better off with ramps to a road rather than an overbridge, I’d invite you to try cycling along a trail with flat road crossings - the Stratford Greenway, say - with a bunch of kids, and reconsider your opinion.

 

[Falcon1200]

For those saying that a cycle trail is better off with ramps to a road rather than an overbridge, I’d invite you to try cycling along a trail with flat road crossings - the Stratford Greenway, say - with a bunch of kids, and reconsider your opinion.

On the other hand, if (as at many railway bridges, both under and over) there is currently no route between the road and the railway, demolition can actually provide more access points than would otherwise be the case.

3 by Uplawmoor. Route of proposed Uplawmoor-Neilston path. Ramps to and from road level would be more useful.

There is indeed a plan to construct a cycle path along the former Neilston-Uplawmoor line, which I would find extremely useful, and much as I love railways and their structures, demolishing these bridges would not prevent or hinder that in any way. There is no chance whatsoever of the route ever re-opening as a railway !

 

[UrieS15]

There are other unintended consequences too. The Scarboro -Whitby line had an over-bridge at Stainsacre and a recent refurb of the line by Scarboro BC and Sustrans left it in place. It was a missed opportunity because several years ago the Whitby Scarborough X93 bus service moved to double deck vehicles and was no longer able to serve the village, for which it provided a valuable shopping link to Whitby. There is no chance of a bus stop on the main road as it has an unrestricted speed limit throughout that stretch, I gather, so ramping would have been a good solution.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

On the other hand, if (as at many railway bridges, both under and over) there is currently no route between the road and the railway, demolition can actually provide more access points than would otherwise be the case.

It can, but access points aren't really hard to provide - pretty much every single canal bridge in the country has one, for example.

 

[Taunton]

It was one of the 1,001 initially forgotten points at privatisation, what to do with abandoned railway structures which were still a BR responsibility, and the handing them over to the Highways Agency (as was then), who only do major trunk roads and motorways, was a decidedly odd decision, apparently due to lobbying by Railtrack (also as was) not to be stuck with them. The HA set up an extra department, Historic Railways Estate, based in what appears to be old railway offices, themselves undoubtedly listed buildings, across from York station, and were given an extra budget, which I am sure they will be glad to use for something else; one wonders if the old structures will come back to GBR now.

 

[swt_passenger]

It was one of the 1,001 initially forgotten points at privatisation, what to do with abandoned railway structures which were still a BR responsibility, and the handing them over to the Highways Agency (as was then), who only do major trunk roads and motorways, was a decidedly odd decision, apparently due to lobbying by Railtrack (also as was) not to be stuck with them. The HA set up an extra department, Historic Railways Estate, based in what appears to be old railway offices, themselves undoubtedly listed buildings, across from York station, and were given an extra budget, which I am sure they will be glad to use for something else; one wonders if the old structures will come back to GBR now.

I think the actual transfer was in 2013, so many years after Railtrack ceased to exist. Agree it’s an odd decision. Perhaps the vast majority affected roads?

 

[IanXC]

I think the actual transfer was in 2013, so many years after Railtrack ceased to exist. Agree it’s an odd decision. Perhaps the vast majority affected roads?

That's more like the right time period. HRE had been part of British Rail Residuary, and the action at the time was to reduce the number of arms length government functions, a decision was made that BRB should go, and whilst some of the HRE structures were returned to Network Rail, a rump without apparent reuse opportunities were transferred to the Highways Agency.

 

[Taunton]

OK, but the original decision to leave them in BR Residuary back at the BR breakup was I think something Railtrack lobbied for.

I think that DfT were looking for an easy single organisation to transfer them to, and the Highways Agency was just one of theirs, even though almost all the roads they span etc are not HA roads but local authority. However transferring them to a large string of local authorities, especially as these are looked after by a different Whitehall department, was likely a complication too far.

 

[Dr Hoo]

And Highways England is funded in control periods, with a 'statement of funds available' and overseen by the Office of Rail and Road, so it has a sort of governance similarity.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This item in a construction trade magazine over a recent infill job is pretty terrible although HE say they are protecting structure

 

[Taunton]

A coup by a concrete salesman ...