DfT Plan to Demolish Disused Bridges and Tunnels

[IanXC]

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.

I've no knowledge of the goings on back then, but that would make sense.

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.

That came later. The ORR took on regulation of Highways England in April 2015.

 

[Ashley Hill]

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

View attachment 99165

I think this bridge featured in the latest BLS magazine. It suggested that a few thousand pounds remedial work would have secured its safety for at least another 40
years. Whereas this infilling cost vastly more than more remedial work in another 40yrs.

 

[alf]

The picture tells it all.
What a waste of money.
Presumably their concrete has blocked the drains on each side the track bed..so the high side will turn into a swamp or even a dam waiting to break.

 

[YorksLad12]

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

View attachment 99165

Lordy. It would have used much less concrete to line the tunnel and make it safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Lordy. It would have used much less concrete to line the tunnel and make it safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

I presume that this sort of infill is actually 'foam concrete' [Foam concrete - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Foam_concrete] rather than traditional lining segment, structural concrete? (I am not an engineer.)

 

[Helvellyn]

I think this bridge featured in the latest BLS magazine. It suggested that a few thousand pounds remedial work would have secured its safety for at least another 40
years. Whereas this infilling cost vastly more than more remedial work in another 40yrs.

This is the bridge I linked to in post #17 - £124k to do that!

 

[infobleep]

There is now a partition on the Parliament Web Site over this.

Petition: Require Highways England halt and reverse infilling of historic railway bridges

The Government should prevent Highways England from infilling historic railway bridges, which could prevent extensions of the heritage railways, and require Highways England to remove all infill from work they already done.

petition.parliament.uk

I know it's the Daily Fail but they had a news report on another bridge being I'm filled and some MPs aren't happy either. I particularly don't like the statement from Highways England:

The company said it could not issue a list of threatened bridges because it ‘changes all the time’ and that ‘stakeholders’, such as groups wishing to revive old railways, were informed.

So do they inform stakeholders, then change their mind and tell them no you are not involved and so on.

If the list is changing all the time, how much time and money do they waste on telling stakeholders and then changing their minds?

In my opinion, they clearly can't give the real reason for no Web Site, as it would mean people could protest more easily.

How dare bridge blockers chop my property in half!

Government-owned Highways England plans to fill in 69 old bridges it claims are unsafe over the next five years but has refused to reveal which are on its hit list.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

Why does it have to be concrete? Okay, infill if you must, but why not packed earth upon which you can plant some trees or grass at least?

 

[ABB125]

Why does it have to be concrete? Okay, infill if you must, but why not packed earth upon which you can plant some trees or grass at least?

You're making the mistake of assuming that Highways England is a rational organisation, capable of thinking outside the box, beyond what the consultants tell them...

 

[ashkeba]

. 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.

Is there really nowhere for a lay by on the main road or a turnaround on the "outside" of the bridge?

 

[WesternLancer]

There is now a partition on the Parliament Web Site over this.

Petition: Require Highways England halt and reverse infilling of historic railway bridges

The Government should prevent Highways England from infilling historic railway bridges, which could prevent extensions of the heritage railways, and require Highways England to remove all infill from work they already done.

petition.parliament.uk

I know it's the Daily Fail but they had a news report on another bridge being I'm filled and some MPs aren't happy either. I particularly don't like the statement from Highways England:


So do they inform stakeholders, then change their mind and tell them no you are not involved and so on.

If the list is changing all the time, how much time and money do they waste on telling stakeholders and then changing their minds?

In my opinion, they clearly can't give the real reason for no Web Site, as it would mean people could protest more easily.

How dare bridge blockers chop my property in half!

Government-owned Highways England plans to fill in 69 old bridges it claims are unsafe over the next five years but has refused to reveal which are on its hit list.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Thanks - have signed the on line petition. Would be good to see it go over 1,000 signatures (900ish at the mo)

 

[zwk500]

Why does it have to be concrete? Okay, infill if you must, but why not packed earth upon which you can plant some trees or grass at least?

Concrete can be poured in one go then left to set. Packed earth would require a much longer operation to compact each layer, and would likely be difficult once close to the top of the arch. Also, trucking in a load of soil from elsewhere can have very harmful local effects on the environment. However in many cases total demolition, packed earth and then a wider road on top would be far more beneficial than any attempt to retain the bridge, even if it did mean 1 week closure rather than 1 day.

It would be nice to see a concrete block covered in a shallow layer of soil though.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I will again mention the existence of 'foam concrete' (see Post #35 above with Wikipedia link). This is both fully 'supportive' but can be 'reamed out' fairly straightforwardly. It was used during the re-boring of Farnworth Tunnel for electrification I believe.

 

[Trackman]

I will again mention the existence of 'foam concrete' (see Post #35 above with Wikipedia link). This is both fully 'supportive' but can be 'reamed out' fairly straightforwardly. It was used during the re-boring of Franworth Tunnel for electrification I believe.

It was used to fill in the old Woodhead tunnels too.

 

[Dougal2345]

I will again mention the existence of 'foam concrete' (see Post #35 above with Wikipedia link). This is both fully 'supportive' but can be 'reamed out' fairly straightforwardly. It was used during the re-boring of Franworth Tunnel for electrification I believe.

Are we sure that's what was used in the Great Musgrave bridge (pictured earlier) though?

I know nothing about concrete, but the photo seems to show lots of rocks and stones on the surface. The Wiki article on foam concrete suggests that it needs no 'aggregates' to be added - so were those stones just added to the surface for cosmetic reasons?

 

[zwk500]

Are we sure that's what was used in the Great Musgrave bridge (pictured earlier) though?

I know nothing about concrete, but the photo seems to show lots of rocks and stones on the surface. The Wiki article on foam concrete suggests that it needs no 'aggregates' to be added - so were those stones just added to the surface for cosmetic reasons?

Looking at the 'leak' from the top of the photo, I'd suggest the rocks visible were added either to allow vehicles to get out of the cutting, as a cosmetic screen or to protect what is presumably a fairly soft shell of concrete.

 

[Dougal2345]

I suppose though, even if it is 'foamed' concrete and thus can be 'reamed out', presumably any preserved railway wanting to run under the Great Musgrave bridge would not want to bore a single circular hole through it, as, unless the bridge were built excessively high, in order to get a train through they'd need to remove the concrete right up to the underside of the original stone bridge, and would need a rectangular hole.

And for aesthetic reasons, they'd clearly want to remove the whole lot.

Would that be possible though, or will the concrete have stuck itself so tightly to the stone that removing it would tear apart the original stonework?

 

[zwk500]

I suppose though, even if it is 'foamed' concrete and thus can be 'reamed out', presumably any preserved railway wanting to run under the Great Musgrave bridge would not want to bore a single circular hole through it, as, unless the bridge were built excessively high, in order to get a train through they'd need to remove the concrete right up to the underside of the original stone bridge, and would need a rectangular hole.

And for aesthetic reasons, they'd clearly want to remove the whole lot.

Would that be possible though, or will the concrete have stuck itself so tightly to the stone that removing it would tear apart the original stonework?

Is there a heritage railway intending to reopen that line? If there isn't now, I don't see one being set up. Presumably not, because otherwise they wouldn't have sealed it up so the question is pretty much moot.

 

[Dougal2345]

Apparently the Stainmore Railway Company and the Eden Valley Railway had hoped to link up, through the Great Musgrave bridge.

Whether they ever would have done - who knows, but it seems far less likely now

If I read Google Maps aright, the blocked bridge is less than 2 miles from the current end of the Eden Valley railway, so that will have curbed any ambitions they had...

Stainmore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainmore_Railway_Company
https://www.kirkbystepheneast.co.uk/

Eden Valley:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Valley_Railway_(heritage_railway)
http://www.evr-cumbria.org.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/EVR.Cumbria/

The Eden Valley Facebook page contains this statement:

This is an official statement from the Trustees of the Eden Valley Railway Trust in relation to Bridge EDE 25 at Musgrave.
First we would like to point out none of the Officers of the Trust were contacted by Highways England regarding the infilling of the Bridge.
We oppose the actions of Highways England in filling in the bridge without contacting interested parties and would have expressed our opposition to the idea. The Eden Valley Railway Trust's long term aim is to reinstate the line from Warcop to Kirkby Stephen and this has not changed since it was ratified by the Members of the Trust back in 1999.

 

[zwk500]

Apparently the Stainmore Railway Company and the Eden Valley Railway had hoped to link up, through the Great Musgrave bridge.

Interesting, because that does seem a particularly stupid decision to fill it in if there's an active group interested in it.

 

[infobleep]

Apparently the Stainmore Railway Company and the Eden Valley Railway had hoped to link up, through the Great Musgrave bridge.

Whether they ever would have done - who knows, but it seems far less likely now

If I read Google Maps aright, the blocked bridge is less than 2 miles from the current end of the Eden Valley railway, so that will have curbed any ambitions they had...

Stainmore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainmore_Railway_Company
https://www.kirkbystepheneast.co.uk/

Eden Valley:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Valley_Railway_(heritage_railway)
http://www.evr-cumbria.org.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/EVR.Cumbria/

The Eden Valley Facebook page contains this statement:

This is an official statement from the Trustees of the Eden Valley Railway Trust in relation to Bridge EDE 25 at Musgrave.
First we would like to point out none of the Officers of the Trust were contacted by Highways England regarding the infilling of the Bridge.
We oppose the actions of Highways England in filling in the bridge without contacting interested parties and would have expressed our opposition to the idea. The Eden Valley Railway Trust's long term aim is to reinstate the line from Warcop to Kirkby Stephen and this has not changed since it was ratified by the Members of the Trust back in 1999.

And yet they claim to have spoken to stakeholders.

Still, it isn't the first time a public body has issued a statement containing misinformation or lies and I'm sure it won't be the last.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps someone at Private Eye or similar could do some digging (no pun intended) around the manufacturers of this fancy foam concrete... I'm sure there's nothing suspicious such as links to Highways England or any political parties, because nothing like that has ever happened before...

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps someone at Private Eye or similar could do some digging (no pun intended) around the manufacturers of this fancy foam concrete... I'm sure there's nothing suspicious such as links to Highways England or any political parties, because nothing like that has ever happened before...

I doubt it would be worth the manufacturer's while, given the small amount of concrete needed at lots of different sites.

 

[mpthomson]

Interesting, because that does seem a particularly stupid decision to fill it in if there's an active group interested in it.

How 'interested' is interested enough for it not to happen? Enough for it to happen in the next 5-20yrs with permissions agreed even if just in principle, or enough for it to be an aspiration at some un-named point in the future?

A lot of the schemes in the HRE document seem to be wishful thinking at best.

 

[zwk500]

How 'interested' is interested enough for it not to happen? Enough for it to happen in the next 5-20yrs with permissions agreed even if just in principle, or enough for it to be an aspiration at some un-named point in the future?

A lot of the schemes in the HRE document seem to be wishful thinking at best.

Personally, I'd say interested enough to take on the maintenance obligation.

 

[24Grange]

Have they being doing this historically ? The reason for the question is that I remember the bridge beside Brentor station (closed May 1968) was either removed or "infilled" and replaced by an embankment over the former railway as they said it was needed for strengthening. The bridge beside East Budleigh ( Closed March 1967) used to have massive wooden props holding it up underneath it on the track bed for "strengthening". So unsure if this is an entirely modern thing?

 

[XAM2175]

Have they being doing this historically ? ...

The principle itself is not new - there comes a time when all pieces of infrastructure start to need significant works for maintenance and upkeep, and the organisation responsible may well when presented the quotes decide to demolish a structure they no longer need, or to replace it with a much simpler one, or to simply do the bare minimum and (literally, hah) prop it up.

The trouble with doing the bare minimum, of course, is that it doesn't buy very much time, and so now there is a fundamental disagreement between people who see a potential use for some of these structures (or, at least, a reason for their continuing to exist), and between Highways England and ultimately the DfT, who for the most part see them as liabilities to be disposed of, and the quicker the better.

 

[Halifaxlad]

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?

This is exactly what I thought ought to have happened at Horspath!

Clearly it would be beneficial to have a light weight steel structure that would allow the unnecessary height restriction for road vehicles to be removed!

Needless to say I didn't voice my opinion on social media.

 

[snowball]

RAIL magazine #935 p. 17 has an item saying HE has offered to remove its concrete infill under the bridge at Great Musgrave, Cumbria, free of charge, if it's ever required to reinstate a line under it.

 

[HSP 2]

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

View attachment 99165

That could be interesting to see when the cutting starts to get some water build up in it.